Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817

Repeated BLP and COI violations by User:Nlfestival
In particular, see his comments and the AFD here, where he is making repeated BLP violating statements against the subject of the article Articles_for_deletion/David_Bergstein. I would also make a case for WP:DE in his making of multiple giant wall of text posts with his rants. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am surprised at this comment, I invite everyone to read my texts and see if I have handled objectively and not interested in raking up a million edits and then offering my services to PR firms so wiki can be used as a advertising platform by the likes of such editors, I am spending lots of hours debating and studying the subject and read any one of my comments and you will see I have not violated any WP:BLP or or WP:COI, the comments above without any basis or justification look highly motivated and also not to mention this same editor who found the article should be deleted now finds Hollywood reporter as a source to keep the article but this same editor fails to mention that all the articles in hollywood reporter on this subject are negative and show him as a bad person who has run a ponzi scheme, the above editor has now had a change of heart based on hollywood reporter articles but does not want the content of hollywood reporter article is really surprising and he is questioning my objectivity when he is the biased person here. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing an example of your behavior and BLP violations inline! Ill toss in WP:SOCK too with the account RedFeltPen, whos only two edits are to the AFD above, and an SPI on Nlfestival. The AFD comment in an almost identical style to the many posts by nlfestival. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who RedFeltPen is and why he wrote the comment without any vote, I can state under any scrutiny that I am not RedFeltPen and I do not know anyone that is using that user name. I am sure this should be a very simple check of IP addresses. and other details provided to register. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Troll needs a block

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

User has been vandalising Total War (series). Admiral Caius (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For future reference, feel free to take reports like this to AIV. m.o.p  18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


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

Hakeem Noor-ud-Din vandalism
Someone is vandalizing the page, and I and flyer22 have both reverted twice. I am not reverting the third time(I admit I kind of looked at the contrib and found this) -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  20:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just garden-variety vandalism by a single IP. If it persists, a report at WP:AIV might help (although they usually want extreme vandalism to act), or a better bet might be WP:RFPP to ask for semi protection for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A very rank garden, John: all edits are abusive vandalism at BLP's (there's one other article). Oh, look, it's a static IP. Blocked for 72 hours. Thank you, Dark Mistress. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

User: Darkness Shines routinely deleting RS he disagrees with as "fringe"
Recently, User:Darkness Shines was reported here by User:Student7 for his bullying behavior towards people who disagree with him. Darkness Shines used foul language ("for fucks sake"), personal attacks ("What the hell is your issue?"), and threats ("If I find you have been dicking about you are done") against several editors who supported the use of high-quality academic sources like Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis in Genocides in history. Student7, User:Stumink, and I can attest to this. How did Darkness Shines justify his behavior? Simple: All of these sources were "fringe". Although I never made a single edit to Genocides in history, Darkness Shines still threated admin action against me if I continued to "support the use of [fringe] sources" on the talk page. He repeatedly rejected my requests to bring the material to RSN or fringe theories noticeboard.
 * Thankfully, Darkness Shines has gone to the appropriate noticeboard for comment on the latest source he was edit warring to purge as "fringe". The area of dispute is Sarmila Bose's work on the Bangladesh Liberation War. Things aren't exactly going his way at FTN, as User:Paul Barlow has done a very good job of exposing his M.O. (aptly summarized as "dogmatic and hyperbolic in your claims without regard to fairness or relevance....looking for any source to support what you want to say....[and] bullying"). It's clear that this controversy has some emotional significance to Darkness Shines, which may impede his ability to adhere to WP:NPOV. He's certainly not afraid to continue mass reverts in the relevant articles. Perhaps in part because of some personal animosity towards me, as this message ("As you have taken it upon yourself to follow me to the topic area I edit and, unsurprisingly insert fringe material....") may suggest, Darkness Shines has reverted four of my edits back-to-back. He has asserted that my sources, a widely-cited study in The British Medical Journal and two articles in The Guardian, are all "fringe". He blanked a paragraph's worth of content in Operation Searchlight and removed thousands of bytes worth of content from the article, because one of the sources cited Bose in a favorable light. There is no consensus that Bose is fringe, and Operation Searchlight currently still cites Bose as a source, so his revert is plainly unjustified. His most shocking revert is at Genocides in history, were he restores highly dubious sources such as R.J. Rummel (misquoted) and the Guinness Book of World Records in place of the "fringe" estimates provided by The British Medical Journal, Uppsala University, and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. He reverts me yet again at Bangladesh Liberation War, and then he threatens me on my talk page. Since Darkness Shines has made it clear that he will continue to act as though he owns "the area[s] that I edit" (in his words), that others should be reverted merely for "following" him, and that "fringe" is just his codeword for whatever sources he disagrees with; I am certain that restoring my well-sourced text will only lead to an edit war (about which he has no qualms). Therefore, I have come here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you come here with a content dispute? WP:DRN would be more appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User Darkness Shines continues to delete the tags of the page War of the Pacific, without a consesus in the talk page of the article. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 06:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump
If at all possible, I respectfully ask for an unbiased admin who has had no dealings with AndyTheGrump whatsoever in the past, if that’s at all possible, and preferably who does not even know who he is, so that he or she can have a fresh look at this matter and JUSTLY adjudicate this matter without any conflict of interest.

I also seek protection as a “Wikipedia whistleblower”, if such protection is affordable, as one incident of subtle retaliation by an apparent "friend of Andy" has already occurred today, as well as a "restraining order" against AndyTheGrump and his future accounts, if such protection is afforded.

I sincerely thank Wikipedia in advance.

PREAMBLE

It is no secret that AndyTheGrump with his superior policy knowledge is the “darling” of many “well-meaning” admins in Wikipedia who may or may not know his dark side, and who genuinely try to remain unbiased, but their “soft spot for darling Andy” is unmistakable, and what may as well be called the “Blue wall of silence” couldn’t be any clearer after I saw the way my legitimate complaint was handled yesterday as no admin wants to be the one “incommodating Andy”…

I would genuinely like to think that Wikipedia is better than allow, and systematically “enable/give license” to super-editors like AndyTheGrump, who has been blocked more times than most (please refer to his block history), and has shown a systematic pattern of "selectively" using Wikipedia policy as a pretext to abuse and demoralize editors with a grumpy, trollish (instigating not vandalism), nasty, bad faith, uncivilized, antisocial, and passive-aggressive behavior, hinder their “good faith” progress with petty warring edits, badgering and nitpicking, frequently reverting edits seconds after they are made even when WP:BLP clearly allows the editor to insert an edit, and baiting them in a patronizing manner, knowing that they do not know policy well, and he has the edge, while knowing that he is the “darling” of many admins.

Such uncivilized, patronizing, indecent and abusive behavior is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society. It robs many well-meaning editors like me, acting in good faith, who just want to share their knowledge, edit in good faith and return to their normal lives, of any incentive to contribute to Wikipedia. Such conduct is also not in Wikepedia's best interest and is completely inconsistent with its CIVILZED culture of harmonious assumption of good faith.

I just want to edit in good faith. I come from a good, highly respected family and I deserve to ALWAYS be treated like an INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING. I am not a street person to be called names, cursed and be the emotional dumping ground on Wikipedia for random super-editors to take their frustrations on me without even knowing me or my station in life. Most importantly, normal human beings have feelings and feelings are fragile. I can assure you that he would be completely different, probably act like a gentleman, had he being talking to me in person.

I must applaud the good admin Bbb23 (talk), who, albeit clearly having “a soft spot for Andy”, did the right thing by removing the personal attack by AndyTheGrump and “courageously” exposing the true nature of AndyTheGrump, acknowledging the futility of my patient and numerous attempts to reason with him on one particular edit dispute in a civilized debate and good faith:


 * “I wouldn't continue the discussion with Andy on the talk page as it's not going to go anywhere. I've removed Andy's personal attack against you as it was truly nasty.”

THIS NOTICE

A. Carefull scrutinizing AndyTheGrump’s dark record will reveal a mountain of evidence to justify the permanent block. However, for this particular notice, I will bring one strong and convincing evidentiary incident of flagrant abuse and complete disregard for the dignity of other human beings. He wrote this to me publicly when I pleaded with him to "treat me like an intelligent human being" after "patiently" trying to reason with him in a civilized manner:


 * I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)



B. I will also disclose that even though I felt so strong about this matter that I brought it up to the attention of the good, well-meaning admin Mark Arsten who, in all fairness, has shown even-handedness previously, he did not block AndyTheGrump as not to “incommodate Andy”, and referred me to WP:ANI “if I'd like to seek sanctions against AndyTheGrump", and then “hid” my report that exposes AndyTheGrump.

C. For full disclosure, I will also expose AndyTheGrump's self-description that goes to shows where all such grumpiness and abusive behavior came from, and that is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's harmonious and civilized culture and "try to educate" assumption of good faith, as widely displayed by well-meaning admins.

''My Name is Andy, and I am a Grump. Well, you'll probably have figured that out from my username. I've not yet determined whether Grumpiness is an infliction or a Human Right, though I'm inclined to the latter view. As for further autobiographical details, I'll remain relatively anonymous for now, beyond stating that I'm male, old enough to know better (if not always wise enough), and educated sufficiently well to understand how little I can ever know. I'm also prone to writing over-long, unnecessarily convoluted sentences (with unnecessary parenthetical insertions and unnecessary repetition of the same words); often with dubious punctuation, which I'll leave for other editors to clarify, disambiguate, and otherwise improve on, while I concentrate on addressing the core of the topic in hand (if I can remember what it was by the time I've written this much...). I can sometimes write short pithy sentences, however''. 

D. I just want to add that, in my opinion, uncivilized, indecent and abusive conduct by super-editors like AndyTheGrump are perhaps the main reason for the widespread Criticism of Wikipeda article and thousands of negative reviews all around the world at a time it is striving to establish credibility and make justifiable fundraising appeals to families like ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldedixor (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 October 2013‎ Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Worldedixor (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet you can't seem to be bothered signing your posts here or on Andy's page when you notified him.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mark Miller for giving one more evidence of what I stated above. But you are 100% in the right.  Please forgive me as it was an unintentional error, and thanks to you, I just fixed it.  have a blessed day... Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh....this is gonna be a popcorn thread I see.......--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will deal with the substance of this later - if anyone shows any signs of taking it seriously after looking at Worldedixor's recent edit history (and not so recent - his/her edits at DHgate.com are as good an example of why Wikipedia doesn't need Worldedixor's 'expertise' as one could possibly find). Meanwhile, a couple of points for Worldedixor. Firstly there is no protection for 'whistleblowers' here - see WP:BOOMERANG. And secondly, if you are going to make allegations about "subtle retaliation" by others, you had damned well produce the evidence - I will freely admit that my behaviour wasn't at its best, but I see no reason why you should be permitted to make wild allegations about others without justification. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, Worldedixor, Andy was being perfectly civil with you until your umpteenth freak attack. I look at the fact that you have been arguing on the wrong side of policy up and down Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk, seem to exhibit ownership behavior on that same talk page, and based on this conversation seem to view your disputes with Andy as some kind of battleground. You seem in general to be extremely quick to accuse people of being mean to you when they have done nothing of the sort, for instance at Talk:Aida_Nikolaychuk. Frankly, Andy is being more than respectful to you in that exchange. What you really need to do is take a step back and chill. You don't know all the rules yet. Attempts to educate you on the rules are not an attack on your work - they are meant to help your work. Being a collaborative encyclopedia means that there will be disagreements and you won't always get your way. If that's not something you're comfortable with, it's your problem, not Andy's. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding 'not knowing the rules yet', Worldedixor has been a contributor since 2006. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Someguy1221 for giving yet one more subtle evidence. I think my intial statement gave all the verifiable facts. I only contribute minimally here and there to Wikipedia.  I do not edit full time. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a little more sympathetic to Worldedixor's plight than others. At the same time, I don't think the content dispute belongs here, and I don't think Andy will be sanctioned for his comments. My suggestion is that the content dispute be resolved through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms (if Worldedixor clings to naming the son - regardless of who's right I think it's a fairly insignificant thing to get into a snit about), Worldedixor forget about the unpleasant exchange with Andy, and move on, hopefully with a little less drama and verbosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23 (talk) for being fair and just. I highly value your opinion but I respectfully disagree.  Have a pleasant day, my friend. Worldedixor (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The 'content dispute', such as it is, was never really the primary issue as far as I'm concerned - it was more a matter of getting Worldedixor to acknowledge that the article had to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. It is difficult to work alongside someone who objects to the removal of unsourced trivia about the name of Aida Nikolaychuk's dog, and the name of a friend (with no indication of why this friend was even of any significance). And then there is the matter of Worldedixor contacting (or claiming to contact) the subject of the article.  (That particular diatribe was the result of me asking Worldedixor where s/he was getting information from ). I for one don't think Wikipedia contributors should be contacting article subjects - particularly contributors who seem entirely oblivious to the basics of how Wikipedia works. Right from the start, Worldedixor seemed to want to ignore policy and fill the article with unsourced fluff - apparently expecting hypothetical 'fans of Nikolaychuk' to do all the donkey-work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Worldedixor, please see AndyTheGrump's recent edit history, then see WP:NOPUNISH. AndyTheGrump, please try to work things out here, or else one or more of the administrators here may block you. Best regards, Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  01:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Epicgenius for giving such a threat and an evidence of all that I stated above. This notice is about much more than one edit dispute.  It is about indecent conduct and much more. I refer you to my original statement to read carefully. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut to the chase:
 * Oppose - and suggest that the editor Worldedixor be blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, double the length of the block from the 24th that appears to not to have done the trick of preventing further disruptive behavior. I don't know if DR/N will accept this. Certainly not while this thread is open.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect "your support of Andy". However, please respect my wish delineated in my original statement to eliminate conflict of interest.  Thank you for your cooperation.  Worldedixor (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Conflict of interest"????? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Do we really have to vote on this (sigh)? I recommend closing this topic with no action against anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not something that the admins have to vote on (the one vote here is opposing the move (I mean the action (nobody seems to care anyway))). Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Bb23 we don't have to....if you feel there is no need and wish to close this thread now, I will not object.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yikes, Worldedixor has been editing since 2006, yet they feel that the OP is somehow helpful, and they think Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk is reasonable. Andy's initial comment (in full) was: 'See WP:NOTVOTE. Content issues are decided in reference to policy, and after discussion. And no, Wikipedia is not governed by "case law" or precedent.' As normal, let's again thank Andy while asking that he bang his head on the desk rather than publicly flame out. @Worldedixor: Wikipedia is a project to develop an enccyclopedia based on certain standard procedures—please listen to editors like Andy when they explain those procedures, and ignore them when they flame out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johnuniq for making an effort to "show non-bias to Andy". I listened carefully to your respectful advice and will assume it was made in good faith, but I will refer you to my original statement.  Have a blessed day.  Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, close this complaint. And maybe, despite his long tenure at WP, it's time for Worldedixor to get a mentor. Liz  Read! Talk! 02:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to be one of those cases that requires an admin to either take action or simply close as no action needed. I feel there is enough evidence that Worldedixor has continued disruptive behavior to boomerang for their own disruptive behavior coming off a requested unblock. It might appear to some that the unblock, while seemingly the right move from the fair minded unblock request was, in fact, too soon. Perhaps Liz is correct and a mentorship requirement instead of another block will do.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: After admin Drmies closed the thread admin Mr. Stradivarius warned Andy that if he makes similar comments again he will be blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

An IP edit-warring over copyright material
is edit-warring over copyrighted material. He has already been warned. On the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story article, the user is copying and pasting content from Armeniangenocidelies.com. Let alone the fact that the website completely unreliable and is nothing but a blog, the user continues to edit war over the subject material. Something must be done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I left him the clearest possible warning about the copyrighted material, and will block him for a long time if he does it again. No comment on the other issues. I assume that there are arbcom sanctions somewhere he can be slapped with if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. He hasn't been warned for ARBCOM sanctions yet. Would you want to just add that to the warning you've already given him? Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not too familiar with Arbcom sanctions, and wouldn't even know how to warn him. I try to avoid arbcom wherever possible. Sorry. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine thank you. I'll keep you updated if he reverts on that page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot III
is malfunctioning, see edits to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell&action=history User talk:Quadell] for an example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmph, you should ping the operator, not the bot . I have responded at my talk page. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 03:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can this be handled off-board? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  05:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 19:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Question
If I will be blocked for racism\vandalism\reason will my article be killed or they will stay in Wiki?--N94228 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article contains racism or vandalism, it's possible it will be deleted if it can't be salvaged. Liz  Read! Talk! 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you!--N94228 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to Dina Rubina, the article will be deleted if it does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, which means having received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. There is no point in you repeatedly deleting the maintenance templates without addressing the problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the article will not be deleted. You revert my good edits just because she is a Russian writer who wrote tens of books. You must be blocked for vandalism--N94228 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism to add maintenance tags to an article—especially adding the Unreferenced tag to an article lacking independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought vandalism was any edit in which another user disagrees with. --MuZemike 18:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So I am leaving Wikipedia. Thats not OK when me make new articles and some miserable nonames demand the notability of great people to be proven to them. Go, delete all articles.--N94228 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be much simpler to just add some reliable secondary sources to the article. The only secondary source currently cited is IMDB, and that's generally viewed as of limited reliability. Has she not been written about in any magazines or news articles? —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then again, based on the personal attacks this edit summary, maybe it's better if User:N94228 walks away from Wikipedia voluntarily before getting shown the door by an admin. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Damn it! How come I never get here in time to see the really juicy edit summaries before they're rev-deleted? EEng (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You simply must keep an eye on your watchlist 24/7/365, .  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * EEng, it's not really all that juicy, and I'm a bit surprised that the edit summary was revdeled; I've seen much more offensive edit summaries which have been either ignored or actually restored. You're not missing anything interesting.  Horologium  (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooooh! Can you give me some diffs for these really offensive edit summaries? C'mon, I wanna see 'em! EEng (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no need to suppress that edit summary in any manner ... it was a very general statement about the marital status of the parents of all the male editors of Wikipedia. Nothing that John Snow would have been particularly ashamed of  ES  &#38;L  09:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
The user again and again removing the sources on Do Dil Bandhe Ek Dori Se TV show article, and Also the removed cast Table without any reason. See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Do_Dil_Bandhe_Ek_Dori_Se&action=historysubmit&diff=578815459&oldid=578814416 the diff], and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Do_Dil_Bandhe_Ek_Dori_Se&action=history history]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanderforyou (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 October 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Looks to me as though they were fixing unsourced information and poor spelling and grammar, removing bare URLs, and generally tidying up the article. Also, this is a noticeboard for reporting incidents that require the intervention of administrators, and is not for the discussion of content disputes. Closing. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
The politics used on this page are absurd. After Manning declared, after his convictions, that he "feel a woman", someone of the LGBT project changed ALL the pronouns in the bio and the title from Bradley (everyone knows him as Bradley, a foreign user search Bradley) into Chelsea Elizabeth only because he stated he wants to be called Chelsea Elizabeth. Eventually, you can use the female pronouns for events AFTER these declarations, not for the whole event for that he was male and named Bradley. The voice should be titled Bradley Manning. Some foreign users searching Wikileaks issues were very embarrassed when they saw this page, and had difficulties to find it. This is the most irrational thing I saw on Wikipedia, honestly. It create a lot of totally useless confusion. Thank you. Lenore (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Uranium is swine piss

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

The featured article Uranium has had a sentence for a few hours now about getting the stuff from Walmart and it being swine piss. I tried reporting this at the vandalism noticeboard but was reverted (and then AN main is semiprotected). Request to spank whoever typed that into the FA.12.228.46.48 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence you're talking about was removed ten or so hours ago. Thanks for the effort, though! m.o.p  14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


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

BLP vio article moves
I've moved this section from the WP:AN section of the same name, since it's really an incident. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC) I don't know what is going on here but following recent activity at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trafalk09 it seems a once-decent editor has gone off the deep end. Can someone have a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two suggestion K. First, this belong on AN/I not here. Second, it would be helpful if you could give some examples (with links) of what you feel is wrong with the edits. Admins can be busy in a number of areas while onwiki. They may be more receptive to your complaint if you take the time to provided evidence of your concerns. The second item is just a suggestion and you are free to proceed as you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 18:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the end of what I've copied from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like they were playing around with page moves, e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_James&action=history Laura James] -- but they put it back when they were done. It's preferred editors noticing non-urgent weirdness discuss on the other editor's talk page before bringing to noticeboards. NE Ent 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Trolling/stalking by User:Worldedixor
Evidently Worldedixor has failed to take comments in the two recent ANI threads in which he was involved to heart. This contributor has just posted at my user page, accusing me of 'vandalism':'' 'Do not remove FACTS when you are this uninformed. I will not report you this time, but consider this as a warning. Whenever you are this uninformed on world affairs and on "factual" content in the future, leave the "factual" content in place and ask for citations in accordance with policy'. '' As the edit in question < link removed - I've now asked for it to be revdel'd > consisted in its entirety of nothing more than a revert of an unsourced statement about the proportion of the population of South Sudan that was estimated to be Christian - with a request that the source of the estimate be provided - there is no possible way that this can be interpreted as 'vandalism', and it can thus only reasonably be assumed that either (despite editing Wikipedia since 2006) Worldedixor does not understand what constitutes vandalism in Wikipedia's terms (or anyone else's I'd suggest), or more likely, that Worldedixor is being intentionally provocative. I note also that Worldedixor has chosen to repeatedly violate Wikipedia talk page policy on User talk:Worldedixor by accusing me of "violence" (over the internet?) comparing me to "Pablo Escobar" and the Cosa Nostra, and accusing unnamed others of involvement in "evil deeds by a corrupt council of politicians". . I see no reason why I should have to put up with this nonsense - and I certainly see no reason why Worldedixor should be permitted to abuse Wikipedia facilities to cast aspersions on all and sundry. Frankly, I see little evidence that Worldedixor has ever been a particularly useful contributor, but if we can't block him/her entirely, I'd suggest that at minimum a formal ban on any further comments about my behaviour would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, having looked at Worldedixor's talk page again, I see that I'd missed the most offensive remark. Since I have no wish to repeat it here, can I ask that it be revdel'd and Worldedixor be immediately and indefinitely blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently (having asked via IRC) there apparently aren't grounds for a revdel - but I was advised that the offending material should be redacted, and have done so accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I disagree - I feel the comments in this diff qualify for RD2, and I have revdel'd the text accordingly. I have no further opinion on this matter. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe those comments meet RD2, but there's no point in reversing the action. Simple redaction should be sufficient next time. m.o.p  23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This about an edit on South Sudan. This is neither trolling nor stalking.  Bringing up my "opinion" on MY talk page and my "1 one 1" questions on policy, is just a smoke screen to prevent me from editing. My Troll/stalker and violent abuser (proven with strong and convincing evidence that he flagrantly violated WP:NPA by treating me like a street person and saying: "I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you..." is the uninformed editor who remove "factual content" from South Sudan and this was ONE of his MANY edits.  There is no stalking. I simply reverted his uninformed edit of world affairs and supported my action with two reliable sources, as per WP policy,  then left him message advising him that I reverted my edit.  This is neither trolling nor stalking. Worldedixor (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't AndyTheGrump accusing me of stalking him and being "intentionally provocative" when I simply reversed ONE of his MANY edits and advised him of my action like Don King telling me I have a bad hair day?... Worldedixor (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When you incorrectly apply "vandalism" to an edit, Worldedixor, it becomes more than a simple reversal. It's surprising that someone with your tenure does not recognize the significance.  Tide  rolls  23:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have only a little idea of what has gone on before, but clearly with both parties being mentioned at ANI over the past couple of days, the simplest, easiest course of action would be for both parties to generally steer clear of each other and try not to revert each other (and if that's absolutely unavoidable, simple, neutral edit summaries should be used, so as to not antagonise the other party). That way nobody needs to be blocked, and everybody else can edit without this odd little fight going on in the background. Nick (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, Bbb23 has blocked Worldedixor. m.o.p  23:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Worldedixor for one week. The editor has been on a crusade against Andy and against Wikipedia and simply won't let it go. He should have known better than to post at Andy's talk page. He copied the entire previous closed ANI discussion to his talk page so he could rail against it. I don't agree that his inflammatory comments on his talk page needed to be deleted (they also appear in slightly different form on another editor's talk page), but they were certainly obnoxious. I also don't think that Andy's ill-advised comment (for which he was formally warned by an administrator) much earlier in this debacle (quoted again above) is grounds for Worldedixor's crusade.

If another administrator wants to change the block in any way (unblock, reduce, increase), they don't need to ask my permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden
A little concerned about the activity on this article and whether it is fair to the article-subject. User:Keithbob and I seem to be on the same page - the article is over-editorialized and relies heavily on a single author, Robert Young, as a source. That author writes in an op-ed style and his depiction of events conflicts substantially with other sources. WP:BLP is relevant. User:Middayexpress feels the article should be negative and has argued in favor of using primary sources as proper material for contentious material about a BLP.

Keithbob and I have been accused of secretly being paid editors for Bell Pottinger and despite two BLP posts, 1 COIN post, and miles of Talk page discussion, there hasn't really been much progress. Not sure what better way to resolve the issue than post here in hopes that there will be more engagement. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaargh. This is a complicated matter that could do with a set of fresh eyes. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite misleading. The matter actually began when a self-admitted Bell Pottinger public relations employee and representative for Matthew Bryden, one HOgilvy, sought to clean up Bryden's wikipedia page on his client's behalf (c.f. ). Bryden is a controversial figure who was dismissed last year from the UN for poor performance as the UN's Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, a regional watchdog panel (c.f ). With this mandate, Bryden's Wikipedia PR representative contacted the CorporateM account above, who then proceeded to ping his wiki friends and basically tried to remove anything critical of Bryden. That includes everything from the fact that Bryden was fired to his previous place of residence according to his own alma mater. It later came to light almost by accident that CorporateM is himself a PR representative, a fact which he never bothered revealing on the article's talk page. However, on his own user page, CorporateM did express his position on conflict of interest as follows: : "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." This is in direct opposition to WP:COI's instruction that "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first." This past week, CorporateM deleted this surprising Position on COI revelation from his user page, though it is of course still stored in the page history. So basically, we have a situation where at least one PR representative was "helping" another PR representative clean up his client's wikipedia bio page, all the while believing that "we serve our client's interests exclusively". What's best for Wikipedia is instead apparently "unethical". Middayexpress (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User: CorporateM has publicly divulged their status as a PR rep in several forums and on several articles going back several months. He/she does not edit in areas where he/she is representing a client. He/she does edit other articles on WP where he/she is not representing a client and makes good faith additions to the further develop the project as a whole including commenting at RfC's and policy discussion and improving content on WP articles like Matthew Bryden.  I encourage any editor or Admin to scan the talk pages and decide for themselves which editor is pushing a point of view here. In particular this discussion where several uninvolved editors commented and criticized the use of editorials, self published and primary sources being used to malign the subject. Despite that consensus, it took a month and a thousand words of talk page discussion to remove them because of Middayexpress' continued--I didn't hear that--objections. Now, Middayexpress' last ditch effort is to make a personal attack on CorporateM (unfounded accusations with no diffs are personal attacks) and  using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute which is a violation of the WP:COI guideline.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should point out that Keithbob is one of CorporateM's aforementioned wiki friends that he pinged for support ("I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" ). They've basically been attempting to remove all critical material on Bryden, typically on the weakest of pretexts. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you're arguing against Editors who know each other from their time on Wikipedia collaborating together? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the pinging in this instance is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I think Middayexpress is saying these editors are proxying for each other (i.e. not using independent judgment) in order to work around the formal restrictions of WP:COI best practices, possibly in some sort of quid pro quo arrangement. E.g. you make my proposed edits and I make yours, and we each claim we have no COI for the changes we're making. Is that correct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the Bell Pottinger editor posted at COIN and User:Jreferee asked me to chip in on a volunteer basis. These kinds of personal attacks and conspiracy theories are standard fair for this article unfortunately... CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The quotes and difs above speak for themselves; no personal attacks necessary. As for the Bell Pottinger public relations representative, he indeed posted at COIN, and I linked to the very post where he said that he would do that. He also posted on CorporateM's talk page and repeatedly, typically requesting (and more often than not receiving) direct assistance. This was also not the first time that the account contacted CorporateM. They were apparently already acquainted before this affair . Missed that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm way off-track, CorporateM's admitted behavior is a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT, not to mention WP:COI; his/her statement that he/she serves only the client's interests and not Wikipedia's interests is clear evidence of WP:NOTHERE, and the decision to remove his/her COI disclosure is inexcusable. It's a pattern of terrible abuse of editing privileges, and harsh sanctions are appropriate IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that both CorporateM and KeithBob have exhibited extremely precocious editing skills for having only created their accounts in the last few weeks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC) stricken per apology previously made and deleted by another editor in good faith
 * Fleischman, what? CorporateM and Keithbob have been here for forever. And CorporateM's statement, cited above, is interpreted in a completely incorrect manner. Midday, I just reread your comments. You're stooping pretty low there. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly my fault since much of what I posted are CorporateM's own comments. I couldn't make that up if I tried. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about, Dr. Fleischman? Both those editors have been around for years. If you're going to snipe at people, at least try to keep it plausible even if not true. The same goes for the MEAT / COI / CANVAS / NOTHERE alphabet soup. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I've been here about 3-5 years now and have 16,000 edits and 13 GAs to my name. Also, it has been confirmed many-a-times when POV pushers attempt to use my COI disclosure as leverage that I may edit articles where I have no COI just like any volunteer. Midday's links and post show the type of extreme personal attacks and POV pushing we have come to expect. For example, I completely re-wrote my user-page, cut it in half, and he has selected a specific edit to make it seem like something nefarious is going on. It's just trolling and resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories in order to do whatever it takes to make sure the article reflects his point-of-view, rather than a neutral point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, all of the most telling difs and quotes in my post above are to CorporateM's own remarks. That includes his own longstanding Position on COI. It's unreasonable to expect people to turn a blind eye to this surprising revelation just because he deleted it a few days before posting here. That's actually all the more reason to notice it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Beginning at the middle of the Matthew Bryden article, it loses its focus of being a written account of Bryden and instead serves as a coatrack for the opinions of a variety of people, none of whom are Bryden. The article reads "According to author Michelle Shephard," "According to journalist Robert Young Pelton," "Puntland President Abdirahman Farole suggested that Bryden was," "Ahmed spent 30 minutes of a July speech criticizing Bryden,". None of these people qualify as experts on Matthew Bryden or qualify as experts on written accounts of another person's life. Their views belong in their own Wikipedia article or in an article on United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia, but not in the Matthew Bryden article. Some of source material does convey chronological life event information about Matthew Bryden, and that's fine for the biography article. However the rest needs to be removed from the article. Author Michelle Shephard ebook has a quote from Bryden, and an independent third party source republishing a Bryden quote could make that Bryden quote fair game for the Bryden biography article. Instead, Shephard's view of what that means is added to the Bryden article. That is not how source material should be used to develop a biography. As for COI, CorporateM sates he does not have a COI with the Matthew Bryden topic and no one has posted and diffs that establish otherwise. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * BLP indicates that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." That said, Farole and Ahmed are quoted because Bryden and his Monitoring Group accused them of wrongdoing, so their replies are appended for balance. Shephard is also a secondary source relaying Bryden's views on a political issue related to his previous position at the Monitoring Group. If you look at the Wikipedia bios of other controversial figures, they follow a similar model but are often way more critical (e.g. Avigdor Lieberman). This bio is actually pretty tame in comparison. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would support removing all of it as an interim solution, and re-introducing content there is consensus for. But some of that really does belong. CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of it belongs, including a lot of material that was removed for no legitimate reason. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In earlier discussions I supported including some of the material that Midday sought to keep, though not all of it. I can't remember if any of those items are mentioned above; it's on the record though. But in general I note three tendencies: that other editor (forget their name--it's on record too) was a bit too positive on the subject, Midday was much too negative and included material that IMO was unacceptable, and Corporate sailed mostly down the middle, though I did not agree with every one of their exclusions. But to my mind Corporate Minion was the most neutral of them all. Then again, this has been hammered out on the talk page and, I believe, on the BLPN board and possibly on a few user talk pages; for my money, I'd give Bobrayner free rein and let them have at it (Dr. Fleischman, we await your apology: sooner is always better than later). Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything I posted on Bryden is factual. But as I've learned, it's those facts themselves that are more often than not inconvenient. By contrast, the majority of CorporateM's edits were in agreement with his fellow public relations representative HOgilvy. There was very little divergence in opinion between the two. In hindsight, it's difficult to see how there could be since CorporateM apparently believes a PR rep's duty is to exclusively serve the interests of his/her client rather than Wikipedia's interests (his words). At any rate, I would like to find a middle ground with the PR reps/friends, but this will take some doing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your astute comments and observations. If you've visited the article talk page you will also notice that CorporateM has demonstrated an immense amount of patience on the talk page for months (and myself to a lesser degree). The article was highlighted at BLPN twice and outside eyes have come in but Midday seems to have an aversion to consensus and when CM and I walk away he skews the article again. So while I do support an uninvolved editor like User:Bobrayner making deletions as needed to create NPOV for the article I would also appreciate if some other folks could keep it on their watchlist as I think Corporate and I are pretty worn out from months of copious talk page activity with Midday. User Midday is a prolific editor who I'm sure has made many valuable contributions to the project.  I hope that he/she is able to step back and reconsider their approach to the Matthew Bryden BLP and move on to other more productive activities. Thanks to all who have given input here.  Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Patience obviously works both ways. On the other hand, pinging one's friends for support does not at all constitute outside involvement. Quite the opposite. The solution here is genuine outside involvement by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to prejudice or otherwise influence his/her actions. For this same reason, the editor(s) also cannot himself/herself be a public relations/media representative. Middayexpress (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would you think that just because someone is pinged by Corporate (or anyone else) they're automatically their "friend" and thus, as you suggest, incapable if independent judgment? The instances where I agree with you and disagreed with them is sufficient evidence of the falsehood of this premise. I like to think that Corporate pinged me for my extensive knowledge and impeccable judgment. As for "genuine outside involvement"--you have been editing articles in that (geographic) area for years, and by your own argument you could be discredited for having a COI; from the discussions it's clear that you also don't come to the negotiation table without prejudice. As far as I'm concerned that does not discredit you anymore than it does me and, I might add, before you know it (extending your argument not by much) any kind of involvement is suspicious and WP should only be edited by 12-year olds who know nothing about nothing, who couldn't point out Mogadishu on a map if it bit them in the ass, in the name of impartiality. Of course a PR rep's edit should be scrutinized carefully, as was done in this case by all parties, including Corporate--and I challenge you to find a PR person more transparent than Corporate (never mind the fact that he is not on anyone's payroll in this particular case, as far as I know) in their dealings with companies/articles/organizations where they might have a genuine COI. Besides, it's unlikely that four editors (counting myself) would all have the same damning POV in a case like this, which I think is another of your suggestions. I stand completely neutral towards the subject of this article, and my POV is NPOV. That doesn't make me right in individual editorial decisions, but whether they're made correctly or incorrectly, they're editorial decisions, unguided by any kind of partiality toward the involved governments, journalists, publications, freedom fighters, weapons dealers, non-governmental organizations, and Wikipedia editors. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's bizarre to me to keep reading that you somehow think that "pinging one's friends for support" is a bad thing. It's called collaboration and as long as one isn't canvassing Editors to come participate in a deletion decision, RfA or contentious discussion, it is a good practice that happens all over Wikipedia every day, often organized through WikiProjects or more informally. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CANVASS, there's an appropriate notification protocol to follow when seeking additional input. Pinging random friends -- which CorporateM certainly did; every editor he pinged was a prior amicable acquiantance of his, with no connection to the topic other than that (one actually gave him an award of some kind ) -- is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). WP:COI is also quite clear that "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". It's in the first paragraph and bolded for emphasis. This is in direct conflict with CorporateM's apparent general position on COI : "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." At any rate, given the foregoing, the only conceivable solution is genuine outside involvement i.e. by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions. This should be an acceptable compromise for all parties interested in a neutral page. Middayexpress (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you're wikilawyering, clutching at every straw because consensus might be against what it is that you want the article to present. One could read your commentary and opinions there as evidence of extreme bias against the subject of the article; your insistence on unreliable sources to make the article state that the subject was fired from that UN group could, hypothetically, serve as evidence. Mind you, that's based on actual things you said. HOgilvy clearly had a certain interest in the article, and so, I surmise, do you: HOgilvy in favor, you against. Corporate, Keithbob, me, Bobrayner, we are not (AFAIK) interested in the subject as such. And might I reiterate, for the now-bored onlooker, that Corporate got involved with this to prevent COI editing? This article, Middayexpress, is better off without you. If anyone still cares, the general pattern displayed in this thread is evident on the talk page as well. Midday was at pains to get an editorial from an online organization accepted as a reliable source; Corporate points out (in Talk:Matthew_Bryden) that Hiriian Online is not a reliable source. Look at the paragraph starting "Here we go", where Corporate makes a pretty convincing case that the website is run by a lobbying group. Midday's response? "Policies and guidelines come up in many Wikipedia discussions..." followed by a complete avoidance of the issue. This is why Midday's contributions here are ultimately useless and their behavior frustrating. They bring sources and context, which is helpful, and refuse to back off even after everyone else (that is, four editors, not counting HOgilvy of course--note 's contributions) disagrees with them. And now this interminable thread, full of wishy-washy nonsense about suspected involvement when there is not a shred of evidence of foul play on Corporate's side, again halting progress on the article: I propose a topic ban for this article for MiddayExpress. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors named above are CorporateM's wiki friends who he pinged for input. They are certainly not outside editors in this particular instance, and have no connection with the topic other than that shared friendship. So the fact that they see eye-to-eye on pretty much everything isn't exactly unexpected. This is the definition of inappropriate notification, as the WP:COI links and quote above show. If I were to have done the same (as I easily could've, btw), CorporateM et al. would surely in turn have complained about it. This is almost certain since, rather ironically, he already complained that my contacting another editor who by contrast had already edited the page would constitute canvassing . At any rate, my interest in the article is as a WikiProject Somalia member, which this bio on the former UN Coordinator of the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group certainly falls under. It's in this capacity that I edited the page, just like any other Project page. What first caught my attention was some editor (CorporateM) removing huge swathes of material from the bio with no prior talk page explanation or discussion. I did notice, though, one post by another account (HOgilvy) requesting a cleanup of some sort . This account described himself as as a Bell Pottinger public relations representative and said that Bryden was his client. We already had problems in the past on other Project pages with Bell Pottinger PR reps, so that disclosure certainly caught my eye as well. I assumed that there was some sort of connection between the edits, which was confirmed when CorporateM linked me to a COIN discussion that HOgilvy had posted where he requested assistance. Since then, what I've been trying to do is retain some sort of balance on the article. This has been a challenge when CorporateM et al. seem to be believe that any material critical of Bryden is unacceptable, not just the Hiiraan Online piece (see here for a discussion of that source in its proper context). However, Bryden is a controversial figure on the Horn of Africa political scene, so some degree of criticism is to be expected. Attempting to ban me or any other editor from the topic is not a solution, as all that does is remove any semblance of balance from the page. The only neutral solution is what Keithbob proposed above i.e. entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party. My one condition is that this editor(s) should not have had any prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties since that might serve to influence his/her actions. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think any objective observer who looks at the talk page discussions will see your comments for what they're worth; at the very least, they'll see that you are incorrect in your easy claim that everyone pinged saw eye to eye with Corporate. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: Of the topic-ban per user:Drmies. A couple clarifications are in order though. The problem with the sources were that they were op-eds written by opposing political interests, not that they were published by Hiiran online, which may be a reliable source in other cases. And the UN DID fire Bryden, or at the very least they claim to have. If a new editor not previously involved (User:bobrayner was mentioned a couple times) wants to take a crack at it, I wouldn't mind abstaining as well for the sake of keeping the peace. CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The only source for the firing is a report by the Inner City Press--and I assume that this document, a primary source which does nothing more than list the next members of the UN Monitoring Group and says nothing about Bryden, is still in the article at Midday's insistence. Thanks for the other clarification as well. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A reasonable point of discussion between civil and thoughtful editors. IMO, Inner City Press does seem like it may be a bit of an advocacy-type source. You know, one of those, "we uncover the truth not covered by mainstream media" types. And employers will often claim they did the firing while employees have a different POV. In this case in particular there is a political backdrop that makes it more complicated as well. I think Inner City Press may be acceptable to use, as long as it's done with caution. But that is a discussion best left for another time, after an environment is created where a thoughtful and civil discussion can occur. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Inner City Press is an accredited media agency at the UN headquarters, the Federal Reserve and various other agencies . This is why its byline location is signed "United Nations", and how it managed to report on Bryden's dismissal as it was happening, . This as well is explained on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasoning given here by and others to suggest CorporateM is meating brins up an interesting hypothetical. Suppose I edit a certain article and think a section needs to be rewritten. Another user who also edits the article thinks the same. By the explanation given by some, I am violating WP:MEAT.  Konveyor   Belt  04:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, at least in my mind. My understanding is that CorporateM and KeithBob were proxying for each other rather than exercising independent judgment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The solution seems to be to entrust the page to an uninvolved editor(s) with no prior association with any of the involved parties. This uninvolved editor(s) would then gradually edit the page, explaining each edit on the talk page as he/she went along. The editor(s) would also consider/hear the feedback of the erstwhile involved parties. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion focuses on the content dispute, rather than the conduct dispute, and misses the bigger point. CorporateM has admitted (here for example) he/she frequently edits as a paid advocate, he/she serves his/her client's interests exclusively (see here) in direct violation of WP:COI's prime directive. (bolded in first para: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") My understanding is that Middayexpress has accused CorporateM and KeithBob of proxying for each other, and those accusations should be taken seriously in light of these COI issues. Regardless, even if they're incorrect, by his/her own admissions CorporateM has committed gross violations of WP:COI and should be sanctioned accordingly. Let's not get bogged down in the content dispute; that's what DR is for. As for the proposal to topic ban Middayexpress, I make the (very reasonable) request that WP policy be cited and discussed before sanctions are imposed simply for slowing down "progress" on an article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * CorporateM's userpage doesn't quite say that. Cherrypicking a diff and then misrepresenting it as a violation of a guideline (not a policy) in order to call for sanctions is a Bad Thing. And then you go on to ask for a policy basis for topic-banning Middayexpress? That's an impressive feat of doublethink. You're really not helping your case here; if you think the facts support your way forward, bring some actual facts - or step aside. We have enough drama already, we don't need people making up more. bobrayner (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with my so-called cherry picking? Is anyone even going to address Middayexpress's allegations, or are we choosing to sweep them under the rug? And I thought WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE were frequently cited in support of sanctions? And, again, what did Middayexpress do wrong? I'm not saying he/she did nothing wrong, just that as a general practice it would be a good and reasonable thing to identify what rule was violated before sanctions are imposed. What am I missing here? (P.S. There's no reason for me to "step aside" when I have no dog in this fight and I'm not an administrator.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is not what I'm arguing. Please see below for that and the way forward from here. Middayexpress (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering this discussion is going to get archived soon, can we refocus on finding resolution? Someone should suggest a course of action, such as a topic ban, article-protection, mediation, whatever in a new sub-section, for voting and consensus so the issue can get fixed. It's not as if all this back and forth sniping is productive - and I am concerned it will get archived without any meaningful solution, as has already occurred in the past at BLP and COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party has already been proposed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: The issue is essentially a content dispute, which unfortunately seems to have gotten out of hand. It makes little outward sense when you consider the fact that although CorporateM has admitted to being a paid public relations representative, he insists that Bryden is not his client. CorporateM is also not a WikiProject Somalia or WikiProject Eritrea member. In other words, he has no declared connection to the topic. His stated reason for editing the page is that he was pinged to do so at COIN. Besides CorporateM's stated Position on COI, what makes the situation especially awkward is that HOgilvy is himself a paid PR rep and specifically for Bryden. HOgilvy and CorporateM also apparently previously worked on something else together. So although CorporateM in this instance appears to have volunteered his services, he was hardly a neutral volunteer to begin with. Given the foregoing, the simplest solution to the impasse would be to entrust editing of the page to a neutral third party i.e. to a genuinely uninvolved editor(s), with no prior association with any of the involved parties that might influence his/her actions. He/she would then follow the protocol suggested above at 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like there may be some common ground here, but I'm no less troubled than before by your allegations. Drmies et al: I understand this is a nasty can of worms, but it represents a potentially pervasive practice of end-running around the formalities of WP:COI that, IMO, could damage WP and its credibility in the long run. If the allegations are true, then that has troubling ramifications not just on the accused editors but on the whole community, particularly in light of the recent related media stories about paid editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would this by any chance be one of the paid editing stories in question? I actually dealt directly with the "Biggleswiki" Bell Pottinger public relations representative that is profiled in that piece, and on the very Dahabshiil wiki page that is also mentioned therein (another WikiProject Somalia page, incidentally). Hence, my preference for entrusting the Bryden page to uninvolved volunteer editors. Middayexpress (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, I appreciate your comments. DrFleischman, there is no reason to presume that just because Corp has a fully disclosed COI in one area or another, they should have some kind of blatant COI here--that doesn't make him necessarily neutral, but that's another matter. I think that three editors have said that by now; time to listen--you can't prove that Corp has a COI here just because they say they have one somewhere else. Frankly, your claim is a bit irritating, and I think you're in a hole and should stop digging. (For instance, I think you're inflating Midday's "allegations" in order to save your first unfortunate remark here.) Let me reiterate what I indicated before: I think Midday, Corp, etc. are in principle perfectly fine as editors for this article--the case for HOgilvy is obviously different. My beef is with Midday's behavior in the discussion, which I consider to be less than helpful, but I am not claiming they should be topic-banned because they have a COI or are incapable of editing neutrally, not at all. And, again reiterating, I do not agree with how Midday seems to define "uninvolved", but that's a matter of judgment. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * True, I don't see any direct evidence of a COI, but based on Middayexpress's allegations one wouldn't expect to find any. There would be circumstantial evidence in the form of communications between and among the conspiring parties, which is what Middayexpress may have been pointing to. I agree that these communications viewed in isolation aren't a problem (and in hindsight, they might not constitute improper canvassing) but are they signs of a larger, very bad pattern? We don't know because no one cares to take the allegations seriously. I find it alarming that CorporateM's actions would receive zero scrutiny (as far as I can tell) when he/she has stated that he/she regularly edits in a paid capacity while representing his/her clients' interests exclusively and at the expense of the project. Does CorporateM get a free pass because of his/her lengthy editing history and friendly manner? Don't mind me, I'm just the canary in the coal mine. Nothing to see here. This will be my last comment in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that would be the most obvious example of a straw man - putting words in my mouth like "at the expense of the project". When in actuality, my words are more like "It is in the client's best interest I think. The best way to ensure the durability of the content and deflect COI criticisms is to simply make sure the content itself is exceptional" regarding bringing my COI works up to Good Article status. COI has almost nothing to do with this article whatsoever, except that a PR rep brought the article to the community's attention by asking us to add more primary sources. My response instead was to delete most of the article, which relied heavily on junk sources. The COI and canvassing accusations are just the actions of an editor frustrated that consensus is not in their favor and determined to make the article reflect their point-of-view by resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Midday is the one violating WP:COI by making unfounded COI accusations in an attempt to win an argument.


 * In any case, this string has now become sufficiently long and convoluted enough, full of personal attacks and a pouncing comment from Midday on every editor with input, it's becoming increasingly unlikely anyone will bother to read the entire string or care to get involved. Who would volunteer to dive head-first into so much drama? CorporateM (Talk) 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfounded accusations? Your user page of longstanding stated that you are a paid editor and that your Position on COI is that "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." Those are your own words, not mine. Pinging other users with no connection to the topic at hand is also an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). And please don't argue that you didn't ping them cause you did, and you said that you would too (viz. "I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" ; "I've attempted to summarize the issues here and asked Drmies to get involved so we could have more than two editors and maybe figure things out" ). These are your own words and actions, so be sure to assume responsiblity for them. Middayexpress (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
Per the discussion above, I suggest voluntary topic bans for Midday and myself, from article-space and Talk-space, while a new, previously uninvolved editor(s) from this board boldly make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: As nominator. Plenty of other articles for us to work on and no reason to feed the drama on this one. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Conditional support: I would support the proposal above for voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it: a) applies to all the involved parties equally, b) is temporary/lasts until the issue is resolved, c) the uninvolved editor(s) has had no previous dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions, d) the uninvolved editor(s) for the same reason must be a volunteer and not a paid editor. Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that would disqualify all other editors mentioned here, no? (Including me, I suppose.) Then who's left who cares? Or, I don't see why bobrayner and Keithbob and Lexein and perhaps others should be excluded just because the two main parties are recused. I'll gladly recuse myself, since I have little interest in this biography, and I am sure you don't want me editing that article, but I see no grounds to disqualify the others--except, again, for HOgilvy who, setting aside the presumption of good faith I usually have, should probably not be editing this article. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a Bryden official public relations representative, WP:COISELF bars HOgilvy from editing the page directly. Keithbob and Lexein were both pinged to the page by CorporateM. Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM. To ensure neutrality, the uninvolved editor(s) shouldn't have any previous associations or dealings with any of the involved parties (myself included). The List of administrators seems a neutral place to select a candidate(s) from. Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not acceptable. I see no valid reason to bar those editors from editing the article. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Um, COI PR article editing by HOgilvy for small corrections with WP:IRS sources, and COI PR discussion on talk page for everything else, would be appropriate, IMHO). --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, seeing as how WP:COISELF stipulates that "you should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics[...] This includes people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life[...] If you have a personal connection to a topic or a person, (such as being an employee, familial ties, or other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you really that deliberately dimwitted? I choose my words very carefully, as in "small corrections", just as allowed explicitly in WP:COI, and "discussion on talk page for everything else", just as explicitly stated in WP:COI. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insults are uncalled for (see WP:CIV). That said, the only exception WP:COI makes in this regard is with defamation or a serious error, and even here there's a very involved administrative protocol that must concurrently be followed: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly[...] If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons." Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your selective reading notwithstanding, I presume. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keithbob and Lexein participated in the talk page discussion after being pinged by CorporateM. Keithbob also edited the page itself. That makes them involved editors. This proposal is for a new, previously uninvolved editor(s). Middayexpress (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, with respect, you're really going about this all wrong. Look at my edit history. Take me to any disciplinary or sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry noticeboard you like. Not only will any kind of charge you could possibly fabricate be instantly thrown out, but you'd better be wary of WP:BOOMERANG. I'll edit any article I want, and I'll discuss on any article talk page I want, because I've never been article-banned, topic-banned, blocked, or disciplined anywhere, in seven years here. I'll delete claims sourced by unreliable or biased sources everywhere I find them, because you don't get to turn Wikipedia into your own personal attack forum. And I'll support on-policy edits by any editor I choose, based on my experience and familiarity with relevant policies, namely WP:BLP. If it takes this ANI for you to learn how to edit neutrally, so be it. Learn or be banned, that's my advice to you. Don't say I didn't warn you: I warned you directly that you really wouldn't like it if I got involved. Do you know why? Because you're wrong about nearly every claim you've made, and I'm not wrong. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please settle down and kindly stop WP:SHOUTing. You are putting words in my mouth and answering allegations that were never even made. Everything that I actually indicated in my last comment is factual. There is a difference between appropriate notification for input and inappropriate notification; if there wasn't, the canvassing policy would serve no purpose. Pinging/contacting an editor with no connection to the topic -- other than the fact that they happen to be friends or acquaintances -- is a clear example of inappropriate notification: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)[...] Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand[...] Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). This happens to be what CorporateM did (another e.g.: "I was even more surprised that User:Lexein or someone else didn't revert him back[...] But if nobody else does the reverting, than it is inappropriate for me to get into an edit-war just between the two of us" ). If I had done the same, this surely would not have been difficult to appreciate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have frequently worked with Corporate M. When he edits for a client, he is scrupulously neutral, though his style still sometimes shows traces of his long experience in the PR industry,. He also edits more generally, andI respect his courageous willingness --especially  for someone himself known for his declared COI editing--  to work in areas which have been thoroughly disrupted by others editors with a declared or undeclared  COI.  When he does work in these areas I trust both his objectivity and judgement, including his awareness of the problems that may be present in other people's editing. I have not myself investigated the sources in this area, but if anyone can straighten them out, he can do so, and so far from banning him from the subject, I think we should be encouraging him to take it in hand. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that my COI work is actually related to this article, but I am both flattered, but hesitant to accept User:DGG's compliments. Sometimes I over-compensate for my COI and other times it shows more than I think. But where I do have a COI, I lean on other editors to keep me on the straight and narrow and they rarely fail me. Since I do not have a COI here, it's a bit of an offshoot topic. If someone wants to discuss my COI work, they should start a separate string at WP:COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] In addition to User:CorporateM, User:Drmies and myself, other editors like User:Lexein, User:HOgilvy and User:DGG, have been active on the talk page. Maybe they would like to comment on this situation.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that concerns for this article have been posted recently at BLPN by User:Jreferee on Sept 2nd and by CorporateM on Sept 13th.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of this has anything to do with "pinging" or any sort of deliberate ganging up by experienced editors. It only has to do with awful bias by an intransigent editor, PR editing done without the cleanest possible hands, and a bunch of long time editors (including one open PR editor editing cleanly outside his PR area) stepping in to try to clean up the toxic, biased, badly sourced mess. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has plenty to do with pinging/inappropriate notification. Had that not happened (or had I been the one doing the pinging), the proceedings and involved parties would have been (and indeed were up to that point) very different. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it up. I couldn't do a better job of getting you topic banned than exactly what you're doing. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors' only concern should be to create as reliable an encyclopedia as possible. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * what you're doing here? We always exclude unreliable sources and avoid bias and unbalanced and unattributed sourcing in BLP, but that's not your thing, I guess. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. I will be sure to keep that in mind. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support voluntary topic ban by Middayexpress, voluntary article-edit ban by HOgilvy. By wanting everyone out of the pool, Middayexpress assumes bad faith, and wholeheartedly declares the pool contaminated, and so de rigeur supports reverting the article back to before the "firing" edits were added. You don't evacuate the pool and then just leave the turd floating in it. Alternatively, Middayexpress either trusts experienced editors who understand BLP and writing neutrally, or not. If so, Middayexpress will voluntarily self-topic ban. If not, then we know Middayexpress's agenda. What Middayexpress fails to understand that even the worst news can be presented neutrally, and attributed to the source, so the reader can immediately glean the apparent bias in the source. See? Done. One sentence. In my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not at all the situation or what transpired. The fact is, if I had a so-called "agenda", I wouldn't be willing to entrust the article to an uninvolved volunteer editor(s) as I've repeatedly proposed. You'll note above the link I produced pointing to the List of Wikipedia administrators... now surely there's no better place to select a genuinely neutral candidate from. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretend as much as you like, but noone is buying it. Your take on events is quite skewed and not at all in line with policy, guideline, or essay. Nice try. Plus, again, you fail to address your lack of comprehension of neutral writing, and fail to respect that comprehension and skill practiced by others. The fact that I object to your failures has no effect on my ability to be neutral with respect to article content, even to the extent of trivially and completely fixing all of your mistakes in one step. You continue to fail to ask for help from knowledgeable editors who really know how to accomplish neutral writing. Your inability to discuss effectively is evident from your edit count and edit history, given that only about (generously) eight percent of your edits have been performed in Talk pages. Only your voluntary withdrawal from that article, and corrective involvement directly in it by myself and other editors who have earned my respect, will save it. Your demand that anyone who has even discussed the article stop editing it is a transparent gambit, and it is in bad faith. Such a demand would, if in good faith, be accompanied by a willingness to revert to before your edits. Hence, your demand is in bad faith. Answer my question: do you want me to get involved? I haven't gotten involved in the editing of the article yet, in case you hadn't noticed. Consider your answer carefully. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal jabs aside, as one of the main contributors to WikiProject Somalia, I am a knowledgeable editor in my own right and have certainly helped build many a project page. That is why most of my contributions are indeed to article-space. Project members can vouch for that. As for the article in question, I never demanded that anyone who has even discussed the page stop editing it. I pointed out that the proposal CorporateM made was for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)", and I indicated that I supported a voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it applied to all the involved parties equally. Anyway, that was a while ago, prior to Obiwankenobi's helpful remarks, after which I agreed to his suggestions, including recusing myself from the article-space and instead engaging in civil talk page discourse. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't say you didn't: you did. Are you really that deliberately ignorant of what you wrote? Now I dread even looking at WikiProject Somalia, given the gaming and bad faith editing and bad faith accusations you've spread around here. I abhor the now necessary task having to vet every single claim and cited source you've ever added anywhere. Just because you've gotten away with something for apparently years doesn't mean you were ever right about any of it. 80,000 edits of the low quality you performed at the BLP under dispute? Horrifying to consider. You just don't seem to get it. Stop discussing on article Talk page as long as you persist in campaigning against the letter and spirit of BLP. Article Talk is not your private learning experience zone; do that at IRC, your own Talk page, and Help. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't know anything about me and vice versa. We only just met the other day asfaik. You are also not in a position to tell me what to do. For the rest, please see WP:CIV. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress

 * Support as nominator for persistent counter-consensus editing and disruptive Talk page participation, such as abusive COI accusations, ABF, personal attacks, etc. As mentioned above, I would volunteer for an IBAN myself to reduce drama, but it doesn't seem like it would matter - being that I can't force others to volunteer for one and if we all the involved editors withdrew, there would be no one left to edit the article. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Based on this thread and my experience on the talk page there doesn't seem to be much willingness to collaborate or respect consensus. The subject of this BLP deserves neutral editing by this community. If Midday is topic banned I would be happy to walk away from the BLP and allow any other editors to adjust it as they see fit. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The discussion was between myself, Bryden's official PR rep, another paid editor/CorporateM, and acquaintances of CorporateM's that he later on pinged for input (such as Keithbob above). Most of the actual editing, however, was between myself, CorporateM and Keithbob, and took place after the initial discussion page posts by CorporateM's other pinged parties. So talk of a retroactively applicable consensus does not apply. That said, I indicated earlier that like CorporateM, I was willing to voluntarily withdraw from editing the page until the content issue is resolved. However, note that the stated proposal was only for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)". To ensure neutrality, my suggestion was that this new, previously uninvolved editor(s) is selected from the List of Wikipedia administrators rather than this board. This seems to have fallen on deaf ears, though, and instead the very editors that CorporateM pinged for support are now ironically trying to topic ban me from the page. Clearly, there's a misunderstanding here about what constitutes WP:CANVASSING. I'll contact the editors who drafted that policy for clarification. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Why you'd want an admin to do this job is not clear to me. What CorporateM was supposed to be canvassing about is also not clear. CorporateM's messages were limited, neutral, and open--and they would have to be non-partisan, since he cannot possibly know what I would think of Bryden and his biography (in part because he couldn't, in part because I didn't have any thoughts on a man I'd never heard of before). Drmies (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just it. The problem is both in the choice of editors ("users with no significant connection to the topic at hand") and the notification method used/pinging ("soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). One obviously doesn't ping strangers, only people one already knows/acquaintances. Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I was asked by Middayexpress to opine on the issue of WP:CANVASS here, as I'd been involved in editing that policy and proposing changes in the past. This is a delicate situation. I've looked over the notifications by CorporateM, and while they were generally neutral, there were targeted at a specific set of experienced editors, some of whom presumably have had interactions with CorporateM in the past (in what guise I haven't taken the time to dig). I don't think this was a chummy notification of CorporateM's best pals, but the selection of editors could have been biased towards editors who CorporateM may have believed would agree with them on the general issue of sourcing around BLPs - this could have been unconscious or perhaps it didn't even happen; another perfectly reasonable explanation is that CorporateM selected a few wise editors who had deep experience in BLPs w/o any particular thought as to how they would come down on any particular side of a content dispute. This is the reason the canvassing policy specifically asks you not to target specific users unless you can demonstrate some previous involvement, to avoid the appearance of vote stacking. Nonetheless, on the scale of 1-10 of canvass violations, I would rate this at about a 2, since this is not an RFC, nor an AFD, and there isn't any !voting going on here, rather it is a slow simmering content dispute, into which it is almost always a good idea to add a few more neutral heads, and such collaboration happens all the time - indeed, DrMies talk page is a veritable cornicopia of "Hi Drmies, something's happening at this article you've never touched before, would you mind taking a look?" Thus, CorporateM's idea of bringing more bodies to the party was a good one, I just think in retrospect given the blowback and the rather tense editing which precluded it, it could have been handled in a bit more of a collaborative fashion, and with a notification that was slightly more neutral (for example, here we have "Well, instead I started taking a heavy axe to it, because it was full of primary sources, op-eds and the like. When I started cutting the controversies too, I started bumping into disagreements and edit-conflicts, etc. with another editor." - it's not quite neutral, as they are positioning themselves in the "right" - e.g. who wouldn't want to cut primary sources and op-eds, and the other editor in the "wrong", because they disagreed). I myself try to use pls for any such notifications, without adding too much comment. Another way would have been proposing/agreeing upon a set of neutral/uninvolved editors along with Middayexpress who would be notified, or by using dispute resolution / 3rd opinion or other facilities available for these situations. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this merits much sanction, except perhaps walking CorporateM past the fish market so they can smell the fresh trout - but in my mind this isn't worth even a minnow.
 * I do feel in general, given the tenor of the conversation above, the two key actors involved to date, Middayexpress and CorporateM, should voluntarily step away from the article for the time being, and a broader set of notifications about this article should be placed at 3-5 notice boards/wiki projects to get more neutral eyes on the article. I would also strongly suggest to Middayexpress (and others) that they also assume good faith w.r.t CorporateM - I haven't had many (or any?) interactions with them but from afar they are certainly one of the more full-o-disclosure paid editors at the project - we have oodles of COI editors who never declare themselves as such, and CorporateM seems to be much more circumspect than others - as such, we should give them the benefit of the doubt here and not make accusations of some sort of behind-the-scenes quid pro quo arrangement. Ultimately, this is a content dispute, so we should all simmer down on the alphabet soup of accusations, provide some broad (and repeated if necessary) notifications to attract some other editors to the cause, and focus on the article content. An instructive example can be found at Robert_Clark_Young, who committed several "crimes" against the wiki, yet the article itself is rather neutral, balanced, and well sourced. The sausage factory that made it that way was a bit ugly, but ultimately commonsense and reason and calm thinking prevailed. If we can do it for Young, we can do it for Bryden. There isn't a rush on Bryden's article, and I think setting up some general principles for sourcing (what sources should be allowed) and coming to rough consensus around that, then rebuilding the article around those is the best path. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on my brief reading to date, I would oppose a formal topic ban for Middayexpress at this point, provided they ease up on the alphabet soup of accusations, and consider self-recusing themselves from edits to the article and participating in a civil/non-combative manner on the talk page instead.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the refreshingly even-handed assessment, Obiwankenobi. I do not object to self-recusing myself from edits to the article-space and focusing instead on civil talk page discourse. The Robert Clark Young example cited above is especially helpful; I agree that that indeed is an instructive model to follow. Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did we really have to bring up that example? Obi? That's a painful blast from the past... Thanks, BTW, for that lengthy analysis: your time and effort are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A few other thoughts - on the subject of neutral editors, I don't know most participating there except Drmies, who is a deeply experienced editor on BLPs, so I would be very comfortable with his neutrality on this subject. My perusal of the talk page also suggests that the other editors who came into the discussion - even if the notification wasn't 100% ideal - are arguing from a position of policy and BLP, and even though they disagree with you at points I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. It can be hard to write a neutral piece when most pieces are negative, so this requires some delicate handling, and patience. I also think the one editor with a proclaimed COI has been very forthright about same, so we shouldn't shame them for having openly declared a COI and proposing edits on the talk page. I can see from your history that you edit a lot of articles on Somalia and are well versed on the region and issues thereof, but you need to be careful to ensure your own views aren't coloring your approach on this article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do edit a lot of WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea pages, as I am a member of both Projects. That's what brought me to the Bryden page (he's the former Coordinator for the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group). My skepticism with regard to the neutrality of public relations representatives was shaped by a previous encounter with another such PR rep on the Dahabshiil project page. He didn't disclose that he worked for Bell Pottinger and that Dahabshiil was his client, and there was a big scandal over this. HOgilvy did, however, disclose that Bryden was his client and I commended him for that, though I gotta admit I was still a little apprehensive about the whole thing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of information: I have participated at BLPN for years and have almost 300 edits to that noticeboard alone. I have written a few BLP's, reviewed a few at AfC, brought a few to GA status, and reviewed a few for GA status. Overall, I'd say I've made very significant contributions to more than 100 BLP's, and minor contributions to a few hundred more during my 5 years at WP. Many of 'significant contribution BLPs' are listed in the Projects section of my user page in case anyone wants to see a partial list. Peace, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it, and would hence add you to the list of "neutral editors who should be allowed to have a go at this" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will recuse myself, since my admin status may color how others perceive me. (Midday's suggestion to look at a list of admins to find neutral editors isn't a very good one.) In addition, though Midday hasn't said it in so many words, my involvement would probably hinder their acceptance of any resulting version. I don't mind recusing myself, by the way, since I have no interest in Bryden and I hate editing biographies. BTW, I have faith in Keithbob and Bobrayner, and I can come up with a half a dozen other names, but I do wonder who'd want to touch this with a stick. One more thing and then I'll bow out. I really appreciate Obi's words. Here's the thing with involvement, as loosely defined as Midday does it. Robert Clark Young's article mentions a librarian in Tuscaloosa. It's entirely possible that this librarian is the one who "explained" belly button shots to me; last names weren't always mandatory in the bar I used to frequent. Does that mean I should stay away from the article? By the same token, I have on occasion defended Qworty's edits (SOME of them!); does that mean I should stay away from that article? I have on occasion worked with Obi (see Kristin Beck), and I have on occasion had harsh exchanges with them. Does that mean we two are "involved" with each other in a way that impedes our working together in a neutral manner? No. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have faith in Obiwankenobi's judgement. If he gives you the green light to edit the page as an involved editor, then I have no objections either. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support a topic ban for Middayexpress (and if CorporateM wants to volunteer for a topic ban, so be it). The former's ownership and conspiracy theories are causing real problems. I realise that some of the drama is hard to follow for people stumbling across this thread, but if Middayexpress now even takes the line that uninvolved members of WikiProject Cooperation are unable to edit the article neutrally... that's just absurd. bobrayner (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear, I did not say that uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members are necessarily unable to edit the article neutrally. I said that "Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM". In other words, I was simply pointing out an association that had not been previously been disclosed. Now that I've agreed with Obiwankenobi's suggestion to voluntarily recuse myself from the article-space and instead focus on civil talk page discourse, would you object if uninvolved WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members were to edit the page alongside the involved editors that Obiwankenobi okays and the uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members? Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think being members of the same wiki project is something that needs to be disclosed. I also don't want to be seen as an approver of who can edit, I was simply stating that for a few ppl I've looked at I see no problem personally with them editing. As for the Somalia project people, I say the more the merrier, so notify those projects neutrally and see who joins - they don't need permission from anyone here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; will do. Middayexpress (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is support for a topic ban from User:Drmies, User:Lexein, User:Bobrayner, User:Keithbob and User:Obiwankenobi with some saying we should both recuse voluntarily. And even Midday and myself seem to support it, save that Midday has additional conditions. There are no opposes, except that User:DGG has said that I should continue editing. I don't know how these drama boards work - is that enough to get an action on this? CorporateM (Talk) 12:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - I don't support a formal topic ban; instead I suggested a voluntary self-ban for both Midday and CorporateM, to allow some other editors to dig in and bring this article up to snuff.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are Obinwankenobi and Dr. Fleischman, and neither supports a topic ban. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. As for me, I support what Obiwankenobi does: voluntary self-recusing from article-space until the issue is resolved. Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Few people in this thread will (or should) take DrFleischman seriously. They have mistakenly branded CorporateM as a newly-established COI editor; that they have struck some of those comments doesn't take away from the fact that they are under some serious misapprehensions and don't seem to own up to it (in a hole, they keep digging). Their involvement, thus, prevents them from being an acceptably neutral editor in a tendentious BLP. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have had extensive interaction with CorporateM, and they are always VERY VERY cautious and "by the book". Even if they volunteer for it, I would oppose a topic ban for CorporateM. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a !vote on the original proposal? --Lexein (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just FYI - in the context of Midday's canvassing accusations, I have worked with North extensively on articles where I actually do have a COI, but I did not notify him/her of this string. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC


 * Strongly support topic ban. Mddayexpress has aso been editing in anti-Somaliland edits in other parts of wikipedia, such as trying to get Somaliland-related categories deleted. he oviously is not impartial in this area. Pass a Method   talk  15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I promised I wouldn't comment anymore in this discussion but this one really made me laugh out loud! I never realized that impartiality was a prerequisite to editing! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pass a Method is a longtime disruptive presence on the Somali-related pages. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I only just finished editing. A clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The categories that he alludes to (which he created) were, incidentally, removed by another editor, and one was ultimately deleted as well by an admin . Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban for Middayexpress It can be a mild one (shorter and automatically expiring).  Absolutely oppose even a voluntary topic ban of CorporateM. There is absolutely no reason to even consider that. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden
Would an admin like to summarize and close this 11,570 word thread?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Added me. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: User:Keithbob, User:CorporateM, User:Lexein, User:Bobrayner, User: Pass a Method, User:Drmies, User:North8000,
 * Oppose: User:Obiwankenobi, User:inayity

OK, now its a 12,320 word thread. Would an Admin like to summarize and close?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is incorrect. Pass a Method's vote doesn't count since he Wikihounded me here from another page. The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are User:Obiwankenobi and User:DrFleischman, and neither supports a topic ban, nor obviously do I. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. The actual summary should thus read: Voluntary self-recusing from the page accepted until issue resolved. Editing by WikiProject Cooperation, WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members on page allowed (see 00:09, 24 October 2013 comment above by Obiwankenobi). Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're clutching at straws. Of course Pass a Method's vote counts. We don't discount people cause you don't like them. Fleischman should be "counted", but his comments taken with a grain of salt since he...etc. If an admin closes this as "yes, topic ban", just for you, then it's not voluntary. Six vs. three (or one and a half, since really you're out and Fleischman's comments are tainted by inaccuracy) may not be much critical mass, but it may be enough since it's only for one specific article (and its talk page!). Drmies (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is fact. Pass a Method followed me yesterday to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I had only literally just finished editing. That is a clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The vote count is thus five to three, hardly a consensus. Per the appropriate notification clause I have also just alerted WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members to this discussion so that they may weigh in for the first time. Middayexpress (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible a broad topic ban is needed, if MiddayExpress is using Wikipedia to express his personal views against the secession of Somoliland project-wide. I find it unlikely that this editing pattern only exists on this particular BLP and the pattern of editing seems to be related to the article-subject's support of the country's secession. However, that is probably beyond the scope of this string, as is establishing whether there is some hounding going on. In any case, disqualifying participants from voting based on membership at a WikiProject is well.... yah.... There are actually no opposes to the topic ban, only difference in whether I should also voluntarily stay away from the page, whether the topic ban should be voluntary or forced, and if other conditions are applied. There is no need to hammer out these details - an admin should make a bold close and I will respect whatever their decision is, whether it involves my staying away from the article or not. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never added any personal views/comments to the Bryden page, so you're reaching there. Everything I did actually add was sourced; the most you can do is thus complain about the cited sources (which apparently includes Bryden's own alma mater). That makes this a standard content dispute. Pass a Method's vote also indeed doesn't count as its a clear example of Wikihounding. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, and within minutes of when I had replaced an image that he had added earlier there and voted along with two other editors to streamline the page's controversies section . Time stamps readily show this (incidentally, I was also later thanked for those edits by User:Gareth Griffith-Jones). As for the actual number of votes opposing a topic ban, there are three. Besides myself, User:DrFleischman has not supported the proposal. In fact, he actually appeared to recommend that you be sanctioned for your own behavior (his remark above from 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)). In his own post above from 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC) User:Obiwankenobi also clearly indicated that he would oppose a formal topic ban provided that I agreed to recuse myself from editing the article and focus instead on civil talk page discourse. I've agreed with those conditions. Despite this, you for some reason keep overlooking Obiwankenobi's position statement, even when he told you directly that "I don't support a formal topic ban; instead I suggested a voluntary self-ban for both Midday and CorporateM, to allow some other editors to dig in and bring this article up to snuff". For my part, I agree not to revert wholesale back to whatever the previous page version was after the self-recusing period has ended. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Patience please. The Horn of Africa Project members were only just contacted for the first time, and they should weigh in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So--you can 'contact' your editing friends at the Project, but when CorporateM does something like that it's conflict-of-interest generated 'ping'ing? Nice. And why should we wait? The Bryden thing has been going on for weeks, and this thread has been here for far too long. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * CorporateM's friend contacts are a fait accompli, and are largely the reason why the discussion has gone the way it has. Although Bryden is a Horn of Africa specialist and the UN's former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, the thread starter by contrast never bothered notifying the Horn of Africa projects of this discussion (which btw is allowed per appropriate notification: "an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following[...] the talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion"). I therefore took the initiative and notified those projects and "the user talk pages of concerned editors [including] editors known for expertise in the field", but only after having received the go ahead from User:Obiwankenobi (comment above from 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC): "As for the Somalia project people, I say the more the merrier, so notify those projects neutrally and see who joins - they don't need permission from anyone here"). That said, those project members/concerned editors should weigh in shortly for the first time. Closing the thread prematurely won't take into consideration their input, so it won't reflect the actual community consensus; just a selective portion of it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No banlet them agree to stand back: Let me first apologies this is so much text I am totally lost. I just cannot follow it or grasp all of the issues. I feel like I should weigh in. I am not experienced at editing on these kinds of things also. My position is all editors should on their own not continue to edit the page. but should be available to answer questions on the talk page.(i have a few) They should control themselves so as not to fly off into long tracts of text. B/c what is happening is there is more text on arguing than text in the article. I honestly want to know what the issue is with the article so I can assist in any way I can. but It would be better for all editors involved to agree to step back. state the issue on the TK page and let fresh eyes look it over. --Inayity (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

24.171.220.9 reverting, blanking on Calorie restriction
has been removing content from since October 20. They have only used edit summaries three times, and all of them have been fairly misleading. They have not attempted to discuss the issue on any talk page, despite a final warning about 8 hours ago. The editor has mostly removed content related to the implications of pregnant and young people, especially young people, undergoing calorie restriction. Many of their edits have also broken header formatting, and some have also introduced improper grammar and/or punctuation. Links to edits that they have done:, (might just be downright vandalism), , , , , , ,. I decided to bring the issue here because the edits aren't clear-cut vandalism, and they haven't broken 3RR. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧ S  14:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do block this IP; the edits are continuing. I disagree with User:SamX - the edits are vandalism - they sloppily remove material and and add material to leave the content broken (sentences cut off in the middle, etc) as in this dif from today and this dif from today and this dif from today and this dif from today.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

✅. Anon blocked for 3 days. Please consider using AIV in future. --GraemeL (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What?
Where is the Visual editor, i cant find it? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.191.190 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Following a discussion, Visual Editor is not currently available for unregistered users. If you create an account, you may opt-in to using it.  Further details are available here. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the visual editor is now invisible. Best thing, actually, from what I've heard. EEng (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Direct2D, NVIDA DirectWrite OpenGL related articles vanldism.
Reviewing the history of these articles, there appears to be ongoing vandalism since at least unknown and it has resulted in almost all the articles being protected. IP addresses such as 60.53.113.73 175.142.208.22 210.186.241.115 124.82.11.115 (all of which trace back to Malaysia.) There must be something to be done, and also an editor called EBusiness is actively harassed by them as well. GeForce articles are affected as well, because of this, they are almost always protected. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  05:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden
A little concerned about the activity on this article and whether it is fair to the article-subject. User:Keithbob and I seem to be on the same page - the article is over-editorialized and relies heavily on a single author, Robert Young, as a source. That author writes in an op-ed style and his depiction of events conflicts substantially with other sources. WP:BLP is relevant. User:Middayexpress feels the article should be negative and has argued in favor of using primary sources as proper material for contentious material about a BLP.

Keithbob and I have been accused of secretly being paid editors for Bell Pottinger and despite two BLP posts, 1 COIN post, and miles of Talk page discussion, there hasn't really been much progress. Not sure what better way to resolve the issue than post here in hopes that there will be more engagement. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaargh. This is a complicated matter that could do with a set of fresh eyes. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite misleading. The matter actually began when a self-admitted Bell Pottinger public relations employee and representative for Matthew Bryden, one HOgilvy, sought to clean up Bryden's wikipedia page on his client's behalf (c.f. ). Bryden is a controversial figure who was dismissed last year from the UN for poor performance as the UN's Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, a regional watchdog panel (c.f ). With this mandate, Bryden's Wikipedia PR representative contacted the CorporateM account above, who then proceeded to ping his wiki friends and basically tried to remove anything critical of Bryden. That includes everything from the fact that Bryden was fired to his previous place of residence according to his own alma mater. It later came to light almost by accident that CorporateM is himself a PR representative, a fact which he never bothered revealing on the article's talk page. However, on his own user page, CorporateM did express his position on conflict of interest as follows: : "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." This is in direct opposition to WP:COI's instruction that "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first." This past week, CorporateM deleted this surprising Position on COI revelation from his user page, though it is of course still stored in the page history. So basically, we have a situation where at least one PR representative was "helping" another PR representative clean up his client's wikipedia bio page, all the while believing that "we serve our client's interests exclusively". What's best for Wikipedia is instead apparently "unethical". Middayexpress (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User: CorporateM has publicly divulged their status as a PR rep in several forums and on several articles going back several months. He/she does not edit in areas where he/she is representing a client. He/she does edit other articles on WP where he/she is not representing a client and makes good faith additions to the further develop the project as a whole including commenting at RfC's and policy discussion and improving content on WP articles like Matthew Bryden.  I encourage any editor or Admin to scan the talk pages and decide for themselves which editor is pushing a point of view here. In particular this discussion where several uninvolved editors commented and criticized the use of editorials, self published and primary sources being used to malign the subject. Despite that consensus, it took a month and a thousand words of talk page discussion to remove them because of Middayexpress' continued--I didn't hear that--objections. Now, Middayexpress' last ditch effort is to make a personal attack on CorporateM (unfounded accusations with no diffs are personal attacks) and  using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute which is a violation of the WP:COI guideline.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should point out that Keithbob is one of CorporateM's aforementioned wiki friends that he pinged for support ("I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" ). They've basically been attempting to remove all critical material on Bryden, typically on the weakest of pretexts. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you're arguing against Editors who know each other from their time on Wikipedia collaborating together? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the pinging in this instance is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I think Middayexpress is saying these editors are proxying for each other (i.e. not using independent judgment) in order to work around the formal restrictions of WP:COI best practices, possibly in some sort of quid pro quo arrangement. E.g. you make my proposed edits and I make yours, and we each claim we have no COI for the changes we're making. Is that correct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the Bell Pottinger editor posted at COIN and User:Jreferee asked me to chip in on a volunteer basis. These kinds of personal attacks and conspiracy theories are standard fair for this article unfortunately... CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The quotes and difs above speak for themselves; no personal attacks necessary. As for the Bell Pottinger public relations representative, he indeed posted at COIN, and I linked to the very post where he said that he would do that. He also posted on CorporateM's talk page and repeatedly, typically requesting (and more often than not receiving) direct assistance. This was also not the first time that the account contacted CorporateM. They were apparently already acquainted before this affair . Missed that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm way off-track, CorporateM's admitted behavior is a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT, not to mention WP:COI; his/her statement that he/she serves only the client's interests and not Wikipedia's interests is clear evidence of WP:NOTHERE, and the decision to remove his/her COI disclosure is inexcusable. It's a pattern of terrible abuse of editing privileges, and harsh sanctions are appropriate IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that both CorporateM and KeithBob have exhibited extremely precocious editing skills for having only created their accounts in the last few weeks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC) stricken per apology previously made and deleted by another editor in good faith
 * Fleischman, what? CorporateM and Keithbob have been here for forever. And CorporateM's statement, cited above, is interpreted in a completely incorrect manner. Midday, I just reread your comments. You're stooping pretty low there. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly my fault since much of what I posted are CorporateM's own comments. I couldn't make that up if I tried. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about, Dr. Fleischman? Both those editors have been around for years. If you're going to snipe at people, at least try to keep it plausible even if not true. The same goes for the MEAT / COI / CANVAS / NOTHERE alphabet soup. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I've been here about 3-5 years now and have 16,000 edits and 13 GAs to my name. Also, it has been confirmed many-a-times when POV pushers attempt to use my COI disclosure as leverage that I may edit articles where I have no COI just like any volunteer. Midday's links and post show the type of extreme personal attacks and POV pushing we have come to expect. For example, I completely re-wrote my user-page, cut it in half, and he has selected a specific edit to make it seem like something nefarious is going on. It's just trolling and resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories in order to do whatever it takes to make sure the article reflects his point-of-view, rather than a neutral point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, all of the most telling difs and quotes in my post above are to CorporateM's own remarks. That includes his own longstanding Position on COI. It's unreasonable to expect people to turn a blind eye to this surprising revelation just because he deleted it a few days before posting here. That's actually all the more reason to notice it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Beginning at the middle of the Matthew Bryden article, it loses its focus of being a written account of Bryden and instead serves as a coatrack for the opinions of a variety of people, none of whom are Bryden. The article reads "According to author Michelle Shephard," "According to journalist Robert Young Pelton," "Puntland President Abdirahman Farole suggested that Bryden was," "Ahmed spent 30 minutes of a July speech criticizing Bryden,". None of these people qualify as experts on Matthew Bryden or qualify as experts on written accounts of another person's life. Their views belong in their own Wikipedia article or in an article on United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia, but not in the Matthew Bryden article. Some of source material does convey chronological life event information about Matthew Bryden, and that's fine for the biography article. However the rest needs to be removed from the article. Author Michelle Shephard ebook has a quote from Bryden, and an independent third party source republishing a Bryden quote could make that Bryden quote fair game for the Bryden biography article. Instead, Shephard's view of what that means is added to the Bryden article. That is not how source material should be used to develop a biography. As for COI, CorporateM sates he does not have a COI with the Matthew Bryden topic and no one has posted and diffs that establish otherwise. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * BLP indicates that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." That said, Farole and Ahmed are quoted because Bryden and his Monitoring Group accused them of wrongdoing, so their replies are appended for balance. Shephard is also a secondary source relaying Bryden's views on a political issue related to his previous position at the Monitoring Group. If you look at the Wikipedia bios of other controversial figures, they follow a similar model but are often way more critical (e.g. Avigdor Lieberman). This bio is actually pretty tame in comparison. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would support removing all of it as an interim solution, and re-introducing content there is consensus for. But some of that really does belong. CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of it belongs, including a lot of material that was removed for no legitimate reason. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In earlier discussions I supported including some of the material that Midday sought to keep, though not all of it. I can't remember if any of those items are mentioned above; it's on the record though. But in general I note three tendencies: that other editor (forget their name--it's on record too) was a bit too positive on the subject, Midday was much too negative and included material that IMO was unacceptable, and Corporate sailed mostly down the middle, though I did not agree with every one of their exclusions. But to my mind Corporate Minion was the most neutral of them all. Then again, this has been hammered out on the talk page and, I believe, on the BLPN board and possibly on a few user talk pages; for my money, I'd give Bobrayner free rein and let them have at it (Dr. Fleischman, we await your apology: sooner is always better than later). Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything I posted on Bryden is factual. But as I've learned, it's those facts themselves that are more often than not inconvenient. By contrast, the majority of CorporateM's edits were in agreement with his fellow public relations representative HOgilvy. There was very little divergence in opinion between the two. In hindsight, it's difficult to see how there could be since CorporateM apparently believes a PR rep's duty is to exclusively serve the interests of his/her client rather than Wikipedia's interests (his words). At any rate, I would like to find a middle ground with the PR reps/friends, but this will take some doing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your astute comments and observations. If you've visited the article talk page you will also notice that CorporateM has demonstrated an immense amount of patience on the talk page for months (and myself to a lesser degree). The article was highlighted at BLPN twice and outside eyes have come in but Midday seems to have an aversion to consensus and when CM and I walk away he skews the article again. So while I do support an uninvolved editor like User:Bobrayner making deletions as needed to create NPOV for the article I would also appreciate if some other folks could keep it on their watchlist as I think Corporate and I are pretty worn out from months of copious talk page activity with Midday. User Midday is a prolific editor who I'm sure has made many valuable contributions to the project.  I hope that he/she is able to step back and reconsider their approach to the Matthew Bryden BLP and move on to other more productive activities. Thanks to all who have given input here.  Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Patience obviously works both ways. On the other hand, pinging one's friends for support does not at all constitute outside involvement. Quite the opposite. The solution here is genuine outside involvement by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to prejudice or otherwise influence his/her actions. For this same reason, the editor(s) also cannot himself/herself be a public relations/media representative. Middayexpress (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would you think that just because someone is pinged by Corporate (or anyone else) they're automatically their "friend" and thus, as you suggest, incapable if independent judgment? The instances where I agree with you and disagreed with them is sufficient evidence of the falsehood of this premise. I like to think that Corporate pinged me for my extensive knowledge and impeccable judgment. As for "genuine outside involvement"--you have been editing articles in that (geographic) area for years, and by your own argument you could be discredited for having a COI; from the discussions it's clear that you also don't come to the negotiation table without prejudice. As far as I'm concerned that does not discredit you anymore than it does me and, I might add, before you know it (extending your argument not by much) any kind of involvement is suspicious and WP should only be edited by 12-year olds who know nothing about nothing, who couldn't point out Mogadishu on a map if it bit them in the ass, in the name of impartiality. Of course a PR rep's edit should be scrutinized carefully, as was done in this case by all parties, including Corporate--and I challenge you to find a PR person more transparent than Corporate (never mind the fact that he is not on anyone's payroll in this particular case, as far as I know) in their dealings with companies/articles/organizations where they might have a genuine COI. Besides, it's unlikely that four editors (counting myself) would all have the same damning POV in a case like this, which I think is another of your suggestions. I stand completely neutral towards the subject of this article, and my POV is NPOV. That doesn't make me right in individual editorial decisions, but whether they're made correctly or incorrectly, they're editorial decisions, unguided by any kind of partiality toward the involved governments, journalists, publications, freedom fighters, weapons dealers, non-governmental organizations, and Wikipedia editors. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's bizarre to me to keep reading that you somehow think that "pinging one's friends for support" is a bad thing. It's called collaboration and as long as one isn't canvassing Editors to come participate in a deletion decision, RfA or contentious discussion, it is a good practice that happens all over Wikipedia every day, often organized through WikiProjects or more informally. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CANVASS, there's an appropriate notification protocol to follow when seeking additional input. Pinging random friends -- which CorporateM certainly did; every editor he pinged was a prior amicable acquiantance of his, with no connection to the topic other than that (one actually gave him an award of some kind ) -- is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). WP:COI is also quite clear that "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". It's in the first paragraph and bolded for emphasis. This is in direct conflict with CorporateM's apparent general position on COI : "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." At any rate, given the foregoing, the only conceivable solution is genuine outside involvement i.e. by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions. This should be an acceptable compromise for all parties interested in a neutral page. Middayexpress (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you're wikilawyering, clutching at every straw because consensus might be against what it is that you want the article to present. One could read your commentary and opinions there as evidence of extreme bias against the subject of the article; your insistence on unreliable sources to make the article state that the subject was fired from that UN group could, hypothetically, serve as evidence. Mind you, that's based on actual things you said. HOgilvy clearly had a certain interest in the article, and so, I surmise, do you: HOgilvy in favor, you against. Corporate, Keithbob, me, Bobrayner, we are not (AFAIK) interested in the subject as such. And might I reiterate, for the now-bored onlooker, that Corporate got involved with this to prevent COI editing? This article, Middayexpress, is better off without you. If anyone still cares, the general pattern displayed in this thread is evident on the talk page as well. Midday was at pains to get an editorial from an online organization accepted as a reliable source; Corporate points out (in Talk:Matthew_Bryden) that Hiriian Online is not a reliable source. Look at the paragraph starting "Here we go", where Corporate makes a pretty convincing case that the website is run by a lobbying group. Midday's response? "Policies and guidelines come up in many Wikipedia discussions..." followed by a complete avoidance of the issue. This is why Midday's contributions here are ultimately useless and their behavior frustrating. They bring sources and context, which is helpful, and refuse to back off even after everyone else (that is, four editors, not counting HOgilvy of course--note 's contributions) disagrees with them. And now this interminable thread, full of wishy-washy nonsense about suspected involvement when there is not a shred of evidence of foul play on Corporate's side, again halting progress on the article: I propose a topic ban for this article for MiddayExpress. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors named above are CorporateM's wiki friends who he pinged for input. They are certainly not outside editors in this particular instance, and have no connection with the topic other than that shared friendship. So the fact that they see eye-to-eye on pretty much everything isn't exactly unexpected. This is the definition of inappropriate notification, as the WP:COI links and quote above show. If I were to have done the same (as I easily could've, btw), CorporateM et al. would surely in turn have complained about it. This is almost certain since, rather ironically, he already complained that my contacting another editor who by contrast had already edited the page would constitute canvassing . At any rate, my interest in the article is as a WikiProject Somalia member, which this bio on the former UN Coordinator of the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group certainly falls under. It's in this capacity that I edited the page, just like any other Project page. What first caught my attention was some editor (CorporateM) removing huge swathes of material from the bio with no prior talk page explanation or discussion. I did notice, though, one post by another account (HOgilvy) requesting a cleanup of some sort . This account described himself as as a Bell Pottinger public relations representative and said that Bryden was his client. We already had problems in the past on other Project pages with Bell Pottinger PR reps, so that disclosure certainly caught my eye as well. I assumed that there was some sort of connection between the edits, which was confirmed when CorporateM linked me to a COIN discussion that HOgilvy had posted where he requested assistance. Since then, what I've been trying to do is retain some sort of balance on the article. This has been a challenge when CorporateM et al. seem to be believe that any material critical of Bryden is unacceptable, not just the Hiiraan Online piece (see here for a discussion of that source in its proper context). However, Bryden is a controversial figure on the Horn of Africa political scene, so some degree of criticism is to be expected. Attempting to ban me or any other editor from the topic is not a solution, as all that does is remove any semblance of balance from the page. The only neutral solution is what Keithbob proposed above i.e. entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party. My one condition is that this editor(s) should not have had any prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties since that might serve to influence his/her actions. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think any objective observer who looks at the talk page discussions will see your comments for what they're worth; at the very least, they'll see that you are incorrect in your easy claim that everyone pinged saw eye to eye with Corporate. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: Of the topic-ban per user:Drmies. A couple clarifications are in order though. The problem with the sources were that they were op-eds written by opposing political interests, not that they were published by Hiiran online, which may be a reliable source in other cases. And the UN DID fire Bryden, or at the very least they claim to have. If a new editor not previously involved (User:bobrayner was mentioned a couple times) wants to take a crack at it, I wouldn't mind abstaining as well for the sake of keeping the peace. CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The only source for the firing is a report by the Inner City Press--and I assume that this document, a primary source which does nothing more than list the next members of the UN Monitoring Group and says nothing about Bryden, is still in the article at Midday's insistence. Thanks for the other clarification as well. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A reasonable point of discussion between civil and thoughtful editors. IMO, Inner City Press does seem like it may be a bit of an advocacy-type source. You know, one of those, "we uncover the truth not covered by mainstream media" types. And employers will often claim they did the firing while employees have a different POV. In this case in particular there is a political backdrop that makes it more complicated as well. I think Inner City Press may be acceptable to use, as long as it's done with caution. But that is a discussion best left for another time, after an environment is created where a thoughtful and civil discussion can occur. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Inner City Press is an accredited media agency at the UN headquarters, the Federal Reserve and various other agencies . This is why its byline location is signed "United Nations", and how it managed to report on Bryden's dismissal as it was happening, . This as well is explained on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasoning given here by and others to suggest CorporateM is meating brins up an interesting hypothetical. Suppose I edit a certain article and think a section needs to be rewritten. Another user who also edits the article thinks the same. By the explanation given by some, I am violating WP:MEAT.  Konveyor   Belt  04:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, at least in my mind. My understanding is that CorporateM and KeithBob were proxying for each other rather than exercising independent judgment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The solution seems to be to entrust the page to an uninvolved editor(s) with no prior association with any of the involved parties. This uninvolved editor(s) would then gradually edit the page, explaining each edit on the talk page as he/she went along. The editor(s) would also consider/hear the feedback of the erstwhile involved parties. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion focuses on the content dispute, rather than the conduct dispute, and misses the bigger point. CorporateM has admitted (here for example) he/she frequently edits as a paid advocate, he/she serves his/her client's interests exclusively (see here) in direct violation of WP:COI's prime directive. (bolded in first para: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") My understanding is that Middayexpress has accused CorporateM and KeithBob of proxying for each other, and those accusations should be taken seriously in light of these COI issues. Regardless, even if they're incorrect, by his/her own admissions CorporateM has committed gross violations of WP:COI and should be sanctioned accordingly. Let's not get bogged down in the content dispute; that's what DR is for. As for the proposal to topic ban Middayexpress, I make the (very reasonable) request that WP policy be cited and discussed before sanctions are imposed simply for slowing down "progress" on an article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * CorporateM's userpage doesn't quite say that. Cherrypicking a diff and then misrepresenting it as a violation of a guideline (not a policy) in order to call for sanctions is a Bad Thing. And then you go on to ask for a policy basis for topic-banning Middayexpress? That's an impressive feat of doublethink. You're really not helping your case here; if you think the facts support your way forward, bring some actual facts - or step aside. We have enough drama already, we don't need people making up more. bobrayner (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with my so-called cherry picking? Is anyone even going to address Middayexpress's allegations, or are we choosing to sweep them under the rug? And I thought WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE were frequently cited in support of sanctions? And, again, what did Middayexpress do wrong? I'm not saying he/she did nothing wrong, just that as a general practice it would be a good and reasonable thing to identify what rule was violated before sanctions are imposed. What am I missing here? (P.S. There's no reason for me to "step aside" when I have no dog in this fight and I'm not an administrator.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is not what I'm arguing. Please see below for that and the way forward from here. Middayexpress (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering this discussion is going to get archived soon, can we refocus on finding resolution? Someone should suggest a course of action, such as a topic ban, article-protection, mediation, whatever in a new sub-section, for voting and consensus so the issue can get fixed. It's not as if all this back and forth sniping is productive - and I am concerned it will get archived without any meaningful solution, as has already occurred in the past at BLP and COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party has already been proposed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: The issue is essentially a content dispute, which unfortunately seems to have gotten out of hand. It makes little outward sense when you consider the fact that although CorporateM has admitted to being a paid public relations representative, he insists that Bryden is not his client. CorporateM is also not a WikiProject Somalia or WikiProject Eritrea member. In other words, he has no declared connection to the topic. His stated reason for editing the page is that he was pinged to do so at COIN. Besides CorporateM's stated Position on COI, what makes the situation especially awkward is that HOgilvy is himself a paid PR rep and specifically for Bryden. HOgilvy and CorporateM also apparently previously worked on something else together. So although CorporateM in this instance appears to have volunteered his services, he was hardly a neutral volunteer to begin with. Given the foregoing, the simplest solution to the impasse would be to entrust editing of the page to a neutral third party i.e. to a genuinely uninvolved editor(s), with no prior association with any of the involved parties that might influence his/her actions. He/she would then follow the protocol suggested above at 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like there may be some common ground here, but I'm no less troubled than before by your allegations. Drmies et al: I understand this is a nasty can of worms, but it represents a potentially pervasive practice of end-running around the formalities of WP:COI that, IMO, could damage WP and its credibility in the long run. If the allegations are true, then that has troubling ramifications not just on the accused editors but on the whole community, particularly in light of the recent related media stories about paid editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would this by any chance be one of the paid editing stories in question? I actually dealt directly with the "Biggleswiki" Bell Pottinger public relations representative that is profiled in that piece, and on the very Dahabshiil wiki page that is also mentioned therein (another WikiProject Somalia page, incidentally). Hence, my preference for entrusting the Bryden page to uninvolved volunteer editors. Middayexpress (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, I appreciate your comments. DrFleischman, there is no reason to presume that just because Corp has a fully disclosed COI in one area or another, they should have some kind of blatant COI here--that doesn't make him necessarily neutral, but that's another matter. I think that three editors have said that by now; time to listen--you can't prove that Corp has a COI here just because they say they have one somewhere else. Frankly, your claim is a bit irritating, and I think you're in a hole and should stop digging. (For instance, I think you're inflating Midday's "allegations" in order to save your first unfortunate remark here.) Let me reiterate what I indicated before: I think Midday, Corp, etc. are in principle perfectly fine as editors for this article--the case for HOgilvy is obviously different. My beef is with Midday's behavior in the discussion, which I consider to be less than helpful, but I am not claiming they should be topic-banned because they have a COI or are incapable of editing neutrally, not at all. And, again reiterating, I do not agree with how Midday seems to define "uninvolved", but that's a matter of judgment. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * True, I don't see any direct evidence of a COI, but based on Middayexpress's allegations one wouldn't expect to find any. There would be circumstantial evidence in the form of communications between and among the conspiring parties, which is what Middayexpress may have been pointing to. I agree that these communications viewed in isolation aren't a problem (and in hindsight, they might not constitute improper canvassing) but are they signs of a larger, very bad pattern? We don't know because no one cares to take the allegations seriously. I find it alarming that CorporateM's actions would receive zero scrutiny (as far as I can tell) when he/she has stated that he/she regularly edits in a paid capacity while representing his/her clients' interests exclusively and at the expense of the project. Does CorporateM get a free pass because of his/her lengthy editing history and friendly manner? Don't mind me, I'm just the canary in the coal mine. Nothing to see here. This will be my last comment in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that would be the most obvious example of a straw man - putting words in my mouth like "at the expense of the project". When in actuality, my words are more like "It is in the client's best interest I think. The best way to ensure the durability of the content and deflect COI criticisms is to simply make sure the content itself is exceptional" regarding bringing my COI works up to Good Article status. COI has almost nothing to do with this article whatsoever, except that a PR rep brought the article to the community's attention by asking us to add more primary sources. My response instead was to delete most of the article, which relied heavily on junk sources. The COI and canvassing accusations are just the actions of an editor frustrated that consensus is not in their favor and determined to make the article reflect their point-of-view by resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Midday is the one violating WP:COI by making unfounded COI accusations in an attempt to win an argument.


 * In any case, this string has now become sufficiently long and convoluted enough, full of personal attacks and a pouncing comment from Midday on every editor with input, it's becoming increasingly unlikely anyone will bother to read the entire string or care to get involved. Who would volunteer to dive head-first into so much drama? CorporateM (Talk) 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfounded accusations? Your user page of longstanding stated that you are a paid editor and that your Position on COI is that "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." Those are your own words, not mine. Pinging other users with no connection to the topic at hand is also an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). And please don't argue that you didn't ping them cause you did, and you said that you would too (viz. "I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" ; "I've attempted to summarize the issues here and asked Drmies to get involved so we could have more than two editors and maybe figure things out" ). These are your own words and actions, so be sure to assume responsiblity for them. Middayexpress (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
Per the discussion above, I suggest voluntary topic bans for Midday and myself, from article-space and Talk-space, while a new, previously uninvolved editor(s) from this board boldly make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: As nominator. Plenty of other articles for us to work on and no reason to feed the drama on this one. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Conditional support: I would support the proposal above for voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it: a) applies to all the involved parties equally, b) is temporary/lasts until the issue is resolved, c) the uninvolved editor(s) has had no previous dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions, d) the uninvolved editor(s) for the same reason must be a volunteer and not a paid editor. Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that would disqualify all other editors mentioned here, no? (Including me, I suppose.) Then who's left who cares? Or, I don't see why bobrayner and Keithbob and Lexein and perhaps others should be excluded just because the two main parties are recused. I'll gladly recuse myself, since I have little interest in this biography, and I am sure you don't want me editing that article, but I see no grounds to disqualify the others--except, again, for HOgilvy who, setting aside the presumption of good faith I usually have, should probably not be editing this article. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a Bryden official public relations representative, WP:COISELF bars HOgilvy from editing the page directly. Keithbob and Lexein were both pinged to the page by CorporateM. Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM. To ensure neutrality, the uninvolved editor(s) shouldn't have any previous associations or dealings with any of the involved parties (myself included). The List of administrators seems a neutral place to select a candidate(s) from. Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not acceptable. I see no valid reason to bar those editors from editing the article. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Um, COI PR article editing by HOgilvy for small corrections with WP:IRS sources, and COI PR discussion on talk page for everything else, would be appropriate, IMHO). --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, seeing as how WP:COISELF stipulates that "you should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics[...] This includes people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life[...] If you have a personal connection to a topic or a person, (such as being an employee, familial ties, or other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you really that deliberately dimwitted? I choose my words very carefully, as in "small corrections", just as allowed explicitly in WP:COI, and "discussion on talk page for everything else", just as explicitly stated in WP:COI. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insults are uncalled for (see WP:CIV). That said, the only exception WP:COI makes in this regard is with defamation or a serious error, and even here there's a very involved administrative protocol that must concurrently be followed: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly[...] If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons." Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your selective reading notwithstanding, I presume. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keithbob and Lexein participated in the talk page discussion after being pinged by CorporateM. Keithbob also edited the page itself. That makes them involved editors. This proposal is for a new, previously uninvolved editor(s). Middayexpress (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, with respect, you're really going about this all wrong. Look at my edit history. Take me to any disciplinary or sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry noticeboard you like. Not only will any kind of charge you could possibly fabricate be instantly thrown out, but you'd better be wary of WP:BOOMERANG. I'll edit any article I want, and I'll discuss on any article talk page I want, because I've never been article-banned, topic-banned, blocked, or disciplined anywhere, in seven years here. I'll delete claims sourced by unreliable or biased sources everywhere I find them, because you don't get to turn Wikipedia into your own personal attack forum. And I'll support on-policy edits by any editor I choose, based on my experience and familiarity with relevant policies, namely WP:BLP. If it takes this ANI for you to learn how to edit neutrally, so be it. Learn or be banned, that's my advice to you. Don't say I didn't warn you: I warned you directly that you really wouldn't like it if I got involved. Do you know why? Because you're wrong about nearly every claim you've made, and I'm not wrong. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please settle down and kindly stop WP:SHOUTing. You are putting words in my mouth and answering allegations that were never even made. Everything that I actually indicated in my last comment is factual. There is a difference between appropriate notification for input and inappropriate notification; if there wasn't, the canvassing policy would serve no purpose. Pinging/contacting an editor with no connection to the topic -- other than the fact that they happen to be friends or acquaintances -- is a clear example of inappropriate notification: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)[...] Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand[...] Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). This happens to be what CorporateM did (another e.g.: "I was even more surprised that User:Lexein or someone else didn't revert him back[...] But if nobody else does the reverting, than it is inappropriate for me to get into an edit-war just between the two of us" ). If I had done the same, this surely would not have been difficult to appreciate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have frequently worked with Corporate M. When he edits for a client, he is scrupulously neutral, though his style still sometimes shows traces of his long experience in the PR industry,. He also edits more generally, andI respect his courageous willingness --especially  for someone himself known for his declared COI editing--  to work in areas which have been thoroughly disrupted by others editors with a declared or undeclared  COI.  When he does work in these areas I trust both his objectivity and judgement, including his awareness of the problems that may be present in other people's editing. I have not myself investigated the sources in this area, but if anyone can straighten them out, he can do so, and so far from banning him from the subject, I think we should be encouraging him to take it in hand. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that my COI work is actually related to this article, but I am both flattered, but hesitant to accept User:DGG's compliments. Sometimes I over-compensate for my COI and other times it shows more than I think. But where I do have a COI, I lean on other editors to keep me on the straight and narrow and they rarely fail me. Since I do not have a COI here, it's a bit of an offshoot topic. If someone wants to discuss my COI work, they should start a separate string at WP:COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] In addition to User:CorporateM, User:Drmies and myself, other editors like User:Lexein, User:HOgilvy and User:DGG, have been active on the talk page. Maybe they would like to comment on this situation.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that concerns for this article have been posted recently at BLPN by User:Jreferee on Sept 2nd and by CorporateM on Sept 13th.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of this has anything to do with "pinging" or any sort of deliberate ganging up by experienced editors. It only has to do with awful bias by an intransigent editor, PR editing done without the cleanest possible hands, and a bunch of long time editors (including one open PR editor editing cleanly outside his PR area) stepping in to try to clean up the toxic, biased, badly sourced mess. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has plenty to do with pinging/inappropriate notification. Had that not happened (or had I been the one doing the pinging), the proceedings and involved parties would have been (and indeed were up to that point) very different. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it up. I couldn't do a better job of getting you topic banned than exactly what you're doing. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors' only concern should be to create as reliable an encyclopedia as possible. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * what you're doing here? We always exclude unreliable sources and avoid bias and unbalanced and unattributed sourcing in BLP, but that's not your thing, I guess. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. I will be sure to keep that in mind. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support voluntary topic ban by Middayexpress, voluntary article-edit ban by HOgilvy. By wanting everyone out of the pool, Middayexpress assumes bad faith, and wholeheartedly declares the pool contaminated, and so de rigeur supports reverting the article back to before the "firing" edits were added. You don't evacuate the pool and then just leave the turd floating in it. Alternatively, Middayexpress either trusts experienced editors who understand BLP and writing neutrally, or not. If so, Middayexpress will voluntarily self-topic ban. If not, then we know Middayexpress's agenda. What Middayexpress fails to understand that even the worst news can be presented neutrally, and attributed to the source, so the reader can immediately glean the apparent bias in the source. See? Done. One sentence. In my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not at all the situation or what transpired. The fact is, if I had a so-called "agenda", I wouldn't be willing to entrust the article to an uninvolved volunteer editor(s) as I've repeatedly proposed. You'll note above the link I produced pointing to the List of Wikipedia administrators... now surely there's no better place to select a genuinely neutral candidate from. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretend as much as you like, but noone is buying it. Your take on events is quite skewed and not at all in line with policy, guideline, or essay. Nice try. Plus, again, you fail to address your lack of comprehension of neutral writing, and fail to respect that comprehension and skill practiced by others. The fact that I object to your failures has no effect on my ability to be neutral with respect to article content, even to the extent of trivially and completely fixing all of your mistakes in one step. You continue to fail to ask for help from knowledgeable editors who really know how to accomplish neutral writing. Your inability to discuss effectively is evident from your edit count and edit history, given that only about (generously) eight percent of your edits have been performed in Talk pages. Only your voluntary withdrawal from that article, and corrective involvement directly in it by myself and other editors who have earned my respect, will save it. Your demand that anyone who has even discussed the article stop editing it is a transparent gambit, and it is in bad faith. Such a demand would, if in good faith, be accompanied by a willingness to revert to before your edits. Hence, your demand is in bad faith. Answer my question: do you want me to get involved? I haven't gotten involved in the editing of the article yet, in case you hadn't noticed. Consider your answer carefully. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal jabs aside, as one of the main contributors to WikiProject Somalia, I am a knowledgeable editor in my own right and have certainly helped build many a project page. That is why most of my contributions are indeed to article-space. Project members can vouch for that. As for the article in question, I never demanded that anyone who has even discussed the page stop editing it. I pointed out that the proposal CorporateM made was for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)", and I indicated that I supported a voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it applied to all the involved parties equally. Anyway, that was a while ago, prior to Obiwankenobi's helpful remarks, after which I agreed to his suggestions, including recusing myself from the article-space and instead engaging in civil talk page discourse. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't say you didn't: you did. Are you really that deliberately ignorant of what you wrote? Now I dread even looking at WikiProject Somalia, given the gaming and bad faith editing and bad faith accusations you've spread around here. I abhor the now necessary task having to vet every single claim and cited source you've ever added anywhere. Just because you've gotten away with something for apparently years doesn't mean you were ever right about any of it. 80,000 edits of the low quality you performed at the BLP under dispute? Horrifying to consider. You just don't seem to get it. Stop discussing on article Talk page as long as you persist in campaigning against the letter and spirit of BLP. Article Talk is not your private learning experience zone; do that at IRC, your own Talk page, and Help. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't know anything about me and vice versa. We only just met the other day asfaik. You are also not in a position to tell me what to do. For the rest, please see WP:CIV. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress

 * Support as nominator for persistent counter-consensus editing and disruptive Talk page participation, such as abusive COI accusations, ABF, personal attacks, etc. As mentioned above, I would volunteer for an IBAN myself to reduce drama, but it doesn't seem like it would matter - being that I can't force others to volunteer for one and if we all the involved editors withdrew, there would be no one left to edit the article. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Based on this thread and my experience on the talk page there doesn't seem to be much willingness to collaborate or respect consensus. The subject of this BLP deserves neutral editing by this community. If Midday is topic banned I would be happy to walk away from the BLP and allow any other editors to adjust it as they see fit. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The discussion was between myself, Bryden's official PR rep, another paid editor/CorporateM, and acquaintances of CorporateM's that he later on pinged for input (such as Keithbob above). Most of the actual editing, however, was between myself, CorporateM and Keithbob, and took place after the initial discussion page posts by CorporateM's other pinged parties. So talk of a retroactively applicable consensus does not apply. That said, I indicated earlier that like CorporateM, I was willing to voluntarily withdraw from editing the page until the content issue is resolved. However, note that the stated proposal was only for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)". To ensure neutrality, my suggestion was that this new, previously uninvolved editor(s) is selected from the List of Wikipedia administrators rather than this board. This seems to have fallen on deaf ears, though, and instead the very editors that CorporateM pinged for support are now ironically trying to topic ban me from the page. Clearly, there's a misunderstanding here about what constitutes WP:CANVASSING. I'll contact the editors who drafted that policy for clarification. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Why you'd want an admin to do this job is not clear to me. What CorporateM was supposed to be canvassing about is also not clear. CorporateM's messages were limited, neutral, and open--and they would have to be non-partisan, since he cannot possibly know what I would think of Bryden and his biography (in part because he couldn't, in part because I didn't have any thoughts on a man I'd never heard of before). Drmies (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just it. The problem is both in the choice of editors ("users with no significant connection to the topic at hand") and the notification method used/pinging ("soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). One obviously doesn't ping strangers, only people one already knows/acquaintances. Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I was asked by Middayexpress to opine on the issue of WP:CANVASS here, as I'd been involved in editing that policy and proposing changes in the past. This is a delicate situation. I've looked over the notifications by CorporateM, and while they were generally neutral, there were targeted at a specific set of experienced editors, some of whom presumably have had interactions with CorporateM in the past (in what guise I haven't taken the time to dig). I don't think this was a chummy notification of CorporateM's best pals, but the selection of editors could have been biased towards editors who CorporateM may have believed would agree with them on the general issue of sourcing around BLPs - this could have been unconscious or perhaps it didn't even happen; another perfectly reasonable explanation is that CorporateM selected a few wise editors who had deep experience in BLPs w/o any particular thought as to how they would come down on any particular side of a content dispute. This is the reason the canvassing policy specifically asks you not to target specific users unless you can demonstrate some previous involvement, to avoid the appearance of vote stacking. Nonetheless, on the scale of 1-10 of canvass violations, I would rate this at about a 2, since this is not an RFC, nor an AFD, and there isn't any !voting going on here, rather it is a slow simmering content dispute, into which it is almost always a good idea to add a few more neutral heads, and such collaboration happens all the time - indeed, DrMies talk page is a veritable cornicopia of "Hi Drmies, something's happening at this article you've never touched before, would you mind taking a look?" Thus, CorporateM's idea of bringing more bodies to the party was a good one, I just think in retrospect given the blowback and the rather tense editing which precluded it, it could have been handled in a bit more of a collaborative fashion, and with a notification that was slightly more neutral (for example, here we have "Well, instead I started taking a heavy axe to it, because it was full of primary sources, op-eds and the like. When I started cutting the controversies too, I started bumping into disagreements and edit-conflicts, etc. with another editor." - it's not quite neutral, as they are positioning themselves in the "right" - e.g. who wouldn't want to cut primary sources and op-eds, and the other editor in the "wrong", because they disagreed). I myself try to use pls for any such notifications, without adding too much comment. Another way would have been proposing/agreeing upon a set of neutral/uninvolved editors along with Middayexpress who would be notified, or by using dispute resolution / 3rd opinion or other facilities available for these situations. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this merits much sanction, except perhaps walking CorporateM past the fish market so they can smell the fresh trout - but in my mind this isn't worth even a minnow.
 * I do feel in general, given the tenor of the conversation above, the two key actors involved to date, Middayexpress and CorporateM, should voluntarily step away from the article for the time being, and a broader set of notifications about this article should be placed at 3-5 notice boards/wiki projects to get more neutral eyes on the article. I would also strongly suggest to Middayexpress (and others) that they also assume good faith w.r.t CorporateM - I haven't had many (or any?) interactions with them but from afar they are certainly one of the more full-o-disclosure paid editors at the project - we have oodles of COI editors who never declare themselves as such, and CorporateM seems to be much more circumspect than others - as such, we should give them the benefit of the doubt here and not make accusations of some sort of behind-the-scenes quid pro quo arrangement. Ultimately, this is a content dispute, so we should all simmer down on the alphabet soup of accusations, provide some broad (and repeated if necessary) notifications to attract some other editors to the cause, and focus on the article content. An instructive example can be found at Robert_Clark_Young, who committed several "crimes" against the wiki, yet the article itself is rather neutral, balanced, and well sourced. The sausage factory that made it that way was a bit ugly, but ultimately commonsense and reason and calm thinking prevailed. If we can do it for Young, we can do it for Bryden. There isn't a rush on Bryden's article, and I think setting up some general principles for sourcing (what sources should be allowed) and coming to rough consensus around that, then rebuilding the article around those is the best path. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on my brief reading to date, I would oppose a formal topic ban for Middayexpress at this point, provided they ease up on the alphabet soup of accusations, and consider self-recusing themselves from edits to the article and participating in a civil/non-combative manner on the talk page instead.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the refreshingly even-handed assessment, Obiwankenobi. I do not object to self-recusing myself from edits to the article-space and focusing instead on civil talk page discourse. The Robert Clark Young example cited above is especially helpful; I agree that that indeed is an instructive model to follow. Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did we really have to bring up that example? Obi? That's a painful blast from the past... Thanks, BTW, for that lengthy analysis: your time and effort are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A few other thoughts - on the subject of neutral editors, I don't know most participating there except Drmies, who is a deeply experienced editor on BLPs, so I would be very comfortable with his neutrality on this subject. My perusal of the talk page also suggests that the other editors who came into the discussion - even if the notification wasn't 100% ideal - are arguing from a position of policy and BLP, and even though they disagree with you at points I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. It can be hard to write a neutral piece when most pieces are negative, so this requires some delicate handling, and patience. I also think the one editor with a proclaimed COI has been very forthright about same, so we shouldn't shame them for having openly declared a COI and proposing edits on the talk page. I can see from your history that you edit a lot of articles on Somalia and are well versed on the region and issues thereof, but you need to be careful to ensure your own views aren't coloring your approach on this article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do edit a lot of WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea pages, as I am a member of both Projects. That's what brought me to the Bryden page (he's the former Coordinator for the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group). My skepticism with regard to the neutrality of public relations representatives was shaped by a previous encounter with another such PR rep on the Dahabshiil project page. He didn't disclose that he worked for Bell Pottinger and that Dahabshiil was his client, and there was a big scandal over this. HOgilvy did, however, disclose that Bryden was his client and I commended him for that, though I gotta admit I was still a little apprehensive about the whole thing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of information: I have participated at BLPN for years and have almost 300 edits to that noticeboard alone. I have written a few BLP's, reviewed a few at AfC, brought a few to GA status, and reviewed a few for GA status. Overall, I'd say I've made very significant contributions to more than 100 BLP's, and minor contributions to a few hundred more during my 5 years at WP. Many of 'significant contribution BLPs' are listed in the Projects section of my user page in case anyone wants to see a partial list. Peace, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it, and would hence add you to the list of "neutral editors who should be allowed to have a go at this" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will recuse myself, since my admin status may color how others perceive me. (Midday's suggestion to look at a list of admins to find neutral editors isn't a very good one.) In addition, though Midday hasn't said it in so many words, my involvement would probably hinder their acceptance of any resulting version. I don't mind recusing myself, by the way, since I have no interest in Bryden and I hate editing biographies. BTW, I have faith in Keithbob and Bobrayner, and I can come up with a half a dozen other names, but I do wonder who'd want to touch this with a stick. One more thing and then I'll bow out. I really appreciate Obi's words. Here's the thing with involvement, as loosely defined as Midday does it. Robert Clark Young's article mentions a librarian in Tuscaloosa. It's entirely possible that this librarian is the one who "explained" belly button shots to me; last names weren't always mandatory in the bar I used to frequent. Does that mean I should stay away from the article? By the same token, I have on occasion defended Qworty's edits (SOME of them!); does that mean I should stay away from that article? I have on occasion worked with Obi (see Kristin Beck), and I have on occasion had harsh exchanges with them. Does that mean we two are "involved" with each other in a way that impedes our working together in a neutral manner? No. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have faith in Obiwankenobi's judgement. If he gives you the green light to edit the page as an involved editor, then I have no objections either. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support a topic ban for Middayexpress (and if CorporateM wants to volunteer for a topic ban, so be it). The former's ownership and conspiracy theories are causing real problems. I realise that some of the drama is hard to follow for people stumbling across this thread, but if Middayexpress now even takes the line that uninvolved members of WikiProject Cooperation are unable to edit the article neutrally... that's just absurd. bobrayner (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear, I did not say that uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members are necessarily unable to edit the article neutrally. I said that "Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM". In other words, I was simply pointing out an association that had not been previously been disclosed. Now that I've agreed with Obiwankenobi's suggestion to voluntarily recuse myself from the article-space and instead focus on civil talk page discourse, would you object if uninvolved WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members were to edit the page alongside the involved editors that Obiwankenobi okays and the uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members? Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think being members of the same wiki project is something that needs to be disclosed. I also don't want to be seen as an approver of who can edit, I was simply stating that for a few ppl I've looked at I see no problem personally with them editing. As for the Somalia project people, I say the more the merrier, so notify those projects neutrally and see who joins - they don't need permission from anyone here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; will do. Middayexpress (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is support for a topic ban from User:Drmies, User:Lexein, User:Bobrayner, User:Keithbob and User:Obiwankenobi with some saying we should both recuse voluntarily. And even Midday and myself seem to support it, save that Midday has additional conditions. There are no opposes, except that User:DGG has said that I should continue editing. I don't know how these drama boards work - is that enough to get an action on this? CorporateM (Talk) 12:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - I don't support a formal topic ban; instead I suggested a voluntary self-ban for both Midday and CorporateM, to allow some other editors to dig in and bring this article up to snuff.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are Obinwankenobi and Dr. Fleischman, and neither supports a topic ban. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. As for me, I support what Obiwankenobi does: voluntary self-recusing from article-space until the issue is resolved. Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Few people in this thread will (or should) take DrFleischman seriously. They have mistakenly branded CorporateM as a newly-established COI editor; that they have struck some of those comments doesn't take away from the fact that they are under some serious misapprehensions and don't seem to own up to it (in a hole, they keep digging). Their involvement, thus, prevents them from being an acceptably neutral editor in a tendentious BLP. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have had extensive interaction with CorporateM, and they are always VERY VERY cautious and "by the book". Even if they volunteer for it, I would oppose a topic ban for CorporateM. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a !vote on the original proposal? --Lexein (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just FYI - in the context of Midday's canvassing accusations, I have worked with North extensively on articles where I actually do have a COI, but I did not notify him/her of this string. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC


 * Strongly support topic ban. Mddayexpress has aso been editing in anti-Somaliland edits in other parts of wikipedia, such as trying to get Somaliland-related categories deleted. he oviously is not impartial in this area. Pass a Method   talk  15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I promised I wouldn't comment anymore in this discussion but this one really made me laugh out loud! I never realized that impartiality was a prerequisite to editing! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pass a Method is a longtime disruptive presence on the Somali-related pages. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I only just finished editing. A clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The categories that he alludes to (which he created) were, incidentally, removed by another editor, and one was ultimately deleted as well by an admin . Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban for Middayexpress It can be a mild one (shorter and automatically expiring).  Absolutely oppose even a voluntary topic ban of CorporateM. There is absolutely no reason to even consider that. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden
Would an admin like to summarize and close this 11,570 word thread?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Added me. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: User:Keithbob, User:CorporateM, User:Lexein, User:Bobrayner, User: Pass a Method, User:Drmies, User:North8000,
 * Oppose: User:Obiwankenobi, User:inayity

OK, now its a 12,320 word thread. Would an Admin like to summarize and close?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is incorrect. Pass a Method's vote doesn't count since he Wikihounded me here from another page. The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are User:Obiwankenobi and User:DrFleischman, and neither supports a topic ban, nor obviously do I. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. The actual summary should thus read: Voluntary self-recusing from the page accepted until issue resolved. Editing by WikiProject Cooperation, WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members on page allowed (see 00:09, 24 October 2013 comment above by Obiwankenobi). Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're clutching at straws. Of course Pass a Method's vote counts. We don't discount people cause you don't like them. Fleischman should be "counted", but his comments taken with a grain of salt since he...etc. If an admin closes this as "yes, topic ban", just for you, then it's not voluntary. Six vs. three (or one and a half, since really you're out and Fleischman's comments are tainted by inaccuracy) may not be much critical mass, but it may be enough since it's only for one specific article (and its talk page!). Drmies (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is fact. Pass a Method followed me yesterday to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I had only literally just finished editing. That is a clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The vote count is thus five to three, hardly a consensus. Per the appropriate notification clause I have also just alerted WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members to this discussion so that they may weigh in for the first time. Middayexpress (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible a broad topic ban is needed, if MiddayExpress is using Wikipedia to express his personal views against the secession of Somoliland project-wide. I find it unlikely that this editing pattern only exists on this particular BLP and the pattern of editing seems to be related to the article-subject's support of the country's secession. However, that is probably beyond the scope of this string, as is establishing whether there is some hounding going on. In any case, disqualifying participants from voting based on membership at a WikiProject is well.... yah.... There are actually no opposes to the topic ban, only difference in whether I should also voluntarily stay away from the page, whether the topic ban should be voluntary or forced, and if other conditions are applied. There is no need to hammer out these details - an admin should make a bold close and I will respect whatever their decision is, whether it involves my staying away from the article or not. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never added any personal views/comments to the Bryden page, so you're reaching there. Everything I did actually add was sourced; the most you can do is thus complain about the cited sources (which apparently includes Bryden's own alma mater). That makes this a standard content dispute. Pass a Method's vote also indeed doesn't count as its a clear example of Wikihounding. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, and within minutes of when I had replaced an image that he had added earlier there and voted along with two other editors to streamline the page's controversies section . Time stamps readily show this (incidentally, I was also later thanked for those edits by User:Gareth Griffith-Jones). As for the actual number of votes opposing a topic ban, there are three. Besides myself, User:DrFleischman has not supported the proposal. In fact, he actually appeared to recommend that you be sanctioned for your own behavior (his remark above from 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)). In his own post above from 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC) User:Obiwankenobi also clearly indicated that he would oppose a formal topic ban provided that I agreed to recuse myself from editing the article and focus instead on civil talk page discourse. I've agreed with those conditions. Despite this, you for some reason keep overlooking Obiwankenobi's position statement, even when he told you directly that "I don't support a formal topic ban; instead I suggested a voluntary self-ban for both Midday and CorporateM, to allow some other editors to dig in and bring this article up to snuff". For my part, I agree not to revert wholesale back to whatever the previous page version was after the self-recusing period has ended. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Patience please. The Horn of Africa Project members were only just contacted for the first time, and they should weigh in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So--you can 'contact' your editing friends at the Project, but when CorporateM does something like that it's conflict-of-interest generated 'ping'ing? Nice. And why should we wait? The Bryden thing has been going on for weeks, and this thread has been here for far too long. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * CorporateM's friend contacts are a fait accompli, and are largely the reason why the discussion has gone the way it has. Although Bryden is a Horn of Africa specialist and the UN's former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, the thread starter by contrast never bothered notifying the Horn of Africa projects of this discussion (which btw is allowed per appropriate notification: "an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following[...] the talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion"). I therefore took the initiative and notified those projects and "the user talk pages of concerned editors [including] editors known for expertise in the field", but only after having received the go ahead from User:Obiwankenobi (comment above from 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC): "As for the Somalia project people, I say the more the merrier, so notify those projects neutrally and see who joins - they don't need permission from anyone here"). That said, those project members/concerned editors should weigh in shortly for the first time. Closing the thread prematurely won't take into consideration their input, so it won't reflect the actual community consensus; just a selective portion of it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No banlet them agree to stand back: Let me first apologies this is so much text I am totally lost. I just cannot follow it or grasp all of the issues. I feel like I should weigh in. I am not experienced at editing on these kinds of things also. My position is all editors should on their own not continue to edit the page. but should be available to answer questions on the talk page.(i have a few) They should control themselves so as not to fly off into long tracts of text. B/c what is happening is there is more text on arguing than text in the article. I honestly want to know what the issue is with the article so I can assist in any way I can. but It would be better for all editors involved to agree to step back. state the issue on the TK page and let fresh eyes look it over. --Inayity (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok
Could some uninvolved admin please go have a look at the article on Jung Myung Seok (a Korean religious leader). This article has been the subject of edit warring and both full and semi-protection for over a year (as can be seen from its revision history and talk page). Most recently — soon after the expiry of a three-month semi-protection — an IP editor [ deleted a large portion of the article] critical of Jung, claiming (despite numerous apparently reliable sources) that the material in dispute violated WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. In order to steer clear of any possible suggestions that I may be too involved with this article, or with past discussions about its content, to perform administrative functions related thereto, I would like to ask someone else to study the situation and take whatever action (if any) they may feel is appropriate. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the blanking and found the editor's reasoning to fall short of my expectations. Other admins are welcome to examine my judgement. Shii (tock) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This situation is still in need of attention by  uninvolved  admins. Both Shii and I have edited the article and have participated in content discussions.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The lack of response here is disappointing. The article has again been blanked for incoherent reasons, and I am prepared to revert it again but that will not resolve our problems. Shii (tock) 18:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned this issue on the talk pages for WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Korea, in hopes of finding assistance there. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue is turning into an edit war once again. The disputed material was reinstated four days ago, but now it has been removed yet again. One of the participants in the protracted discussion is once again insisting (see Talk:Jung Myung Seok) that the article is heavily biased, that opposing material is being kept out, and that the resulting text constitutes a BLP violation.

The matter has previously been discussed at WP:BLPN (see this discussion from January 2013); twice at WP:RSN (see this discussion from January 2013, and also this discussion from April 2013]]); as well as much earlier discussions at WP:AN (February 2007), WikiProject Korea (January 2007), and the Japan-related topics notice board (January 2007).

In an attempt to force the parties to engage in a real discussion and in-depth research, I have protected this article twice (most recently, a three-month semi-protection), and additional, stronger action may very likely be in order at this point; however, I have by now become so involved in the discussion (in addition to having made a few minor edits on the article) that I do not believe I should be the one to perform any additional admin actions here. I am trying not to be deaf to repeated claims that sources here are being misused, that valid reliable material is being suppressed, and that the article may in fact be violating WP:BLP and other key policies despite a superficial appearance that all is well — but even if this is the case, an endless edit war is not the proper way to deal with the matter. Once again, I am asking for uninvolved admins to take a look here and either help guide this article to a better state, or else to put teeth into an existing consensus which does in fact already satisfy our standards and should not be re-debated ad infinitum. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) FWIW I added the article to my watchlist, reverted the mot recent IP blanking and white-washing, and asked for 3 or 6 months protection again. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 00:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved admin comment: Based on the RFPP report, the article history and this discussion, I have semi-protected the article for 6 months.   01:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be best to give permanent semi-protection to all Providence related articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of Providence (religious movement); can you identify any other articles related to this topic? BTW, it seems to me that Providence (religious movement) could/should be merged into Jung Myung Seok, but that's another discussion for another day.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also EXODUS (NGO). However, that article should just be merged with providence. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:70.186.222.63

 * – Adds persistently false info to articles ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). It is probably a static IP. I tried to warn them; no response. Raamin (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oddly, Geolocate says it is a dynamic IP. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  00:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be a dynamic IP that is used for a longer period of time by the same customer (as long as the modem isn't disconnected)? Raamin (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP is still active ( edit that was reverted ); no admin has a response? Raamin (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it that these edits are incorrect, and note that the IP was previously blocked for a week for abuse last month; I've just blocked the IP for a month. -- The Anome (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin and Reddit-warring
The Bitcoin‎ article has been the subject of two discussions on Reddit recently that are attracting a lot of attention and activity. Some admin eyes are needed on an ongoing edit war over language in the lead. I have fairly strong views on the topic so I'm not going to get involved. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's are the Reddit threads, for reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So far it's only really me and Fleetham clashing somewhat at the moment, and I don't believe Fleetham is from/affiliated with the current Reddit activity. I however, am. I am editing for neutrality only. We're currently discussing our changes in a civilised manner, so I don't think there is any cause for concern at this time. Orbixx (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering what the Reddit community is like, I think it would probably be best to protect this article for the moment.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think our "community" has any room to state such a thing. Arkon (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the | second time on AN/I in the past month that you've unilaterally decided that editors who are active on web sites that you seem to dislike don't deserve WP:AGF. These statements go against the spirit of Wikipedia. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Externally coordinated campaigns to override consensus don't deserve the full AGF. Please review WP:EEML and the MMA wars of last year to understand how disruptive an externally coordinated and recruited faction can be to the project. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Virgosky
Virgosky has been engaging in disruptive editing against policy and consensus for some time on articles including Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Edward IV of England. Since 7 August 2013, Virgosky has repeatedly attempted to remove, qualify or discredit sourced content about Catherine's descent from Edward IV without citing a valid policy-based reason or having talk page consensus for their edits. It is not clear what their reasons are as the (invalid) reason they originally cited no longer applies (there are now multiple British reliable sources cited for the content).

Diffs:
 * First disruptive edit on 7 August 2013 (edit summary: "Removed maternal info. More proof is needed than just the speculation of one American genealogist.")
 * Latest disruptive edit on 25 October 2013 (no edit summary provided)

(Please let me know if you need me to post all the relevant diffs inbetween, there are many which can be seen by glancing at the history of Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.)

I filed a dispute resolution case on 1 October 2013 which did not resolve the situation in the long term as Virgosky has since repeatedly (many times) removed sourced information added to the section that contradicts information that they have subsequently added which is known to be a published error.

I have tried to address the matter on various article talk pages to no avail:
 * Talk:Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (latest discussion)
 * Talk:Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
 * Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
 * Talk:Edward IV of England/Archive 1

I have also tried to address the matter several times on the user's talk page (all my posts have been ignored and removed):
 * 1 October 2013
 * 17 October 2013
 * 17 October 2013

This disruptive editing is extremely harmful to Wikipedia. Not only is Virgosky's refusal to work within Wikipedia policy frustrating for other editors, but the resulting unbalanced information in the article harms the neutrality and hence reliability of Wikipedia content. Please can you help resolve the matter. Helen Online  12:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am more than willing to achieve a consensus but it has become personal now with HelenOnline and three other editors whom she had contacted on their Talk pages to assist her. When we began the consensus FactStraight continued the edit war. I believe we are all guilty practipating in an edit war, which I am more than willing to take the hit. But, how can a consensus ever be achieved?


 * [Flat_Out]
 * [FactStraight]
 * [Martinvl]

My suggestions were called:


 * Imaginary tangents.
 * I had no solid argument.
 * My suggestions were not going to fly.
 * No editors were going to take me seriously.
 * The originally dispute (where I did what was asked) is no longer relevant. My original edit on October 15th was suggested by a third party during another dispute created by HelenOnline.

My suggestions were as follows:


 * That we remove the section from the article which Deb agreed was 'Effective, but a bit drastic'.
 * I suggested that the section should stay in but leave out the claimed retraction. Until a new version of The Complete Peerage is published to reflect the retraction.
 * Finally, I removed the quote from The Complete Peerage (which I originally added on October 15th) because I was told it fell under WP:NPOV. The Complete Peerage itself is a better source.

Again, I would be more than happy to achieve a consensus, but I do not believe that the rules for a consensus should be used as a stick to beat other editors with nor should that editor be spoken down too and attacked. This has become personal which it should not have been. I would feel much better if an Admin could resolve this issue. Virgosky (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Virgosky left out one user notification for the latest consensus discussion:
 * Deb Helen  Online  14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Deb was kind enough to assist us and suggested we do a consensus. She did not make it personal and asked that we discuss it on the Talk page before making any further edits, however, FactStraight continued the edit war. When Deb agreed that removing the section was 'Effective, but a bit drastic', HelenOnline went on the defensive and stated to do that would only satisfy myself (and Deb). Virgosky (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When editors disagree (happens), it does not mean they are "making it personal" or that they are being defensive or unreasonable. The trick is to provide reasons for disagreement based on policy which I have done and you have not. Helen  Online  14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that currently unregistered users have assisted in continuing the edit war. I have fixed their edits until a resolution can be found. I have no more to say at this time. Virgosky (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you revert the anons' edits, then technically you are edit warring. Changing material unrelated to the disputed edits is fine and not considered edit warring. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your second sentence is incorrect. The rule applies to any reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, did I say that? sorry for the confusion, I meant non reversion edits (like helpful addition of material). Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I believe that is why these unregistered users have recently shown up, they wish to make it look as though I am edit warring because they were not around before the consensus started. Thank you for the suggestion. I will step back and leave the decision to an Admin. Virgosky (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Virgosky and Helen: I appreciate that it can be difficult to find a compromise when you both have strong views. I propose protecting this page for the time being so that only admins can edit it.  Are you both willing for me to do this and give you a cooling-off period?  You might find at the end of it that your differences are not as great as they seem now in the heat of the moment.Deb (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Deb I have no problem with the page being protected, but please note I am quite cool and not editing in the heat of the moment. This has been going on for months and time off alone is not going to fix anything. Helen  Online  15:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine with me, Deb. I think it is a good idea. Thank you for your assistance. Virgosky (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, could an admin please restore the consensus version that Virgosky reverted four times today, either with no valid reason specified or no reason specified at all? (which is not the final version because I refrained from reverting in the heat of the moment) Helen  Online  15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except in limited circumstances, administrators don't pick a version when they lock an article over a content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is why I am asking for someone who can edit the article (any admin) to rectify it. Could an administrator please clarify the status of this incident for me? It is not just about a content dispute or a single edit warring incident, it is about a pattern of disruptive editing against consensus. Deb's locking in of Virgosky's preferred version against consensus, the final version because I did not revert in the heat of the moment, has only reassured them that their disruptive editing is acceptable as can be seen from this edit on their talk page. If that is the end of the story, I will have lost all faith in Wikipedia. Helen  Online  05:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't to that. I'm afraid that it is reallhy rare for Admins to do that on a protected page - BLP violations being one of the rare occasions, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I have given Virgosky a WP:3RR warning - the warning covers all of his future edits anywhere. This has happened to me before, a page being locked to a bad version, but as Admins we have to be careful not to misuse our tools. If he thinks that he can maintain any article against consensus I'm sure he will be shown to be wrong. I'd advise you also to be careful about 3RR violations. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug, unfortunately it appears Virgosky still doesn't get it. I would appreciate you letting me know if there is anything I could have done differently to resolve this situation. Helen  Online  11:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Throughout this dispute HelenOnline and other editors have been just as guilty in edit warring, as I have. Giving me a WP:3RR warning was a misuse of your tools, especially since during the consensus I showed evidence of other editors attacking remarks, unwillingness to discuss and edit warring themselves. So, they get the hand holding and I get the slap. I will give Deb her due, she played it fair and neutral. I was under the assumption that Admins were suppose too do that (guess I was wrong). Some of the information removed on the article is information I originally added myself. Besides, the article has only been locked for a very short time and when it unlocks HelenOnline can add what she views as the correct version and if I make one slip up you get the fun of showing me that I am wrong. I also have lost faith in Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that using consensus on this site is really just a stick to beat other editors with regardless if the information is right or wrong. Btw, I am 'she' not a 'he' and I am closely related to the Royal Family so I know what's what. I never realized that an American genealogist would be considered more knowledgable than someone like me who is actually related to them and has done the work. But, as you wish it. I am sorry, HelenOnline that the page was locked with my edits. :) You have a nice day now. Virgosky (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, both, I deliberately didn't look at the page at the point when I protected it so that I couldn't be accused of bias. I will have a look at it when I've got a minute to see where we are, although I don't consider myself an expert on this matter. Deb (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Vigorsky, I didn't use my tools. Any editor can give you a 3RR warning. So far as I counted, you were the only one for whom a 3RR warning would have been appropriate. If I'm wrong, I apologise (note no smiley, which IMHO rather undercuts an apology). And so far as your knowledge goes, that should mean that you have good access to sources that meet our reliability criteria, so hopefully that's what you've been relying upon. I haven't looked at any of the content issues either. 18:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

I do not believe that HelenOnline will be happy until one of you blocks me. However, just so everyone feels better, I have no intension of continuing this dispute any further even after the page is unlocked. I do have a lot of information to share because they are my relatives but I did not realize that this dispute would be taken this far nor that one editor would get so angry with me. I should not have participated in an edit war but no consensus is fair when four editors (Deb excluded of course) gang up on one, whether the information is right or wrong. In this case I believe the consensus was an abuse of policy. I used The Complete Peerage as a reliable source and from that source I removed a quote that I realized fell under WP:NPOV. Once the quote was removed the consensus was not necessary anymore because the retraction was based on a quote that did not follow Wikipedia policy, which is what lead us to this point. Most of the information I removed, except for the retraction which started all of this, was stuff I had added originally. But, if what is up there now does not follow Wikipedia policy and what was there originally before my last edit does then by all means bring it back. I will except that decision from an Admin. Thank you to all the Admins who assisted. Virgosky (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocking is not really a long term solution, although it might be an effective deterrent. I will be happy if you demonstrate that you understand your disruptive editing is unacceptable and start collaborating with other editors in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I have been asking you to engage in terms of policy on talk pages for a long time to no avail. I don't really understand your comments above regarding NPOV etc. Please can you take that part of the discussion to the talk page so we can discuss it further as I understand this is not really the place for discussing content. Helen  Online  06:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for some sort of appology. That is not going to happen. You and the other editors were just as disruptive, and I have nothing further to say to you or the other editors who were rude and abused Wikipedia policy. You know as well as I do that anything I attempt to add to that article will be met with resistance so let us not play with each other. I am no fool. That being said, I see Deb is doing a nice job fixing the article. Whatever she adds is fine with me because I would rather someone rational like her (who does not abuse Wikipedia policy) fix the article correctly than you. So, you get the satisfaction of knowing that you beat me by abusing Wikipedia policy and bothering the Admins until someone let you have your way. I get the satisfaction of the article being locked and for a few days my edits were up there as opposed to yours, giving you no appology and the joy of watching you guys being forced to run by your ideas to an Admin, who no matter what she puts up, we will all have to live with unless you plan on opening tons of disputes against her too. I would say that we are even now. Virgosky (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, that's really not very nice. Deb (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * nice schmice, but thats some serious WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality coming down with what looks like a promise to continue when the protection is withdrawn. unless there is evidence of an attitude change, further preventative measures might need to be applied before then.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Virgosky, please provide evidence for your accusations of me and others being disruptive and abusing Wikipedia policy. Helen  Online  18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing & PR Puff


This article has seen a recent surge of white washing and PR puff. . Most of it has been done by Andrewcapp1 but also by various IPs (all from the Tampa, Florida area). The edits have attempted to reconstruct the events as if Jill Kelley is a victim and that she is fighting 'big government.' They've included removing well (very well) sourced negative material that had a consensus for use (infact, a consensus for the specific wording).--v/r - TP 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the recent community ban of PR companies, surely Andrewcapp1 should be banned? GiantSnowman 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article, so my hands are tied.--v/r - TP 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Err isn't that link WP:OUTING? SmartSE (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, but if I'm wrong then OS can sweep in and remove it.--v/r - TP 16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like they have. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked one on IRC to weigh in.--v/r - TP 23:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the mass ref delete? Seriously... -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  01:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd hate to be guilty of outing myself--but can I identify this edit as a steaming pile of dungfluff? But TParis, what are we here for? The IP did their work a month ago--you want Andrewcapp banned? I'm not (yet) going to indef them, but I left a warning. Next time it's a block. Snowman, what did we ban, exactly? Drmies (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowman's interpretation of what the community decided on the general question of Paid COI Editing is inaccurate. The so-called "Bright Line" has been rejected. Concentrate on the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rule of Law
Though the specific issue is effectively academic at this point (I've given up trying to have a productive conversation with the parties involved), I'm filing this incident in hopes that it prevents bad behavior in the future (i.e. a hand-slap now makes folks think twice in the future).

At the request of User:Anythingyouwant I started a section called "Need a proper lead" on Talk:Rule of law. Anythingyouwant subsequently changed the title of the discussion without my permission and also moved this section to be a subordinate discussion to another that had been started. The argument provided was that the section header I wrote was not sufficiently neutral. I reverted this, of course, since once a Talk discussion is started it is bad form to change existing content except under extreme circumstances (a slight concern about neutrality, of course, does not qualify). Anythingyouwant subsequently started a little edit war, filed a complaint (above on this page), and enlisted User:Drmies to support this little war (this, of course, on top of the fact that I haven't been able to get a straight answer to my original concerns about the article from Anythingyouwant).

I have asked the both of them to put back what I wrote and both have ignored my request. Despite the fact that the discussion on the article is dead at this point, I do think at least enforcing WP etiquette rules is worthwhile. I ask that my original edits on the Talk page be restored if for no other reason than to set a good example. Though I agree I could have made a better effort at neutrality that is hardly the point.

Thanks.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC) :If an existing section already was discussing that topic, it is within the bounds to move your post to that section, and to word section headers for neutrality. In any case, a single infraction of WP:TPO is not sufficient for bringing to this board, especially for such a minor re factoring. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a handslap might be useful. With a boomerang, possibly. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the talk page header "Need a proper lead" to "Discussion about whether the lead is proper". I also changed the header level (== to ===), since I had already responded to this IP's article edits.  I didn't move the IP's comment, or edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Three quick things. First, this matter was already the subject of an open ANI thread above, titled "IP 192.88.168.1". Second, the editor User:Jreferee has criticized my actions at my talk page, where I replied that his criticism seems to contradict the consensus here at ANI. Third, my experience has always been that editors have no ownership of their non-neutral talk page headings, in contrast to their comments under those headings, and I think it's generally been agreed in the past that article talk page headings contrary to policy can be changed by anyone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a pertinent guideline: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, 'owns' a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

24.171.220.9 reverting, blanking on Calorie restriction
has been removing content from since October 20. They have only used edit summaries three times, and all of them have been fairly misleading. They have not attempted to discuss the issue on any talk page, despite a final warning about 8 hours ago. The editor has mostly removed content related to the implications of pregnant and young people, especially young people, undergoing calorie restriction. Many of their edits have also broken header formatting, and some have also introduced improper grammar and/or punctuation. Links to edits that they have done:, (might just be downright vandalism), , , , , , ,. I decided to bring the issue here because the edits aren't clear-cut vandalism, and they haven't broken 3RR. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧ S  14:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do block this IP; the edits are continuing. I disagree with User:SamX - the edits are vandalism - they sloppily remove material and and add material to leave the content broken (sentences cut off in the middle, etc) as in this dif from today and this dif from today and this dif from today and this dif from today.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

✅. Anon blocked for 3 days. Please consider using AIV in future. --GraemeL (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Periferigenilerimini
has been unresponsive to attempts to address problematic edits on their part. The user has made several copyright violations (via unattributed copying within the project) and has blanked articles without explanation. These problems are compounded by the facts that the user never leaves an edit summary, and always marks their edits as minor. This has allowed many of their problematic contributions to go unnoticed. So far two other users and I have posted seven messages on their user talk page warning them about disruptive editing, informing them of the correct procedure for attributing freely licensed text, and informing them of the correct use of edit summaries and the "minor" edit flag, but they've persisted in their behaviour. Perhaps a block is warranted by now, though if not that, then something definitely needs to be done to get their attention. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to have acquired something of a wave of name account users who never leave any edit summaries and never edit any talkpages, thus leaving others in doubt as to whether they're aware of the existence of their own user talkpage or not. (And we can't tell if they know the use of article history tabs, either, or of edit summaries.) I blocked an extreme example recently, in the hope of finally getting their attention (didn't work), and I'm currently trying in vain to get the attention of . One would prefer not to bite, but there comes a point where lack of competence becomes disruptive despite good intentions. I can't see what else to do with Periferigenilerimini, so I've blocked for 24 hours. I wish we had a button to use that would automatically take a user to their own talkpage! I'll leave User:Joshorozco unblocked for now, as it's a smaller matter than copyvio that's at stake with him/her. And yet I feel a little helpless when they keep reverting me on Stallion without leaving an edit summary, and apparently without reading my edit summaries, and, well, without understanding the problem with their edits (which concern categories). Anyway. I get frustrated edit warring with them, and speaking into the black hole of their talkpage. Anybody got any better ideas? [Mumble… mutter… ] Bishonen &#124; talk 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Periferigenilerimini doesn't edit every day so even your 24-hour block might go unnoticed. I'll let you know if the problematic editing persists after the expriy of the block. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's common that editors in this category don't notice a block either, or at least don't give any sign that they have. 24 hours is still the best way to start, IMO. Please just drop me a line on my page if the problem continues. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC).

What?
Where is the Visual editor, i cant find it? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.191.190 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Following a discussion, Visual Editor is not currently available for unregistered users. If you create an account, you may opt-in to using it.  Further details are available here. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the visual editor is now invisible. Best thing, actually, from what I've heard. EEng (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Stupid that I have to post here re this bot...
...but its shutoff button requires admin permissions, and a note there says to post here if there are problems. The problem being... what does this bot think it's doing ? I don't think a bot should be altering people's talk page comments period, and certainly it should not be altering archived discussions. Or am I mixed up? EEng (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have asked the bot operator? The edit summary was mangled, but it was per this TfD outcome.  Feel free to ask further questions on my talk page.  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want me to ask you (the bot operator) instead of posting here, then User:SporkBot shouldn't say "Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." While it infuriates me when trivialities are posted here, I didn't see any choice but to follow your instructions. Now that we're here...
 * Your bot tinkered with someone's old archived comments from an article talkpage, and you're saying that's justified by the fact that those comments included a reference to a now-deleted template. I say that people should rarely tinker with others' comments, bots should never do so, and never ever should archived comments be tinkered with by anyone. Do you agree, and if so will you change your bot to stop doing those things? EEng (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When a TfD result is closed, its result is implemented by a bot. Sometimes this will involve changing the template in comments. This is, for better or for worse, unavoidable. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That makes sense for article space, but much less so for archived talkpage comments. There is no need to go "fixing" people's old comments, and there are just too many uncertainties about why the person posting a comment composed it the way he did. An article is "public property" which is constantly being pushed towards perfection, so to speak. But someone's old comment is what it is, and should be left that way. This is the only time I recall seeing a talk archive edited ever (except for e.g. BLP reasons, or to bring an old thread back) and we should be able to depend that what we're seeing in an archive is faithful. I just don't like the idea of a bot fiddling with people's comments months and years later when they may not be watching. EEng (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually its completely avoidable but I personally think doing edits like this are fine. Its not changing the content of the message, its just making some formatting changes to the template. I generally agree with the user though that the bot should say to contact the Botop not come here though and that generally edits to archives should be avoided. If this bot has an exception to that (perfectly acceptable IMO given the situation) then maybe it should note that on the bots page. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But it does change the content -- see the link above. I know it sounds silly but a bot can't tell if e.g. the comment was demonstrating what it looks like when you use a deleted template. For a live editor to adjust the indenting of someone else's comment in a currently active discussion, while the person posting the comment is likely watching to object if he wants to, is one thing )and may help the conversation) -- as already said, for a bot to come in years later and mess around with an archived comment is quite another (and is pointless). EEng (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with leaving comments as is and redlinking the template? The bot should leave editor's archived comments alone. Clicking on the redlink would clearly show the template was deleted, and not alter the user's comment. NE Ent 02:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Rephrased NE Ent 12:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by redlinking the template? Invoking a nonexistent template acts a bit differently than a wikilink to a nonexistent article e.g. suppose I try to invoke a nonexistent template using the following code:

What you'll get is:
 * Template:LetsSayThisIsTheNameOfADeletedTemplate

Anyway, if you mean that we should not tamper with old postings, and "let nature take its course" (as just seen above) when a template, appearing in a talk posting, gets deleted, then I agree because that's what I've been asking for all along. Look, this isn't a big deal. I just don't see the value of "fixing" old talk postings' use of templates, and I think bots shouldn't be futzing around in old archives that have few eyeballs on them.

EEng (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If that stupid bot comes around a year from now and "fixes" my invocation, above, of the nonexistent template, then it will render my posting nonsense.
 * Yes, except the target of the link to an actual deleted template, e.g. Template:3O, will contain a link to the deletion discussion of the template. NE Ent 11:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but how does that affect the question of whether a bot should "fix" the appearance of a deleted (or never-existed) template in an archived discussion? EEng (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should know better than to phrase statements as rhetorical questions; I've (hopefully) clarified the statement. NE Ent 12:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss it. The Bot will have a set of approved tasks - check them. Editing archives either is or isn't one of them. Check the bot approvals group. If it's acting improperly, the owner must change. If there's consensus for what you're asking, the bot owner will have to change it. Simple, really ES  &#38;L  12:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take it there. As mentioned I posted here because the bot's userpage directed me to do so. EEng (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You were directed here only if it needed to be stopped. If you haven't checked its approved tasks, and if it isn't actually behaving outside of those approved tasks, then there's no real reason to stop it - it formally hasn't run amok as far as any of us know, including you.  Like I said, if it's acting outside of its established parameters, we can block it - but it's always better to contact the bot owner  ES  &#38;L  13:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did feel it should be stopped until this question is resolved, since there's clearly no rush to clear up uses of old deleted templates. Distinctions re running amok, approved tasks, and so on are too subtle for lil' ol' me, and I had no idea where to read up on such things anyway. EEng (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Direct2D, NVIDA DirectWrite OpenGL related articles vanldism.
Reviewing the history of these articles, there appears to be ongoing vandalism since at least unknown and it has resulted in almost all the articles being protected. IP addresses such as 60.53.113.73 175.142.208.22 210.186.241.115 124.82.11.115 (all of which trace back to Malaysia.) There must be something to be done, and also an editor called EBusiness is actively harassed by them as well. GeForce articles are affected as well, because of this, they are almost always protected. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  05:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive RFC
I'm here to ask whether it would be possible, please, to bring an early end to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The reason is simply that it is virutally a rerun of the very recent RFC now archived at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September.

The last edit to the Commas in metro areas RFC was on 23 September, when I noted that a Request for closure had been logged (it is still waiting at Administrators' noticeboard.) That is just 5 weeks ago. Please note that the discussion at that RFC covered not only place names, but also dates (^F for "date" in the archive page yields a lot of relevant discussion). Please also note how huge that discussion became.

Thus the new RFC sat WT:MOS asks us to revisit exactly the same set of issues, a mere 5 weeks after that huge discussion ceased on the previous one. Please could this be stopped, so that we can be relieved of the interminable call for discussion of commas and get on with developing articles? Thus I am requesting pre-emptive closure of the new RFC (I suggest as no-consensus, since that is the obvious result of the earlier one).

Please note: I am not requesting any sanctions, admonishings or what else against any editor, but only the removal of this RFC. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This RFC is not a complete rerun of the other discussion. Although it involves the same issue, the first discussion was about whether there should be a comma after the year, state, or country in a date or place. This RFC is a suggestion for the second comma to be made optional and for it to be determined by individual Projects. I have notified several editors who took place in discussions here and here. Those discussions involved a similar situation and several of the editors there (including me) didn't join the discussion mentioned by Stfg. United States Man (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeated section blanking on Emma Harrison (entrepreneur)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A user (User:Brightside106) has repeatedly blanked and re-edited large portions of the article Emma Harrison (entrepreneur), I've reverted twice and left two warnings but they have failed to respond and simply blanked their talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war. The content they have removed is fully sourced and they have provided no reason for their actions. The fact that this is the only article they have ever edited implies an attempt to rewrite it to present the subject in a more favourable light. As the editor refuses to engage I've highlighted it on WP:Biography and brought it here. Thanks. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Humorously, the editor attempted to blank this section as well. I've blocked them indefinitely due to their behaviour. m.o.p  14:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


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

Revdel on Abbott Government please
This one. Also this. Thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just revdeleted a bunch of revisions, but I don't have time to comb through everything in the history so there could be some that I've missed. Also, per the header that appears every time you edit this page, "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here". Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark. Sorry about the post here, I spaced out. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing to the Trevor Griffiths article
An anonymous UK Vodafone user (currently User:212.183.128.176) has been making disruptive edits to the article on the English dramatist for over a month. Unconstructive edits to other articles, albeit at a low level of nuisance, have been made earlier in the year. Most of the edits seem to be within a narrow IP range, and I would thus suggest a temporary block of those in which this user has operated. Philip Cross (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't do range blocks; I blocked the two most recent IPs for 72 hours. But looking at that history I think semi-protection is best, though I'll wait and see what other admins have to say--whether they think a range block will take care of the problem. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, there was a bit more action, of the trolling variety. has protected. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:BigAl246 - single purpose account with COI
Hello,

User:BigAl246 appears to be a single-purpose account created to edit the St George's-Tron Church article. The whole congregation of the church walked out; but not before the Church of Scotland, their denomination, sued them and sent in bailiffs to a prayer meeting to take the hymn books from the worshippers' hands. There was a major scandal, widely reported in the Scottish press, which the Church of Scotland ended up looking very bad. The edits are all designed to whitewash the article, by removing all mentions of the scandal (even though referenced) and pretending that some of the congregation remained. The editor looks like a fake, created by the Church of Scotland press department (because who else would care enough to try and hide the facts referenced in the article).

This must be COI. Could someone ban the editor, and keep an eye on the article for further attempts to edit out the legal stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.115.17 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * BigAl also did a strange edit on the page of the current minister of the church, William J. U. Philip misdirecting a wikilink to the st. George Tron church and removing him from the category "church of scotland" odd. I'm about to revert.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks by User:Eric Corbett
I've come across User:Eric Corbett, and it seems to me that his behavior to other editors is crossing the line of what is civil and acceptable. I noticed his comments on Talk:Guy Fawkes Night, and then I see the same thing on his own talk page. Here are some examples: Is this sort of behavior to other editors crossing the line, or do we just ignore it? StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't these people go write something themselves instead of trying to make life a misery for everyone else?
 * Indeed. An anonymous hypocrite with only 11 edits to his name citing the five pillars is rather revealing I think.
 * I really don't give a fuck what you think.
 * fuck off and go try hassling someone closer to your own size
 * Were you born a hypocritical clown or did you have to undergo rigorous training?
 * Ignore please. Eric and the Wikipedia civility policy form a singularity that is best avoided. NE Ent 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Too late. Eric's been blocked. All because the OP insists on retaining something that other folks have suggested compromise edits that would resolve the issue without verging into OR territory. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be very disappointed if we couldn't agree that telling someone to fuck off is going too far but Eric's last one there made me smile. Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But Ealdgyth - you've managed to be part of the same discussion without being uncivil. His behavior couldn't have been because of my insistence, because you haven't behaved the same way. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * People are different. Different cultures, different reactions. And I used to have a great deal of respect for your editing, but right now you're coming off as an officious person who is insisting on getting their own way just because. Just because I haven't actually typed out the thoughts that first sprang into my mind doesn't mean I haven't wanted to. And if you'd templated me on my talk page without giving me a specific diff of what you thought was a personal attack, you very well might have gotten the same reaction. I just am American and tend to keep my stable language in the stable. I would just have told you off in a longer-winded manner. Are you happy that you got him blocked? It certainly seemed like you were aiming for that result by templating him rather than trying to diffuse tensions. IN fact, the whole discussion has been unnecessary and strikes me as you pushing just to push. Go ahead, find a personal attack in that, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a personal attack, that's a thoughtful response that requires some soul-searching on my part. StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. Eric/Malleus has been blocked dozens of times for the same thing.  He knows exactly where the line is; he consciously chooses to cross it every once in awhile.  He shouldn't be surprised by the results, and neither should anyone else.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#777777;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#444444;">| confer _  21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is anyone taking action on how long this one will last, and at what odds? IIRC, the last one was under 15 minutes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reblocked Eric Corbett (for continued personal attacks after the block expired) for three months, up from the last longer block which was for one month. A short block clearly didn't have any positive result (although it was worth a try). Explanation given at. Fram (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, Fram. Aren't you interaction/admin action banned wrt to Eric Corbett? You should be. Incidentally, I notice User:Worm That Turned has just changed the block to indefinite. Worm, you have to know that's controversial. Please take it to this noticeboard. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC).
 * PS. OK, I see Worm took it to WP:AN. Fine. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Why should I be interaction / admin action banned wrt Eric Corbett? Fram (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Yeah yeah, so it's archived, but I really need to reply here, to apologize.) I'm sorry, I must have been mixing you up with somebody else. I do think, however, that it would have been becoming of you to mention that the one-month block that you refer to as a good reason to go to three months now was also your block. That makes the argument for three months a little flimsier IMO. However, I do apologize for the interaction ban remark, there was no good reason for it. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, I've taken it to a more appropriate noticeboard. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 15:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki PR account?
I suspect as being a Wiki PR account - editing and trying to restore PR content to known Wiki PR articles. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The conflict of interest noticeboard might be a good place to raise this. I only found one big diff, which is reverting one of your edits, and the other edits looked benign - if you have any more evidence, that would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam, I haven't delved too deep, but you appear to be removing sourced material (granted there is plenty of PR fluff that could be deleted). Am I missing something? John Reaves 01:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You also haven't notified the user of this discussion. John Reaves 01:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiki PR was community banned. So WP:DENY/WP:RBI/WP:BMB apply to their socks - "removing sourced material" is in this case wholly appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but it doesn't mean that every editor who reverts Adam Cuerden's removal of content is automatically a banned user. I think we need more evidence than that. bobrayner (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * bobrayner is right, The Bushranger. I believe people are asking for more proof that connects to the two. I second going to the WP:COIN board. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 03:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no one else appeared to have notified BkkGreg, I did so. I also concur with Bobrayner and Liz.  There needs to be more proof than what has been offered thus far.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've followed this page for a number of years and my intention was to keep the page up-to-date, providing verifiable reference material on one of the largest travel businesses and most recognizable brands in the Asia Pacific region. In my view the removed content is impartial and well within the scope of WikiProject_Companies. I would like to get some help understanding the reasons behind the removed content, in particular the offending items/text snippets. BkkGreg (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything in that article had an advertisement tone to it - nothing was neutrally stated, everything was subtly written to promote the business, in both choice of information and phrasing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit by BkkGreg in June is clearly PR: "guarantees the lowest price on hotel rooms, and will match or beat the price if a customer proves they can find the same room elsewhere at a lower price" and wow they even have an app! The link they redirected to another site that presumably rewarded them if a reader clicked the link. I'm blocking them. SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Slightly irrelevant since he's been blocked anyway, but just in case he appeals: Priceline's spokesman confirmed that they use the services of Wiki-PR for all of their subsidiary brands, of which Agoda is one. The information inserted and reinserted in to the article is the only set of edits in Agoda's history that looks like a PR edit from the right time frame. It's pretty remarkable timing for someone to never meaningfully edit anything other than a single article (and do so promotionally,) have the other hallmarks of a paid editor, and then reappear soon after the article was cleaned. So, with almost no doubt, it can be said that the user in question worked for Wiki-PR. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have probably pointed out that I knew Priceline had admitted to using Wiki-PR for all their brands. I've looked into Agoda and from what I can tell they aren't notable (but do write an awful lot of press releases) so have redirected it to Priceline.com. I've also launched an SPI since two notes defending BkkGreg were left on Adam Cuerden's talk page after he started this thread. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright question: is brief quote on talk page allowed?
On a talk-page a user posted what to me looked like a brief and properly attributed quote (in blockquote) as part of an argument. Another user insists on removing it   saying it is a copyright violation and says I will be blocked  if I put it back in. It doesn't look like a copyright violation to me, I thought it was permissible to briefly quote something as long as it was properly attributed (especially on a talk-page) but I'm not sure and don't want to end up in an edit war on a talk-page over something like this or being blocked! Since at least one other editors also seemed to think the quote was OK (back in July) it might be good if someone more experienced with copyright could take a look at it? Thanks! --Space simian (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The user seems to be posting entire 'articles' (which appear to be tabloid newspaper editorials). It's probably inappropriate, especially if it's the full length of the piece. In any case, the user should be able to make the point with a much briefer excerpt. (The non-Wikicode HTML markup doesn't really help either.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was posted to substantiate a point about notability as I understand it, removing it makes the original argument difficult to understand. Since the one who removed it was reverted twice by different users (one of them me, the other by another user back in July, but none the original poster) I think it would be wise to ask for a second opinion. --Space simian (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC) And since I did not write it I don't think it would be appropriate (nor possible) to summarize the other users views! --Space simian (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure I agree that the New York Times is a tabloid? --Space simian (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It did not look to be properly attributed. There must be enough information to verify it. Author, date, publication etc., But also, if that was an entire article it may violate our Non Free Content, minimum use policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked again and it might not have been attributed the first time but it was fixed (in July) before the second removal (now), and a link was posted (although I'm sure it could have been better). Admittedly a large chunk is quoted, but hardly the entire article and it's only mentioned on the talk-page. --Space simian (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially since there was also a link posted to the article it was quite possible to verify. It just seems disingenuous to make the section unreadable (and a little rude) by removing it if there is no copyright violation. --Space simian (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mark Miller et al here. Posting such a large excerpt of non free content on the talk page seems unnecessary and questionable considering our expectations of limiting non free content. It's not even clear what point the OP is trying to make with such a long quote, remembering the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. If the point is it was discussed extensively in a major newspaper editorial, than a link perhaps with a brief quote will be enough. Most of the material quoted is unnecessary for that, if anything it seems to be making a politicial point which is unwanted on talk pages. If the OP is unable or unwilling to do anything about the problem, than I see no choice but for others to remove it in entirety, and third parties shouldn't be adding it back. The fact that other editors [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ender%27s_Game_%28film%29&oldid=565547488] had to provide links to the editorial being quoted obviously only makes the whole thing seem worse, particularly considering the non wikicode strongly suggest this was probably copied from the web version or similar and not typed in from the paper version. BTW a focus on the legality suggest a lack of understanding of how we treat copyright matters. P.S. An I the only one to find it ironic while there's an attempt to protect this seemingly pointless quote, the article itself still said (until I changed it) 'The film is scheduled to first be released in Germany and Austria on October 24, followed by the United Kingdom and Ireland on October 25' and this seemingly significant information is still mostly only covered in the WP:LEDE? Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it should matter if we agree with the other users point or not, only if it was a copyright violation (which I would be very surprised if it was). It would be a big problem if comments are edited into obscurity only because someone might disagree with them. If you think there is a lack of understanding then would it not be better to explain how "we" treat copyright matters for those not as informed as you? I don't think the user is making a particularly strong point but it added a little to the larger discussion on the talk page about the notability of the controversy. Removing the quote doesn't help make the situation clearer, just makes the discussion harder to follow. If you actually look at the edit history you will see that the OP did something, he/she improved the attribution and I don't think the users should have to hawk over every comment they made months past to make sure they are not improperly edited. Besides I'm not sure what else the OP could do do since he and everyone else who disagreed with the removal is threatened with being banned. I don't understand why Unicode chars makes anything worse either? It is not wrong to copy text for a quote, as long as you quote it and attribute it (in fact that would be preferred so that you get the quote exactly right.) Granted it was not very well attributed, but it was attributed and quoted from the beginning and the attribution was later improved and the link added. It is unfortunate if one can obstruct discussion by removing quotes this way, hypothetically if you prefer. (And no I don't find it ironical, except perhaps that you point out this seemingly irrelevant fact here.) --Space simian (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You might have a point if the 'quote' in question were a sentence or two (and not several paragraphs) followed by some kind of comment about how or why it's remotely relevant. This is quite different to just copying a large chunk of text from another source with no relevant commentary whatsoever.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't allow copyvio anywhere. If it is the entire piece or more than about 220 words I always chop it down per policy. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm late to the discussion, but I think that if you attribute the name of the author/user, and then put the entire quote in quotation marks, 'quoting' is allowed for up to one or two paragraphs (more than one or two paragraphs suggest copyvio, but a few sentences do not. Note that the quote in question is more than one paragraph). Just remove the quote in case it is copyvio. Better to be safe than sorry.  Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that I should stumble across this thread while otherwise involved with something else. When were you intending to perform the mandatory notification that you had started a thread about me? And where is your attempt on the talk page to resolve the issue before bringing it here? Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not about you, it is a question about what constitutes as a copyright violation. --Space simian (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly is about me, you have named me in your OP as "another user" and cited numerous of my edits in diff format. This thread would not exist if it were not for my contention that you perpetuated a copyright violation by restoring the text in question. I also note that you have avoided answering my other question. Why did you not seek other forms of dispute resolution such as using talk pages to discuss this matter rather than bringing it straight here? After my last revert I assumed the matter was done, since you did not reply on your talk page where I left you the template and you made no further edits to the talk page of the article. To bring it here was an attempt to end-run around normal channels of dispute resolution and implies that you think I wouldn't be able to work with you in a collaborative fashion, so you chose to short-circuit the process. Elizium23 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is a question about whether the quote was a copyright violation, only provided diff to show the quote in question, how it evolved and to show I was not the only one who seemed to think it wasn't. --Space simian (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

New editor disruption
User:LindaBanh is disrupting Wikipedia with multiple page creations which serve their apparent single purpose of promoting links for downloading Youtube videos. They have also shown a propensity for removing the CSD/TfD tags, even after being cautioned not to. The string of creations are necessitating wasted man-hours of discussion for pages which would qualify under CSD in my opinion; though I removed a CSD tag opting to combine it with a current TfD for a similar template. The bottom line for me is to ask an uninvolved administrator to look at the users contributions to determine if intervention is necessary and to delete the improper pages if a clear pattern of WP:SPA disruption is apparent; as I believe is.—John Cline (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, what I saw in the article "Download Youtube Video Using 3 Different Methods" was unambiguous WP:LINKSPAM via article: links for a number of non-notable websites offering YouTube ripping services, some of which have been identified as introducing spyware or other malware either from the sites themselves or downloadables, with mentions of browser extensions added as a cloak. I've deleted the article under WP:G11 and will block the user as soon as I finish typing this, unless someone else has beaten me to it. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

user:Pofka and abuse of non-free media
The user is re-inserting multiple files that fail WP:NFCC on a number of points (#1,3,8,10c). Can an admin please block, and give a lesson in WP:NFC? because they are not listening. Werieth (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User has almost no user talk edits despite more than 60 individual notices about image use on his/her own page. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * CAN I PLEASE GET AN ADMIN TO STEP IN AND ENFORCE NFCC? Werieth (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are admins. Which one do you want?  Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---
 * User Werieth is constantly removing images from Lithuania national basketball team article, without providing any proofs that they really violate any of the WP:NFCC rules. He purely removes images without any discussions or proofs (not even reading the article!). I would call it more as a vandalism than enforcement. Here is my proofs that none of these images violate NFCC:


 * Dunking Skullman (logo).jpg is used to identify Lithuanians complicated participation in 1992 Summers Olympics. This logo is important in identification purpose as it was used to raise the funds for Lithuania national team, which almost had no money for international games (widely described in the article). It means that the image is used for "critical commentary when there is no free equivalent available that would adequately describe it" and it is low resolution image.
 * EuroBasket 1995 awards ceremony.JPG is used for critical commentary, which is widely described in the article section (Croatians left the awarding ceremony because they wished to show their disappointment in judging during the final game between Lithuania and Yugoslavia). Once again image is low resolution and free equivalent is not possible since it happened long time ago.
 * Marciulionis, Kurtinaitis, Sabonis and Chomicius (USSR team, 1988 Summer Olympics).jpg is once again used for critical commentary as Lithuanians were forced to play for Soviet Union national team (widely described in the article). It is a unique historical image as it was made by these four players close person, which means there is no free equivalent available. Image is once again low resolution, compared to the original one.
 * Feliksas Kriauciunas.JPG and Frank Lubin EuroBasket 1939.jpg is used to illustrate the subject in question (notable players). Free equivalent cannot be made because Feliksas Kriaučiūnas and Pranas Lubinas have already died. Pofka (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (GMT +2)
 * The players should not be pictured as they have their own articles, and the file usage fails WP:NFCC#3 and 10c on this page. The two awards ceremonies nothing in the pictures are critical. In fact nothing specific to the photos are noted. We dont need photos of them winning or walking out to understand that they won. (See WP:NFCC#1&3) I can continue the breakdown if you want and go into further failures. Werieth (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I said you dozen times: READ THE ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE WRITING ANYTHING. Awarding ceremony picture is used to show Croatians leaving the ceremony by showing their disappointment and support to Lithuanians, which is indeed A CRITICAL COMMENTARY. Pofka (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2013 (GMT +2)
 * NOT ITS NOT. Just referencing the action doesnt need a photo. You do not understand WP:NFCC. The picture is replaceable with text see WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs a photo when it is a important (CRITICAL) action. Pofka (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2013 (GMT +2)
 * Not according to policy. Werieth (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like there's an underlying content dispute. I recommend that Pofka open discussion threads at Talk:Lithuania national basketball team, explain why the images do meet NFCC, and work to build consensus on including them in the article. Given that it's a fair-use issue, I also suggest that 'the images should not be added to the article until after'' consensus is reached on inclusion.
 * The only administrative action in play here is whether to block either party for edit warring. If this matter is confined to the talk page until consensus is reached, I don't think that will be necessary. Further edit warring, however, may result in block(s) to the offending editor(s). —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the user wont listen and has competence issues. Werieth (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be assuming a little too much good faith, but that was done before he'd have seen my messages here and at ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar enough with the NFCC criteria to say whether it's a clear enough violation for Pofka to be blocked, so I protected the page. I removed the unfree images though. While I try to avoid picking a side in a content dispute, since there were copyright issues I think it was prudent to err on the side of caution for the protected version. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth, didn't we just talk about this? About how you need to discuss things with people and not edit war with them? And yet, here we are, again, with you edit warring with people without any significant discussion. The only objective criterion that failed here was 10c, which most likely could have been easily remedied if you, y'know, had bothered to take the time to explain what it was. But, as is par for the course with you, you didn't. What is it going to take to get you to figure out that this kind of thing is not okay? A block? I'd rather not block someone who is honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia as you are, but I will if that's what it takes. Do not edit war over this kind of thing (yet) again, or the next time it's a block. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about admins actually defend WP:NFCC instead of attacking those who enforce it. There are 4 files that clearly do not meet NFCC and 2 that are blatant failures. In this case I was 100% correct, I think your threats make me question your suitability and judgement as an administrator. Werieth (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The point that you keep missing is that you enforce NFCC through discussion, not through unexplained summary removal, because, yet again, the NFCC are for the most part subjective (10c notwithstanding, as that could have easily been fixed had you explained it). Nevertheless, if you question my judgement as an admin, that's fine: if you can find one or two more people who agree, I'll give my bit back and I'll stand for RfA again at some point (actually serious). It's not that big a deal. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When users refuse to discuss what am I supposed to do? leave the violation? Werieth (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, while reporting them to an appropriate noticeboard. NFCC violations, while they are serious, are not so time-sensitive that they will destroy the encyclopedia if left on an article for a few hours/days. In fact, that is one of the reasons why our NFCC policy is more strict than the actual US fair-use law. Things that fail NFCC are not necessarily copyright violations, as they may still qualify for the legal definition of fair use (as opposed to Wikipedia's definition). Thus, NFCC violations are not urgent in the same way that straightforward copyvios are. Also, in order for them to have refused conversation, they must have been offered conversation, which is something you didn't do in this and other cases. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth, no one questions Writ Keeper's judgment and suitability, not even his mama. You know, I've supported you in the past, in discussions and with administrative actions, but seriously, if I may speak frankly, you really have to chill the fuck out. This is NOT used getting worked up about, and if you don't realize that these are matters of discussion/judgment (even if you're usually right!) then you really need to work on that. And don't come complaining about lack of admin support or whatever--it's not like you filed this days ago and no one has looked at it. Come on now: what you need is friendly admins who are on your side. Don't piss them off without a good reason. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When admins give me absolutely zero support in addressing a chronic abuser of NFCC when a post is created at ANI and bitch at me for making clearly valid NFCC removals I will complain. My judgement of removals and interpretation of policy has been verified many times. Getting crap about not leaving NFCC failures in articles, and that I should just tagged it and discuss it, has about the same success rate as Unreferenced which is still in articles 7 years later. How about admins actually take NFCC seriously and stop treating it like the black sheep, and ignoring it. (Ive had several posts to WP:AN/RFC outright removed when requesting WP:NFCR closures). So until you know the whole story please wait at throwing stones. Werieth (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And what was the success rate of continuing to revert on this page without discussion? It would appear to be 0 for 14. Edit warring does not work, and is against the rules anyway. Stop trying it. Even if all you do is report immediately to a noticeboard without discussion, that's still better than edit-warring. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reporting gets no results. In this case I would call it a success. Non-free violations have been removed, and wont be re-added. How about admins actually stepping up, and putting some teeth in WP:NFCC? Werieth (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully support the reasoning on removing the images, but the reasons to remove are not cut-and-dry as to make it an admin action, at least without prior discussion to assess the subjective nature of why they fail NFCC. Admins cannot act on subjective reasoning, and there is actually a process that should have been done (tagging either the images at FFD, or the article for discussion at NFCR) after the removals were reverted once. Once the discussion there concluded with consensus for removal, an admin would have done it. But we as NFCC "enforcers" cannot edit war, nor expect admins to come to the aid to remove, when there is no objective failure of the images and only subjective reasons that haven't been explored yet. --M ASEM  (t) 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there where two clear cut about as objective as you can get failures of WP:NFCC. When NFCR has gotten to the point where discussions are just being closed to close them, and not reaching a acceptable/not acceptable decision. And taking at least two months on average to process, especially when its this clear cut, see Black Kite's rationale. That type of in-action is making WP:NFCC almost to the point where it should be marked historical. Werieth (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC is not black or white, though its grey line is much narrower than other polices. But it does exist. While I agree with you and BK that two of those images were very unlikely to ever meet NFC, there's small possibility that it could be met (for example, the image of the team walking off the podiums might have been one of significant discussion if there were more sources about it. I doubt those stories really exist though and that would have had to be added to keep the image, compared to the arguments of "but the article needs atmosphere!" that were being put forth, but it still remains a subjective measure and not a 3RR exemption to continue to remove. There's only a few limited cases of NFCC that need to be policed fast and hard; the rest, like most of WP, is a matter of consensus and which may come down to no immediate decision. --M ASEM (t) 23:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite reading wp:NFCC, I think that the images are actually justified as said.  Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  19:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See my post on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whose? Yours, Pofka's, this page's, or WP:NFCC's talk? Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article talk page. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the images are probably inappropriate but they are all subjective calls, and not exemptions from edit warring (by either side). --M ASEM (t) 19:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All four of the images clearly fail WP:NFCC and should be removed. I have given rationales on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 50.128.184.140 / User:BruceDavidWilner disruptive edits, persistent NPOV violations and editorializing
This user's edits consist entirely of opinionated commentary on the subject of each article in question, often directly contradicting or mocking the preceding content. While amusing, this user's editorializing was inconsistent with the neutral tone required of an encyclopedia. When confronted by other editors, this user responded with angry personal attacks and accusations of being a paid shill. Requesting administrator intervention to either calm 50.128.184.140 down or stop his/her disruptive edits. Huntthetroll (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The user asked me about why I made this post, and I responded here. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: This editor has now registered as User:BruceDavidWilner and has identified himself as the computer security professional of that name. Mr. Wilner's resume is quite impressive, but he seems to have a bit of a vendetta against Wikipedia and a rather abrasive personality.  I will assume good faith on his part and try to help him become a successful contributor.  Huntthetroll (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Bigpoliticsfan
has been spamming requests to WP:RFPP and WP:GAN; despite being warned for both (e.g., and ), the behavior continues (e.g. this nomination, to which the nominator has made no significant edits and which has an obvious orange cleanup banner for being out of date). The user refuses to respond to any of the concerns raised at their talk page. Can an admin issue a more official warning here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor has responded and agreed to stop spamming these boards. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Persistent anonymous vandal
This report was inexplicably declined at WP:AIV where suggested that I bring it here. continually inserts factual errors and breaks markup and writes incredibly incoherent things in articles. This is pure vandalism and this user has enjoyed three previous blocks for the same behavior. The most recent block just expired and they are back to a pattern of no constructive edits. Elizium23 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I think it's clear enough to block. ✅ Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range
Several years ago, I raised this issue regarding an editor originating from the Philippines who made disruptive edits to several pages in the topic area that I frequent. He is still active and still disrupting pages, never answering talk page messages, and whenever they are left he just goes to a new IP. The most affected articles remain the same as they were in the previous report, with the editor changing name spellings from established forms on Wikipedia to forms I assume have only been used in Tagalog and unnecessarily tacking on the definite article to terms where it is not necessary. The IPs recently used are: In September, I posted a request to WP:SPI seen here and the range responsible was temporarily blocked, but this has not deterred this editor one bit. I would like to request a longer block to fully deal with this editor. A good portion of the edits made from the range come from this individual so it does not appear there will be much collateral damage, but that will be up to the blocking administrator to decide. I cannot deal with this editor by myself, particularly when some parties believe that I am WP:BITEing the individual, when they do not know any of the extended history of attempted and failed contact.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (schoolblocked)
 * (schoolblocked)


 * I have applied a one month range block to 114.108.216.0/24, which seems to me to be narrow enough that there will be very little collateral damage. -- The Anome (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you block it though? The edits appear to be good faith and are clearly beneficial, like adding wikilinks and reverting unconstructive edits/vandalism and correcting grammar. Ryulong reverts the edits to Sentai articles wholesale, but aside from differences in formatting and views on prose, this editor is not a problem. If anything, Ryulong's ownership of the topic area and constant abrasive interactions and instant assumption of bad faith is more concerning. Ryulong constantly yells at editors in all caps for good faith additions that do not appear to be contentious. And it goes without saying that some of Ryulong's reverts seem to enforce his own translation preferences. And as evidence of this, I point out that Ryulong translated "Kore ga! Baō da!!" as "I Am Baoh!" where "Kore ga" translates as "This is!" or for emphasis "This! Is!" as mentioned at Talk:JoJo's_Bizarre_Adventure:_All_Star_Battle. I am more concerned about Ryulong actions than I am about the IP editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked it because I WP:AGF on Ryulong's behalf; they are a well-respected editor, and on first inspection, their complaint appeared to be quite uncontroversial: the IPs were certainly all editing the same topics in the same way. Seeing the other comments below, I then took a closer look and decided to unblock after failing to find anything to confirm Ryulong's comments. I remain open-minded on the issue, but will leave the resolution of this to other admins. -- The Anome (talk)
 * I agree. They don't appear to be vandalism, and the block should be unblocked. -- Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress,   talk,  18:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said the edits were vandalism. I have pointed out that for at least three years there has been an unresponsive editor constantly enforcing the same undiscussed generally unhelpful changes to at least a dozen articles despite several attempts at communication to convince him to stop. ChrisGualtieri, I find it appalling that you are trying to turn my request for help into shooting myself in the foot. The Baoh issue is done and over with and completely unrelated, as are edits made to Power Rangers and related pages, particularly when I have told multiple editors multiple times that they need sources to prove a statement that they wish to put on the article, and I've been through at least two RFCs/RSN threads/I can't remember on similar statements in the past. And really, you're trying to get me in trouble for discovering an editor had posted copyrighted images to the commons which forced me to start a massive cleanup last night as well? What we need to do is get the Ghost in the Shell issue done with and then I can gladly request that we be interaction banned so neither of us has to see each other on this website, again. As my request has been answered, this thread can rightly be closed.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've gone back over a few of the edits from these IP's at random, and I've got to say I can't see anything drastically wrong with them so far, apart from the change of name from Layda to Rayda, which is probably a matter of opinion because of the L/R ambiguity in the name "レーダ" in Japanese. Ryulong, can you please post some diffs that show (a) behavior from this editor that goes against community consensus, facts from reliable sources or Wikipedia's site policies, and (b) your attempts to engage with them regarding this? In the meantime, I've unblocked the IP range; please note that I will happily re-block it later if the diffs support your arguments. -- The Anome (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The following diffs comprise evidence that I have made multiple attempts to communicate, assuming good faith, even though in the past I have never once received a response.   . The only thing that has changed is the IP ceasing to use the bold and line breaking format, but he persists in using "the" before the names of certain characters that happen to be robots.— Ryulong  ( 琉竜 ) 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, I didn't say you called these edits vandalism; but you have repeatedly done so in your reports. For 114.108.216.30 you submitted a report with simply "Long term vandal". I am saying that the IP editor reverted unconstructive edits and vandalism. I do not think a "R.I.P" is constructive, but the editor did remove it. The only thing I see about the editor is that you disagree about the unofficial English translation of L/R as was the case with Rem/Lem in Trigun. What I do see is Ryulong pushing an equally unofficial translation without inserting reliable sources either. The attempts to engage with them seem to be more or less yelling all caps and stating authoritatively his dominance and the IP editor does seem to be unaware of the problem because I do not see the editor responding to Ryulong or defending themselves - or even made aware of the repeated block requests filed by Ryulong which more or less go unanswered as noted by the blank block log on the IP address. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How else am I supposed to get prompt responses? Or at least that is how I used to get prompt responses in the past. A single anon IP that changes daily is never going to bother to check a talk page to see if there are messages sent to them or messages concerning them. I have been dealing with this editor never saying a single word to me in 3 years. What makes you think that anything is going to change at this point? All I know is that within the next couple of days I am going to have to revert him, again, because every change he has made to these pages is unsourced (the pages are in shit shape to begin with so we don't need an IP adding useless unsourced trivia to them anymore than have been now) and to revert his extremely awkward English phrasing and his insistence that the names of the shows' giant robots need to be prefaced with the word "the", because that is certainly all that's happened here and here.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Try using edit summaries (and stop marking the edits as minor) -- e.g. "English does not use the definite article in these contexts." NE Ent 02:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki rollback automatically marks edits as minor and no edit summaries (because I will often have to revert this IP on 5 pages at a time).— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 02:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So stop using rollback. (Rollback is for vandalism; as the IP probably thinks they're doing the right thing, it's not vandalism. NE Ent 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Rollback can also be used to revert several problematic edits in a row so long as afterward you send the user you reverted a message stating the issues that required the use of rollback.)— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 02:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, and according to your post above you've been doing that for three years and it's not working, probably because the editor's IP keeps changing. But the article location doesn't change, so if you leave an edit summary, maybe they see it. Additionally, you could try sticking a comment in the first "the" you remove next time so maybe they'll see it the text itself. NE Ent 02:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, this is a content dispute, with a side order of non-communication, and not a matter for AN/I. The two issues here, Layda vs. Rayda, and definite article vs. no definite article, are arguable either way in this case. I agree with the posters above who suggest the use of edit summaries and inline comments to try to establish communications. -- The Anome (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't worked before it sure as hell ain't going to start working now.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just use Twinkle rollback, which allows for "AGF rollback", "rollback", and "vandalism rollback", with the first two giving an option for an edit-summary explanation? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Twinkle rollback is too slow at times to deal with multiple problematic edits. And I might note that the user is now active as .— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have actually seen that the edits, other than the constant changes of spelling (which I had to deal with, again, as I changed more than the R/L issue) are beneficial. I hope that he responds this time around, though.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange or dangerous page
In page User:Deejawwad, there is an image of an identifiable person and other personal data (including real name, age and city in Pakistan) and an atheist userbox. Since atheism is not legal in Pakistan, according to article Irreligion in Pakistan he might face capital punishment. Therefore, I am afraid that that userpage might be just an act of defamation against the person shown in it.

Furthermore, there are several facts that make this page different than a legitimate userpage:
 * What the user tells about his work in Wikipedia doesn't match his contributions. It's even self contradictory, since the text contradicts some userboxes.
 * Part of the text is copied from User:Moonriddengirl.
 * The user has just requested his userpage to be blocked just after he created it. This is not a common practice, but it can be useful to prevent a defamation to be stopped.

I hope I'm just too paranoid.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I agree there's something odd going on here. The user requests page protection for their userpage, even though there was no vandalism that I could see. User claims they're not an experienced wikipedian, but also claim to be active in copyright concerns. Some of their earliest edits were to template space. Fair bits of userpage are copy-pasta'd from somewhere else. Whoever created this page, it isn't their first go around here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some random thoughts...
 * I don't think the page is dangerous. Pakistan isn't as pure & homogenous as its name suggests; I welcome a bit of diversity and I'm skeptical that local police are going to track down some pseudonymous editor. It's his risk to take, anyway.
 * Parts of the userpage seem to have been copied from Moonriddengirl and parts from Alansohn.
 * Diving straight into difficult template edits is a sure sign of somebody who's edited before; but that's not a crime.
 * I wouldn't be surprised if this is an editor who decided to have a clean start (or something like it) and copied some userpage stuff from an established editor they had met before.
 * Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the question for me is, is the owner of the account the same as the person named/pictured? That's where we have a risk - if this guy is who he says he is, and wants to say he's an atheist, fine, that's his choice. But if this is his enemy, using this page to put him at risk, then that's dangerous. There is a linked twitter account, I wonder if its worth at least asking that account if they are linked to this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't verify identity with a twitter account, because a twitter account is just as easy to set up as an en.wikipedia account. Very low level of identity assurance. If you want a higher level of identity assurance then we're getting into the realm of real-world documentation, and I think that's overkill for an account which doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser: Four different accounts all have the same four-sentence chunk of text on their userpage: User:It won't be pretty, User:Anandgad1, User:Deejawwad,and User:Woohookitty. bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like users copying user pages and I wouldn't mind deletion. But can anyone judge whether those template edits ("PKRConvert") of theirs are worth anything? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PKRConvert seems to be a copy & paste from INRConvert, with a crude search & replace to change the name of the currency. Ditto for the /doc subpage. It's broken, because INRConvert relied on Indian rupee, but thanks to the search & replace, Deejawwad's new PKRconvert template is looking for a Pakistani rupee which doesn't exist. In principle, all this could be fixed if somebody was willing to put in the effort, but right now it's a broken, crudely copied template with zero transclusions. There is a problem here, but it's not Deejawwad's religion (or lack thereof). bobrayner (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be churlish of me to suggest that somebody fond of copy & pasting is likely to have had a run-in with the ever-diligent Moonriddengirl? If that editor then decided to make a fresh start, and made their clean new account look nicer by copying Moonriddengirl's userpage... um, my head hurts. bobrayner (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys! Let me clear that I'm not pretending to be someone and Deejawwad is purely my own account. However, since I'm new to this site I wanted to establish myself here and for this, I did a little research about editing wikipedia pages and I also have some experience in html editing that's how I'm familiar with some advanced editing so you shouldn't be worry about "a new wikipedian doing advanced thing". Yeah I accept that I've copied some contents from some random wikipedians in my user page to get an idea of how my user page looks but believe me! I was not trying to impersonate anyone. Most of the information is true however some paragraphs as said above, are copied from random users so that my user page looks pretty lengthy ;-). And if you guys want me to delete those paragraphs, I'll do it!. I agree that I made a template named PKRConvert and copied all of the contents from INRConvert because like Indian rupee there should also be a Pakistani rupee convert template but since I'm a new wikipedian, I tried my level best to make it but was failed. I need some experience and if you guys allow me to make a Pakistani rupee template just like the Indian Rupee, then it would be appreciated. So far as religion is concerned, I think every person should have his rights regarding this and I don't think the government is gonna trace me just after they know that I'm an atheist. Every person has his own choice. I hope all is clear now and guys, thanks for your concern. and please be nice and patient with this New Wikipedian. Deejawwad (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)\
 * I redirected my userpage to my talk page. So shouldn't be an issue from my end. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 08:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I have no interest in kicking an enthusiastic new editor who made a mistake. We all make mistakes (you should see the mess I made when I first started).
 * First: Deejawwad, you probably realise by now that just copy & pasting doesn't always succeed. It often leads to copyright problems. Put in a bit more of your own effort, and you'll get much better results.
 * If you're sure there's a use for the PKRConvert template, that sounds plausible, so I'll help you get it working. I'll add some pointers so that everyone knows where the new template came from &c.
 * Don't worry about religion. (Unless you really want more disputes - articles related to religion, ethnicity, nationality &c can often be a battleground).
 * If in doubt, the answer is usually "sources": The stuff you put in articles should reflect what reliable sources say; sources are a great way to resolve disputes; sources are the key to notability if you're trying to write any new articles; and so on. I have a tattoo of WP:V on my arm, although it's hard to keep it updated.
 * Does that sound reasonable? Does anybody else need anything else? bobrayner (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

De-linking of Using Archive.is a challenged How-To to its RfC
, a major author of Using Archive.is is adamant in removing hatnote links from the page to an RfC, Archive.is RFC that challenges its entire appropriateness of encouraging use of Archive.is. The allegation is that Using Archive.is is unacceptable promotion of a startup web business Archive.is, deleted Articles for deletion/Archive.is 24 September 2013. The activity not only promotes the startup web business, but is allegedly making Wikipedia dependent on this web business for link archives, which may later tie advertising to access to sources of Wikipedia content.

At DRV and Wikipedia_talk:Using_Archive.is, Lexein is pushing the view that because Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Using Archive.is closed as keep, that encouragement of the use of Archive.is is legitimate. However, use of MfD for such a policy purpose is expressly forbidden in the MfD instructions and the policy question of legitimacy was outside the purvey of MfD, belonging instead at the onging RfC. (At DRV I have argued that the MfD should be overturned from "keep" to "procedurally closed").

Would others please review, whether the RfC should be linked, and probably assist in properly tagging and advertising the RfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Response by
I'd like to address several misrepresentations.

1. I'm not a "major author" of WP:Using Archive.is. As can be seen by the edit history I didn't start it, and I had nothing to do with it until 25 September 2013 when I edited as follows:
 * (Copyedit to remove synth and repetition, and to conform with cited sources, and for tone. Expand and correct refs, date formats by script. Create Copyright and robots.txt section.).

From a readable prose size of 4364 bytes, it went up to 4381 bytes after all the editing by me and others.

2. I did not "de-link" anything, I de-hatnoted improperly biased hatnotes, because: Note that nobody at the WP:Archive.is RFC discussed the howto article WP:Using Archive.is. Nobody at the MFD discussed any affect on policy by WP:Using Archive.is, or any effect on the outcome at the RFC. Nobody at the DRV has discussed any policy-related effects, except SmokeyJoe. These facts rendered SmokeyJoe's assertions in hatnotes false, so I believe I justifiably removed them.
 * Both claimed "policy issues" relating to the Howto which were not in evidence in the RFC, or MFD.
 * Both asserted that WP:Using Archive.is was itself the target of discussion at the RFC.
 * The first was a misapplied standard template, the second was a handmade banner with misinformation.

3. The view I'm pushing, if any, has nothing to do with "encouragement of the use of Archive.is is legitimate." SmokeyJoe sees "encouragement" where only documentation is present. Nowhere in WP:Using Archive.is is there any literal or implied encouragement to the user to use it. I've made several edits to reduce any possible promo tone, and I made further such edits today before this AN/I was filed. My position which I stated at the RFC and the MFD, and now the DRV is simple: as long as any links to Archive.is exist on Wikipedia, the Howto page should remain. And there's no consensus at the RFC to remove all links to Archive.is.

4. Because the use of Archive.is is under discussion at the RFC, I added a neutral hatnote: "The use of Archive.is is is under discussion at WP:Archive.is RFC", at 23:47, 29 October 2013, 29 minutes before SmokeyJoe filed this AN/I at 00:16, 30 October 2013‎. Apparently, he did not notice that. I hope this satisfies all concerned. --Lexein (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The neutral hatnote. I did not notice, sorry.  That satisfies my concerns.  Thank you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP violating link on Alva, Oklahoma
User:Alvawacko has added a link repeatedly to Alva, Oklahoma that has been repeatedly reverted by several people--first addition, most recent addition. After the last addition, I took a closer look at it and realized it was a link to the criminal record of a certain individual. This escalates it from mere link spam (which I've warned him about), to something more problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and diffs revdeleted. I think the repeated addition of negative information about non-notable indivduals is sufficiently problematic to justify this. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Username doesn't inspire confidence that s/he is HERE to edit constructively about the town of Alva. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  14:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WikipediaNoMore254
has recently made edits to several articles that are all vandalism, and seems that it is a WP:VOA (user contribs). Also the user made what seems like a threat. Could someone block this user since it seems to only be a vandalism account? Thanks. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 23:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * update: Seems like the user's been reported already by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards here. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  23:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account and bogus page created
User:SkythebutterRS has 9 lifetime edits. All either vandalism or a few you might call severe test edits. 7 were at Boreal forest of Canada including putting disguised/mislabeled links to external websites. They also created a bogus page: "Category:Alberta's Website" which should get deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour
Hi. This may seem a little OTT, but I've been a witness to bullying and this is how it starts. I want it to stop before it leads to something more serious. A user has been aggressive towards me and repeatedly told me to leave a talk page when I feel I am pointing out genuine inadequacies with the article in question - this is the discussion in question, and the user who is intimidating me is User:DeCausa.

Basically, a couple of weeks ago I stated some facts at the talk page, which I knew would be controversial, hence why I said my aim wasn't to edit the article. Rather, I wanted to point out that, while my arguments don't fulfill WP:V, other editors might want to take them into account. user began engaging me yesterday in a very confrontational way, and he realizes that he's doing it, even though I asked him to think about his behaviour.

I have used Wikipedia for several years, been in arguments in the past, but this is the first time I have genuinely felt uncomfortable.

I don't feel it's right for a user to repeatedly tell me to leave a discussion page, all the while ignoring my arguments, that I believe are reasonable enough. He's hidden my comments twice. I don't think I'm going against WP policy by pointing out that an article is using inadequate sources.

I use Wikipedia because I enjoy it. I don't find his behaviour towards me enjoyable, and I don't think that he is assuming good faith on my part. Thank you in advance. btw, I didn't know where to post my complaint, this got me here. BigSteve (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No comment on the wider issue but closing your comments seem appropriate whether or not ot was handled well, as the purpose of talk pages is to discuss changes to the article not to discuss the subject of the article. If all you wish to do is 'register' your 'opinion' you'll need to find somewhere else to do it like a discussion forum. If you want to point out sources are inadequet that's fine but you should do so it self or in other words seperate from your opinin of the subject. Opinions on a subject are basically a dime a dozen on wikipedia and while they may be occasionally tolerated you have no real recourse if someone feels it distracting in the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He started a thread with “I'm not going to enter into any debates nor wish alter the article. I just want this to be registered as an extant opinion, which may one day be shown to be correct.” He then proceeded to explain why his analysis/interpretation based on primary sources was correct and all the secondary sources were wrong, while all the time repeating that he doesn't want to edit the article. He has been repeatedly pointed to WP:NOTFORUM by me and and another user but to no avail. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * DeCausa, you are correct in principle for hatting the thread as off-topic. Couldn't you have been more polite about it, though?: "Your 'logic' may be impeccable, but who cares? You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia operates. We just report what the RS say, effectively. No one is interested in your personal insights on a subject. You've come to the wrong place." This is not block-worthy incivility IMHO, but it is not likely to improve the tenor of discussion. It makes it more likely that the recipient feels "bullied," as opposed to simply being corrected about what Wikipedia's policy should be. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  14:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd boldly hatted off the discussion per DeCausa and Nil Einne's reasoning, which I agree with. No comment on the material though. Blackmane (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jprg1966, for your reply, and thank you for being the only person here who has actually heard what I said. I came to this page because of User:DeCausa's attitude towards me, not to attempt to ask for help in an argument on an article talk page. I'm quite happy to keep that to the relevant page – I do know WP rules, despite continuing accusations to the contrary.


 * While I admittedly did digress in my original post on that page, I feel that I made relevant points about the accuracy and sourcing of that article. I've just been accused by DeCausa of "not hearing", but, while I have attempted in vain to explain to him why I feel that my case is relevant to the talk page, he has rudely belittled me, not responded to my explanatins, and twice hidden my comments. I don't see that as productive behaviour.


 * DeCausa's reasonning seems to be "if you're not aiming to edit the article, then you are not to use the talk page". Well, no. When discussing controversial subjects, I prefer to reach consensus on a talk page before attempting to put it into the article. So I feel that my use of the talk page was actually more in line with policies than if I had merely been WP:BOLD.


 * He's accused me of "itching to enter into a debate"...again, no. After my initial post I have only ever replied to precise comments from other users. But DeCausa has goaded me four times – this, I feel, is a bad faith move on his part, because he's been intentionally provoking and insulting me, rather than just dropping it. If he had asked me to explain my problems more succintly, then I would have attempted to, and we wouldn't be here with me feeling bullied. Blackmane, I don't see why you simply re-hid my comments on that page without addressing the problem that I came here for – DeCausa's aggressive behaviour towards me. By simply repeating his actions there, without addressing the problem I have come here to ask for help with, Blackmane, you are simply encouraging DeCausa's rude behaviour towards me and, possibly, towards others.


 * If he'd merely come to the talk page, hidden my comments calmly with a brief comment, then I might at least have attempted to understand why he's dioing it. Instead, he's repeatedly engaged me in rude conversation, and only then gone on to hide the discussion. That's definitely a bad faith move. It's not reasonable to insult someone and then say that they are not following the rules.


 * That's the problem that I came here to ask for help with. I will, after this debate is over, leave that thread hidden, as I have no intention of edit-warring over a talk-page, of all things, and below it I will do what I should have done originally – bullet-point my problems with the article. But I will not stand for rude behaviour. It is unacceptable on Wikipedia and I expect administrators, who are supposed to uphold values on here, to do their job and uphold a peacegul atmosphere. I'm sure we all get enough grief in the physical world, I'm not going to allow some aggressor to transfer the buckets of bile that he's accumulated over his day onto me over here. Just because he's not had the ability to do get his anger out in the physical world, doesn't mean I have to stand for his attitude. And I wont. This is very important – we need to take bullying, or even "merely" intimidating behaviour, seriously. It's a problem in the real world, and you better believe it's a problem online. BigSteve (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to close this, but I might as well say a few things. First, one or two comments do not "bullying" make--in fact, it's probably abusive to abuse the word "bullying" to define DeCausa's rather stern remarks. Stern they were, perhaps needlessly so. DeCausa, please play nicer. At the same time, the user was pointed to NOTAFORUM a number of times, yet they persisted, and when DeCause pointed (or kicked) them that way, this was the response: total passive-aggressive commentary, which again denies that the material was not appropriate for this talk page, and in addition charged DeCause with trolling and threw around all kinds of feelings (" I feel uncomfortable with your attitude") and patronizing comments ("You need to step back and see how your behaviour might be perceived by others, it's sailing pretty close to the definition of bullying"). No, there was no bullying here; no, this material, even if it was placed there in the first place with the best of intentions, was not appropriate; yes, starting an ANI thread on such flimsy evidence of bullying is disruptive. No doubt I'll be charged with bullying as well, but I can live with that: admins are supposed to be abusive anyway, or so I hear often enough. Someone please close this, since the more I look at the last (linked) comment, the more I understand DeCausa's curtness. Administrators are indeed supposed to uphold values, but they are also here to uphold policies, and WP:SOAPBOX is one of them. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR. Well, not quite, I did get as far as the third paragraph before giving up: "When discussing controversial subjects, I prefer to reach consensus on a talk page before attempting to put it into the article. So I feel that my use of the talk page was actually more in line with policies than if I had merely been WP:BOLD.". That's after-the-event justification, since I think you may have now finally got WP:FORUM. You made it perfectly clear that you weren't interested in changing the article. You said so in the first sentence of your first post. DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't even read the second sentence. Again, you just don't get it, do you? I came to this page because of User:DeCausa's attitude towards me. Better read the full post. BigSteve (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Drmies, I won't accuse you of bullying, but it's not patronizing to attempt to tell someone their behaviour is making you feel uncomfortable. In fact it is policy to tell the user that they are upsetting you. BigSteve (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that at all, that "upsetting" thing. What I see is some notes on civility, and I don't see incivility in DeCausa's remarks. It's a judgment call, and I disagree. What I do see is the advice to "walk away". Drmies (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to agree. Like you say, it's a judgement call. And my judgement is that I feel intimidated. I tried to explain, calmly, what my point is - that no primary source corroberates the article's claims. He shouldn't be telling me to go away once I have outlined that argumentation. He's rude from the word go, which goes against WP:Civility, and he continued with the rudeness, even after I told him how I felt (as per WP:CIV), which is intimidating. What is so hard to understand? BigSteve (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Persistent article overwriting of Steve Wilkinson by Vicki4894
has been persistently overwriting with content for a different person. I created a new page for the other person and it was deleted as not notable. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I note you haven't attempted to discuss this matter with Vicki4894 before bringing to ANI; consequently there is nothing to do yet. I have created a sandbox for her at User:Vicki4894/Steve Wilkinson and will invite her to edit there. GiantSnowman 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did attempt to discuss this matter at the end of the welcome message on User talk:Vicki4894 --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One message - tagged on at the end of the 'welcome' template - is not sufficient. If I missed it then it's likely this user did. GiantSnowman 17:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're a bit strict here, Snowman--one message should be enough, though yeah, a second would have been better. Anyone notice that the rewritten version isn't actually rewritten but recopied, from this and this? Drmies (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Snowman, but I had to nix your sandbox. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it. My issue wasn't with the fact it was only one message - it was the fact it was only one message tagged at the end of a template one i.e. hidden. I didn't notice it, I doubt a new user would either.... GiantSnowman 20:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right--I see that [point], even though your message was tacked to the end of mine. :) You know, that's how I usually do it too; maybe a new section is a better idea. I'll keep that in mind. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism from 127.0.0.1
is vandalizing tonight. We're not supposed to block it though, apparently. Is there something else we should do? There's something on its userpage about other loopback addresses but I'm not totally sure I understand. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 127.0.0.1 is the "local machine" IP address; i.e. it shouldn't be editing at all. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 00:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edits started showing up from it about 9 hours ago, apparently for the first time in 9 years. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to laugh so hard if someone IP blocks 127.0.0.1. I'll poke a WMF tech person or something and try to get it directed towards the right person. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was a split second away from doing so, since Huggle's block function didn't display the warning. Then I thought... hmm, why is that IP familiar and checked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Administrators' noticeboard. Rgrds. --64.85.215.242 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the don't block this IP reasoning is entirely valid as Prodego's block was a hardblock that prevented all users from editing. I still think we should keep the IP address block (softblock). This will prevent unintended blocks (autoblocks) from occuring, preventing ALL affected users from editing. <b style="font-family:Chiller; font-size:x-large; color:#8B0000;">Elockid</b><sup style="font-family:Chiller; font-size:large;">( Boo! ) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you are in direct communication with tech ops, I would highly suggest you don't even softblock localhost. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Autoblock blocks it anyways with a more severe block. So that defeats the purpose of not blocking it. <b style="font-family:Chiller; font-size:x-large; color:#8B0000;">Elockid</b><sup style="font-family:Chiller; font-size:large;">( Boo! ) 01:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Our sysadmins are working on it. We've been advised not to touch the IP - not even soft-block - as ops is confident they can find out what's broken soon, and the consequences of blocking it (especially with this bug) are unknown. m.o.p  01:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Halloween fun is over - ops has resolved the issue. The loopback should stop making edits shortly. Or, so I'm told. m.o.p  01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pity I didn't see this earlier, since I would have pulled the trigger in complete blissful ignorance (no notice popped up when I had a look). Look at that dude's block log--worse than Malleus's, though oddly enough here also the blocks are quickly reverted. Also, I have no idea what y'all are saying. If I had blocked the IP, would the front page have fallen off or something? Or would our block checks have been delayed? Drmies (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that we would have blocked a large portion of IP editors from Oceania. --Rschen7754 02:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

date format warrior
User:Jojhutton is on a campaign that as much as possible will remove YMD format from wikipedia. I left a polite note on his talk page 1> drawing his attention to WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT, 2> directing him to an alternative script that he could use that would not violate those guidelines, and 3> pointed out that unilaterally changing formats is not working co-operatively with others. Afterwards, he immediately made HUNDREDS more edits removing YMD from articles. I have reverted a few of his edits, but the wider community needs to put the brakes on this. --JimWae (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In many of those cases, as I pointed out, the date formats in the citations were mixed. Many used all three, DMY, MDY, and YYYY. All I did was unify those dates to MDY as these are US specific articles. In any case, the date formats should be unified under a single format, I simply chose the same format that was used within the body of the article for the sake of consistency.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In many cases, the format was already consistently YMD. In NO cases have you changed any dates to YMD. Wiki editors do not get to globally change wikipedia to their preferred format in contravention of wiki guidelines, nor do they get to invent & enforce their own guidelines. Cease & desist, please.--JimWae (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm actually following wiki guidelines. I'm not on a campaign to remove YMD, only on a campaign to unify dates. Since the articles are US specific and there were a mix of dates used already, I changed them all to MDY. Its within the guideline. I explained this already on my talk page.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  21:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are following only SOME of the guidelines. Guidelines support YMD in references. You are removing them in contravention of WP:DATERET & WP:STRONGNAT & more. The other script I directed you to works very well.--JimWae (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a single diff showing a problematic edit. Then again, I also don't see a single diff showing an edit according to policy. Someone needs to stop forcing us to do the digging ES  &#38;L  23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For a start, Here is one diff converting an article from YMD to MDY. Here is the one that first alerted me to this behavior, converting an article whose accessdates were fully YMD, after which I posted to his talk page & he next immediately made HUNDREDS of similar edits away from YMD--JimWae (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well for a start, the article at Missouri was not "fully" YMD, nor is it now either since you reverted my date unification attempt. The article still has a mix of date formats which is against the guidelines. Secondly the article at Mexican-American War had the first date inserted as MDY. It was later mostly mixed with DMY when you changed it, noting "consistency". I agree with consistency and therefore the article at Mexican-American War should be made all MDY using the same argument you made at Talk:Missouri and Talk:New York.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an issue beyond date formats and MOS here. When an editor is questioned about edits, the correct response is not to forge ahead with many other similar edits, but rather to discuss the issue. Earlier today I became aware of this when a similar edit was done to Indiana: I saw no point in this edit and reverted, and was immediately reverted myself with an edit summary that strongly assumed bad faith:  On his talk page I was accused of hounding and stalking, though I've had no interaction with this editor for a long time. The Indiana article was on my watchlist, as I do a lot of editing on Indiana articles. So, to me, there is more than just the MOS involved here; it's a behavioral issue. Omnedon (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want, I can rollback the edits, but I don't really see it necessary to do so. The date format "2006-04-24" is as acceptable as "24 March 2006" or "March 24, 2006". Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * He is still making HUNDREDS of date format changes every day. MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT specifically permit YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates, exempting them from other parts of MOS:DATEUNIFY. WP:DATERET advises against changing established formats, and thus the established accessdate format ought to be kept. An untold number of the hundreds of articles he is editing either are predominantly YMD for accessdates, or entirely YMD. Agreed, it is time-consuming to search each article's edit history to determine which format DATERET supports. He (& quite a few others) are using scripts which are biased against keeping YMD in ANY article, because there is nothing in those scripts that will DATEUNIFY toward YMD, and numerous functions that remove YMD. Perhaps it is the script-authors' opinions that readers & editors are too dumb to handle YMD, so we must not expose them to it? MOSGUIDE says otherwise. The obvious upshot of the proliferation of users of these scripts, if not the clear intent, is the eventual obliteration of YMD from wikipedia, or invitation of edit-wars until exhaustion with anyone who wants YMD to survive their scripts.  Having all the accessdates in a YYYY-MM-DD format is actually a benefit to readers & editors alike, making it clear at a mere glance which date is an accessdate & which is a publication date. If all accessdates were to be YMD, there would not be a need to consult the detailed edit history of every article before making the accessdates consistent, scripts could handle the job quite well, and there would be less conflict between editors. (Instead, I see some script-author is still proposing for discussion that EVERY wikipedia article have the same format (either DMY or MDY), with no concern about those who would feel excluded, the same lack of concern for those who do not want YMD excluded.) --JimWae (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a look, but admittedly at just a dozen or so articles. It seems to me that most of the small sample were mixed format use, where MDY (and certainly not DMY, as they were US articles primarily) was an appropriate unified format.  So, while I became concern with the reference to the number of articles -- can the complainant confirm ... are most of these, as in the small sample I looked at ... as I describe?  If so, then most are likely reasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like he's recently modified his behaviour since this discussion started. The problem really is people using a script without regard for what the MOS guidelines are. The source of the problem is that the scripts encourage this behaviour by PURPOSELY NOT having any way to unify toward YMD. --JimWae (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An article's current format being mixed should not become an excuse to wildly use purposely crippled scripts.--JimWae (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits I looked at seemed to be within policy. On the other hand, I didn't like the biased header of this section, nor the tone of some of JimWae's comments. Boomerang might reasonably apply here. --John (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My point is that they are not actually within policy if they violate WP:DATERET. However, the source of the problem is the crippled scripts that disregard any possibility of observing WP:DATERET. There are numerous people using these scripts to make thousands of edits removing YMD from Wikipedia. If we are going to make accessdates consistent, we need a guide that does not require a 20 minute search of the history for every article AND does not exclude YMD from Wikipedia. I have presented my suggestion above. Having all accessdates in a YYYY-MM-DD format is actually a benefit to readers & editors alike, making it clear at a mere glance which date is an accessdate & which is a publication date. --JimWae (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation. The edits are fine. Reverting them multiple times as you have done at 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is disruptive and to continue to Wikilawyer like you've been doing is tendentious. It's not the end of the world, go do something other than hound someone who's improving Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Conjowa
The article in question was deleted through an AfD; the discussion can be found here. The author then recreated the article. I had it CSD'd and it was deleted. The author again recently recreated the article. Had it CSD'd again. I am requesting that the article be salted through the titleblacklist. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have SALTed The Conjowa and Conjowa, and warned the editor. GiantSnowman 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been reverting edits on the page and have used abusive language in the comments
This is regarding the User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom, he has been reverting my edits on the SynapseIndia page and had been using abusive language in the comments like "WTF". History link of the page - [] Diff link - []

I have informed the user on his talk page and while doing so I have noticed similar incidents mentioned stating that he had been involved in edit wars and can be considered for being blocked. He has a past history of violating three-revert rule and have been doing so on SynapseIndia page also. Esparami (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand by stupefication will expand to the full language "What the fuck does Khemka being an art collector have to do with the company SynapseIndia"? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

122.177.7.131 (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support claim of stupefication. I closed the AfD; the clear consensus was to delete, and the three SPAs there didn't bring anything of substance to the table anyway. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleting the page is understandable. What seems disturbing is that the administrators are allowing users like User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom to continue vandalism by using abusive comments, getting involved in edit wars, not just with the above mentioned page but many other users. Referring to [], [], [], []
 * Where to start? Using "WTF" is neither vandalism, nor abusive. The first dif you provided is to an explicit legal threat for which the IP was blocked (by me). The second dif is from a new editor cut and pasting the same templates they had received for edit-warring against consensus to TRPoD's talk page. The third and fourth dif were from the same incident wherein a cursory glance showed that TRPoD's actions were correct and the ANI report was closed in short order. Any very active user is going to attract criticism from other (generally new) editors. Cherry-picking negative comments from a user's talk page to try to cast aspersions on them without actually reviewing the substance of the claims made in the messages does nothing to advance your argument. You only have 12 edits, it would be more beneficial for you to ask yourself what you can learn from this experience as opposed to seeing it as a battle to be won.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:TPOC, comments on talk page being edited.
Having a problem on Talk:Peter Sellers in a heated discussion. User:SchroCat is attempting to interject on my comments rather than responding to them below them. . I've tried reverting him, but he just reverts back. user:Dr. Blofeld.also reverts back without comment. I'm happy to read whatever he has to say, but below my comments, not in them.--Oakshade (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have no right to remove his comments Oakshade, that was why I reverted you once I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you make arguments based on a strong of sources, then interjecting with SIGNED comments is an entirely appropriate way to discuss each point, or the individual arguments are lost – as they are in the current version. Nothing in your comments was altered or edited, and the full sense of absolutely everything you wrote was still readable, understandable and utterly as you had written it.BTW, as TPOC is long and tedious, could you quote the actual bit you are relying on for this action? - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All the arguments are numbered and are easily countered. My signature was below my comments.  Per TPOC, you are to respond below other people's comments, not in them.  Signing your comments does not justify violating TPOC.  TPOC says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. "--Oakshade (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out to you, I did not change the meaning of any of your comments. They are still as understandable as before and have not been altered in any way by me. Your edit, on the other hand, of moving my comments, have changed their meaning by removing the context in which they were written - which has had an effect on what was written. - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you're changing the meaning of someone else's comments or not, you're not supposed to edit them. And interjecting is editing them.  If you want to respond, per WP:TPOC, you respond below the comments, not in them.--Oakshade (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The part of WP:TPO which addresses interruptions was removed in September based on the argument that "endorsing this practice on the guideline will just give folks something else to fight about". Please see Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines. The original section on interruptions said: "In some cases, it is okay to interrupt an editor's long contribution .... If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted..." I read this to mean that the author of the interruption is expected to revert his interruptions if anyone objects, but the original question on that talk page was a request for clarification on that point. IMHO, Oakshade is right to object, but not to revert and SchroCat is right to object to Oakshade's revert, but not to put back in the interruptions. Celestra (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As you've quoted the TPOC, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning": I did not edit your comments to change it's meaning, but to reply to you. NONE of your comments had the meaning altered at all: they were responded to, that is all, and you are over-reacting rather badly to something quite petty and minor. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not interject comments (with rare exceptions allowed by WP:IAR). Oakshade is entitled to object to edits which interrupt their comment, and is entitled to revert such edits (but no edit warring). Interjected comments are extremely confusing for third parties, and quickly spiral out of control (suppose someone wants to reply to an interjected comment, with further discussion at the point of interjection). Regardless of whether interjections are desirable, such edits detract from the original post (making it hard for a third party to read), and that should not be done, particularly if the OP objects. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read Celestra's comments above. Your preferences are noted, but are hardly policy or viable guidelines here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have followed WP:TPG for a long time and am well aware of the recent adjustment regarding interruptions. Regardless of the letter of the law at WP:TPG, long standing practice is that interjected comments are bad, and the OP is entitled to revert them. There is no policy on that, as it is hoped that most people will recognize that interjections can very reasonably be interpreted as disrupting to the OP, and that interjected comments make it hard for subsequent discussion to occur. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually long-standing practice is mixed with no real set format to it. Have a look, for example, at any FAC or FLC and you'll see comments In between, addressing specific points (as was the case here). No confusion, no disruption. Just like here. Sadly, since my comments were moved to a different part of the thread, they are out of context, and consequently it is more difficult to understand the thread: there is confusion and disruption to the logical flow. As I said above, your personal preferences are fine, but there was no material breach of TPO in this instance: certainly not enough to file in a dramah forum. As to "interjections can very reasonably be interpreted as disrupting to the OP", I'm afraid I disagree with such a sweeping absolute statement: it really should carry a cn tag! - SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, as another editor has pointed out to you on the talk page, my post points were numbered so they could easily be responded to below in context. You're still free to do that.  As a courtesy I was (and still am) willing to to it myself but was concerned you'd accuse me of violating WP:TPG. --Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * SchroCat, you place your comments after those of the person you are replying to. If his points are numbered, it is very simple for you to indicate what part of your reply is a response to what part of the other person's post. They should be entitled to remove material which anyone else inserts into the middle of their comments, since it can be confusing to other readers, especially if someone inserts their reply to your comments in the middle of your comments. Attribution of who said what can become a puzzle. Edison (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really: having to flick up and down the page to find the original point being refuted is a pointless and ridiculous waste of time and one that is not at all conducive to dealing with the issue at hand. I appreciate you have your own personal preference on this, but as Celestra has pointed out, this particular issue was removed from TPO in September. - SchroCat (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=572106174&oldid=572105832 change at TPO] was to remove the suggestion that it was ok to insert comments inside another editor's comments (aka "interruptions"). Removing the suggestion means that it is not ok to insert interruptions. It's pretty simple to understand the reasoning because interrupting someone's message is likely to lead to pointless bickering, such as is seen here. That's on top of the serious problems I noted above (disrupts the OP; confusing for third-parties; makes continued discussion very difficult). Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. Interestingly, in this case, the continued discussion is disjointed and less easy to follow and more confusing for third parties. It's a purely practical point and if you want to stick to the letter of the MOS, then that's all well and good, but it doesn't alter the fact that having to scan up and down the page to read which point is under discussion is a damned stupid way to hold any conversation. Additionally, (and trying to bring this pointless thread to a close) I could have sub-sectioned the four points (which I am able to do under WP:TPOC) in order to have exactly the same effect, but without all the pointless dramah. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have entirely missed my point. The section on interruptions was removed because it seemed to endorse the practice in certain ill-defined situations. As a general rule, no one inserts their comments into another editors comments. If you feel that you need context in each portion of your reply simply include a brief quote to provide that context in your comment. Your comment about what the guidelines allow under the letter of the law reminds me of the joke about how Nixon read the constitution: looking for loopholes. That doesn't seem to match the spirit which is to have a respectful exchange of ideas for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Celestra (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for loopholes, or ways out and refute that utterly. What I am/was looking for was a way to effectively and efficiently discuss some erroneous points made: that has not happened, and the talk page thread, rather like this one, drags on aimlessly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Soapfan2013 not following editing etiquette for soap cast lists
Soapfan2013 seems to be experimenting difficulties understanding that we do not delete cast members from cast lists. If a cast member has departed, they're moved to "previous cast list" and despite being told to do so, they're continuing to ignore this. This user has had issues in the past with working with other members, especially myself and at this point, is exhibiting behavior of not assuming good faith. While I assume they're attempting to, they are not providing any proof that a certain cast member is off the series. Nor willing to accept that fictional characters in soaps do not die. They're also very forceful with their interactions with other editors, including myself, and it is not something that should be over-looked within editing. Soap fans are dedicated, but their edit explanations are just simply showing that they're unwilling to do anything other than their own way. They've exhibited that on other occasions with other editors as well. There needs to be some resolve in this situation, as it appears whenever they edit something, they get into some kind of forceful argument with an editor, where they either tell them off or say that they're right, and people need to "accept it". It's becoming tedious, and they've already been blocked for sock-puppetry, and this is their second chance. I do not believe them to be handling it as well as they should be, and it's time it becomes looked into.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 04:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there more than one editor you are reporting here? You refer to "they" more than once?--Malerooster (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The "they" is SF2013 only. Sorry for the confusion.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 04:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's helpful to use "they" as a pronoun for a person whose gender is unknown. All too often around here, we assume that an editor is male. We don't have to, and we shouldn't. bobrayner (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But it can also be confusing. I personally prefer instead of writing something like "Soap fans are dedicated, but their edit explanations are just simply showing ..." to write "Soap fans are dedicated, but this user's edit explanations are just simply showing...", but then I dislike Singular they. DES (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay I did not know I was supposed to put Constance Towers in the past cast section, I just never thought of it, somebody should have told me to put it in the past cast section, I didn't mean any harm. Sorry if I pissed anyone off. P.J. (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did tell you, numerous times. And as a long-time editor of soap articles, I find it very hard to believe you were not aware of it. In all of my edit summaries, I stated not to delete characters.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa there - you do not communicate with someone using edit-summaries. They are to explain what you did in the edit.  "Communicating with someone" requires a note on their talkpage.  ES  &#38;L  08:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd suggest you sign usuing your username, as there are a number of users whose usernames start with "P.J.". - The Bushranger One ping only 08:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * SF2013 and I are not to communicate on our talk pages. That's why I did not do that, given the agreement we both had. And he was communicating that way, as well.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you CANNOT try to communicate via edit summaries, and then claim you communicated with them - period. Perhaps it's going to be necessary to separate the two of you completely via an interaction ban, and keep you off the same articles if you're going to try to claim that was "communicating"  ES  &#38;L  20:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The only time I've had interaction with SF2013 since we've been told to stay apart from each other's talk pages has been on cast pages, due to SF2013's harsh words once said upon me. Other than that, I've not had interactions with this member is over a year. So I don't think an interaction ban is necessary at all.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 20:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ok, so you had some past history with this editor, and had some agreement. What administrative action would you like taken now? --Malerooster (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User unblock request
A user which I have blocked informally requested to be unblocked. I didn't really know if it was appropriate or not, so I turned it into a formal unblock request and asked for another administrator to make the decision. Could someone who has experience in unblock requests take a look at it? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, first I wondered how you blocked them informally, and asked myself how much else I don't know. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The editors latest comment on his/her talk page is not indicative of someone who understands why they were blocked. It is also a personal attack. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also note this is a known, acknowledged and confessed sock. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly worried about the socking; it only occurred once, and it's not clear the user knew any better (believe it or not). The user has also agreed to behave if given a second chance. Anyway, @JoeSperrazza:, the user sounds half contrite, which is why I brought it here. Regardless, my job isn't to assess whether the user is properly contrite; my job is to make sure that the user will not be disruptive to Wikipedia if unblocked. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Twice, which shows a disruptive pattern: maybe ignorant on the first instance, but not on the second: ; ; and . - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep blocked He's blocked for socking, and continues to try and justify why he was socking. The incivility is just an add-on  ES  &#38;L  20:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Insufferable Little Prick"
has repeatedly referred to me as an "insufferable little prick":
 * 
 * 
 * 

Corbett was briefly blocked for it, but the block was soon overturned by Corbett's friend.

How do I get this guy to knock it off? Isn't there some sort of rule about this? I know there used to be.

I asked him to stop on his page, but it was reverted by him without addressing it. I haven't responded in turn. It seems like his friends just cluster around him and support him, telling me I was somehow asking for it.

I would really appreciate it if it this were handled by someone who is a neutral party (in other words, neither a friend of mine nor a friend of Corbett's). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like you condescendingly belittled Eric Corbett by pretending he doesn't know the meaning of the word "synonym", and then belittled ParrotOfDoom in a similar fashion, after which Eric called you an insufferable prick. What do you want an admin to do here? Do you want me to tell Eric to stop calling you names, so that you can insult him in peace? MastCell Talk 23:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We were discussing synonyms. I linked to the synonym article. This wasn't some kind of low blow; it should have been clear enough that the two were synonyms, a sarcastic, bemused response does not an ad hominem make. Besides, that doesn't give anyone the right to start going after others and repeatedly calling them an "insufferable little prick". If so, I guess I better get on the bandwagon. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And, yeah, it would be nice if someone would somehow get him stop the attacks. It's tiresome and needlessly heating. If he wants to make a point, he can do it with a persuasive argument in talk page space; schoolyard name calling isn't helping anyone. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as an "ad hominem attack", as you'd know if you were the educated linguist you claim to be. Eric   Corbett  23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please restrain yourself, Corbett. That was a typo. I have an unfortunate tendency towards word salad when multitasking. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was a basic misunderstanding of something that anyone who's studied philosophy and logic would know. Eric   Corbett  23:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regardless of what happened in this particular situation, can we get some resolution on the issue please? Block - unblock - block - unblock. What's going on here? Is this going to be discussed every week? If we can't get get resolution here, can't somebody high up make a decision? StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I didn't come here seeking a block. I'm just looking to stop getting called these names. Is there a lack of clarity nowadays with civility in policy? I know in the past it was a bit gray and it appears to me that WP:CIVIL seems to have all but gone out the window as something that is enforced.. ? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you came here seeking a block, everyone who comes here does. Eric   Corbett  23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I made it rather explicit that I just didn't like being called names. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No one likes being called names, just as no one likes having their intelligence insulted. Look, civility can't be "enforced". Civility is the result of mutual respect. When an editor belittles another editor and insults his intelligence, as you did to Eric, then civility suffers. When an editor calls another editor an insufferable prick, as Eric did to you, then civility suffers. But there is no authoritarian solution to the problem here, which is that people seem to expect to be treated with more respect than they're willing to show others. No amount of blocks or "civility paroles" will solve that. If you're serious about improving the level of civility here, then the things that work are boring and incremental: model civil behavior. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Learn to walk away and let things go once in awhile. Those things are hard, and no one's perfect... but no one's even trying here, which is depressing. MastCell Talk 23:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These users obviously knew what a synonym was, thus the eye-brow raise and reminder. These incidents are hardly equivalent. As for trying? I asked the user to stop with the name calling and I haven't said anything that could be taken as a remote slight since, despite repeated baiting by Corbett. I certainly didn't call anyone any names. A little sarcasm isn't going to hurt anyone. Still, I certainly didn't expect that drastic of a reaction. What is really surprising me is how this is now apparently the new norm and somehow accepted. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "somebody high up" -- we have to figure it out for ourselves, collectively. In a prior arbcom case, after over 100 editors commented and couple months later, we got:
 * There was a tad more to it than that. However if the community cant effectively enforce collectively then ultimately it should end up back at Arbcom, we cant keep going around in circles and if we take a look at the current block log and previous block log before the account rename we clearly aren't able to deal with the situation. Eventually the community have to own up to that and refer back to arbcom rather than constant blocking followed by unblock followed by more blocks. Blethering  Scot  23:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic banned editor and Sisterlinks to other projects
I am bringing this report here as a topic ban prevents the editor from responding at the original talk page.

The issue: Editor (formerly ) is topic banned from "articles relating to new religious movements or their adherents, broadly construed, or to any associated biographies of living people" here on the English Wikipedia. Prior to the topic ban, the editor Sisterlinks to the List of new religious movements article. All targets of that template lead to articles on other projects created by the topic banned editor. Of particular interest is that two of the four targets were created in the past month, and all of them are being actively edited now by that editor. While the topic ban here on en.wikipedia may not explicitly preclude the editor from working in other wikis, directly linking to their work in this area while the topic ban is in effect is a clear sidestep of the topic ban. While the timing of the edits in the other projects make AGF difficult, t This may be entirely unintentional.

Proposed remedy: Removal of Sisterlinks from this and all related articles which are impacted by the recent (post topic ban) edits by Cirt. Any other remedies are also available and open for discussion here.

Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment: To my knowledge I have not made any edits on English Wikipedia in violation of the topic ban and I have been very careful not to do so.
 * 2) Whatever the community decides to do on pages where I don't edit is up to the community and I'll of course respectfully defer to the community consensus on whatever those issues are.
 * 3) It doesn't appear that my actions are in question on English Wikipedia.
 * 4) Therefore I won't weigh in with any opinion either way about what should be done on Wikipedia related to those topics.
 * Thank you for your time, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No way. How in the world would this benefit these articles?  Unless Cirt's been doing something that you've not mentioned at all, he's made no violation of any bans here, and bans here have no effect on his actions on other projects.  Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The benefit to these articles would be to remove direct links to material created or edited by an editor who is restricted from directly editing the articles. The ArbCom findings of fact include that Cirt placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices. The Sisterlinks template is effectively now linking the articles to material still being edited with those same concerns. We (here) have no control over that content (there), but we can decide whether or not to link to it.--Tgeairn (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well: you remove them, and I'll restore them right back again with a warning not to remove links to relevant pages from other projects on the topics of these articles, and a warning to heed the relevant content guideline. Please read WP:NOSE and remember that the most important thing around here is building an encyclopedia, not thumbing our nose at people.  Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No violation: Unless more evidence is presented, there is absolutely no violation of the topic ban here. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This certainly does not violate the topic ban. The existence of these links does continue a pattern that has apparently been around for quite some time. I am asking for the opinion of this noticeboard on how to handle that, not to do something regarding the topic ban. On reading your comment, I realize that AN may have been a better locale for this discussion than here at ANI. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. I wonder, though, if it will gain more traction there, even though the question will be different. Tgeairn, do you object to the next passing admin closing this? This one is about to pass on/out upstairs. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not object to it being closed if there is no action that can be taken. I was hoping for a simple solution here, but I may have not brought it to the correct venue (I just wish I knew what the correct venue is, as I still view this as a real, actual issue in need of some solution). --Tgeairn (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Beauvy
I am requesting that the talk page privileges of this user be revoked for the duration of their block for edit warring and a possible extension of said block for an additional 24 hours for disruptive, false and unfounded accusations of sock puppetry as well as general disruptive behavior .--Mark Miller (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to discuss things with the user in question at the moment; it would appear she is unaware of many of Wikipedia's norms, including what exactly sockpuppetry means. If she follows through on her stated intent to resume edit-warring when the block expires then she will likely need reblocking for longer, but for now I'd prefer the others involved in the dispute just wait it out and try not to take what she's saying personally. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take your lead here Nikkimaria, but retract my offer to assist this editor when they return from the block. If this is how they act when blocked, I want nothing to do with them when they are unblocked. I still request they be asked to retract that accusation.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling for an extension of Beauvy's block is probably pointless, or even counter-productive. Either the user will adjust to Wikipedia's norms when the block expires, or not. In the latter case, the eventual outcome is predictable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, we do take away talk page privileges once the editor demonstrates that they are not capable of using the privileges responsibly, but you are correct that an extension of the block could do more damage than good. In any case, I defer to Nikkimaria.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Atotalstranger
This new contributor seems to have an obsession with adding unsourced or poorly souced assertions to biographies to the effect that the subject was 'born to a Christian family', and/or regarding ethnicity. [] I note that Atotalstranger has already been blocked once for edit warring, and judging from edit summaries, seems not to have learned the lesson. Can I suggest that another block might be appropriate, to be withdrawn when Atotalstranger gives an indication of understanding basic policies regarding sourcing etc, and likewise gives an indication that he/she will comply with said policies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy that something has to be done to address the behavior here, as multiple communications seem to have had no effect on the editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding 'multiple communications', this past version of Atotalstranger's talk page gives some indication of the scope of the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy is obviously correct about Atotalstranger on all points. My report with regard to Atotalstranger at the WP:BLP noticeboard is what I believe led Andy to look into this matter and report it here; he has done what I should have done. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:BLPBAN may be necessary until/unless Atotalstranger becomes better acquainted with BLP policy and what constitutes a reliable source.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No action yet taken against this editor as a result of this WP:ANI report? If this noticeboard doesn't take this matter seriously, then I suppose I shouldn't be worried about it either. However, look at his or her edits in the edit history of the Asa Griggs Candler article, where he or she is insisting that using Wikitree.com is a reliable source; he or she has WP:Edit warred with me and Andy to retain it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Shit Flyer, we're all volunteers here, alright? Drmies (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I could have blocked indefinitely for a combination of incompetence, failure to communicate, use of unreliable sources in BLPs, edit warring and editing against consensus, a complete failure to understand the concept of relevancy, etc. (The civility police will be interested in this "go fuck yourself"--as far as I'm concerned it was totally valid.) But their most recent edit is this, containing nothing of the "of English descent" type comment, and sourced to a real book and all that. So they know, and I cannot block for incompetence anymore. What I can tell you is that an admin should block the very next time that one of those troubling edits are made, and that a BLP ban might work but a 1R restriction might be more beneficial to the project., you might just want to come by here and drop some words in this discussion, some well-chosen words that show that you understand that you are in trouble. Usually one can take Ponyo's and Epeefleche's words to the bank, and AndytheGrump is all too often correct in these matters as well. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies. Sorry about my "No action yet taken" comment; I thought that I may be coming on a little strong there. I know that this noticeboard can be pretty busy with other matters, especially more serious matters. However, I've seen important matters overlooked here as well. And as long as attention was brought to the matter at hand because of my pushy comment, seemingly such as Ponyo's comment that actually came after it, I felt that it was worth a shot. I still don't believe that Atotalstranger understands what a WP:Reliable source is; I think that the aforementioned book source is a lucky guess on his or her part as to what a WP:Reliable source is. After all, he reverted my revert of the Wikitree.com source before adding that book source, and it's still currently in the article. But thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies' assessment, and that is why I haven't blocked Atotalstranger (yet). Now that the disruption has been raised on ANI there is no way that they could plead any type of ignorance with regard to the serious concerns other editors have with their misuse of sources, edit-warring, and general disruption. Let's see what happens when they return to editing, and if it's more of the same then a block will certainly be forthcoming. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ponyo, including for removing that source. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even today, a look at the editor's editing history indicates that the same behavior continues.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you mean, Epee? They haven't edited anymore. Sometimes such editors just go away for a while and then return after they think the dust has settled, doing the same old thing. Sometimes they just carry on as if nothing happened. In both cases, it'll likely end up with a block. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ,, et al., you'll be interested to know that I blocked the editor for a week, for this edit (unsourced and unexplained change to a BLP). Note, however, their following edit--not terrific, but an improvement since the previous content was unverified. But one half-right does not undo a total wrong, and I find that the linked edit is consistent with the pattern signaled above. One week is hopefully time enough for  to read over this thread and ponder the reasons for the block, and for this ANI thread in the first place. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Questionable behaviour by Garamond Lethe?
Can someone take a look at the recent actions by account User:Garamond Lethe and see if they agree with me that there is a series of events that, at least, require closer scrutiny, specifically its relationship with account User:Martinvl, which is now indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and topic banned from measurements related articles.

The Garamond Lethe account had laid inactive for 6 months from 20 April 2013. Then at 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC), just after a 48-hour block for disruptive editing had expired on the Martinvl account, Garamond Lethe sprung back into action, its first use in 6 months was to join a discussion in defence of a postion held by User:Martinvl at Template talk:Systems of measurement, which had reached deadlock and with the template locked following edit-warring involving account Martinvl. Note that although the Garamond Lethe account is not listed in the prior history of either the template or its talkpage, the opening remark made by Garamond Lethe is: "Hi Michael. I've worked with Martinvl before in this area;...".

That template discussion then progressed until Martinvl appeared to misinterpret the view of one of the other contributors as an agreement with his position there - the "compromise version". At that point, account Garamond Lethe made a u-turn, withdrawing a proposed change to instead support the mistaken interpretation given by Martinvl using these words: "Per offline discussion with Martinvl, I'll withdraw this an support the compromise version. I think that means we've reached a consensus." (my bold) Note the "offline discussion" element.

In the meantime, a discussion which started at 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC) about the disruption caused at WT:MOSNUM by the Martinvl account was progressing at WP:ANI. By 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC), a proposal to consider a topic ban on Martinvl had been added. In its 5th edit following its 6-month break, at 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC), the Garamond Lethe account was used to oppose the proposed Martinvl topic ban. The Martinvl account was, however, topic banned shortly after.

At 16:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC), after losing a 1st topic ban appeal of 21:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC), Martinvl launched a 2nd appeal. An early result of of that discussion, which is still open at the time of writing this, was that at 17:30, 28 October 2013 the Martinvl account was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, on top of the topic ban. Shortly after that block, at 18:55, 28 October 2013, account Garamond Lethe contributed to the discussion, calling for that ban to be relaxed. That comment still stands, despite the majority there seemingly supporting the ban and even the indefinite block.

Then, after I had performed a series of 5 changes to the measurements related article mesures usuelles (an article I arrived at following links from the recently promoted GA article History of the metric system) which Martinvl had contributed to previously, but which Garamond Lethe had never been involved with, at 22:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Garamond Lethe jumped heavily on my changes there, and with an inflammatory edit summary. I immediately reverted that change, and complained about it on the Garamond Lethe talkpage.

Shortly after that exchange, at 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC), Garamond Lethe raised this SPI against me and also against User:EzEdit, the account used to challenge Martinvl's actions at Template talk:Systems of measurement and elsewhere in the measurements articles, following it up with a direct appeal to an administrator, presumably in the hope of a swift and decisive response to his report in an attempt to prevent further challenges to the work of Martinvl.

It appears to me as though Garamond Lethe is acting on behalf of, or is in some way controlled by, the user of the Martinvl account. Could this be the case? Credibility gap (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Shortly before I submitted the above report, Garamond Lethe posted another attack to Talk:Mesures usuelles. Credibility gap (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Requested an SPI check, I personally doubt Martin would use sock puppets but the SPI reference to User:DeFacto is quacking.  SPI should clear the matter and for the record I hope it is negative.  Suggest the other SPI check is enacted, if the OP is DeFacto, watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * SPI is a sensible precaution. For what it's worth, Martinvl has not asked me to make any edits on his behalf, nor would I if asked.


 * I had the pleasure of working with Martinvl on Kilometers per hour when I first started editing, and I'm embarrassed to recall that I began by taking DeFacto's side in the dispute. The result was one of the stranger tables in the history of wikipedia (which I'm still quite proud of) and several other occasional collaborations with Martinvl.


 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 16:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with a SPI, though wonder why this wasn't where this issue was raised. Mabuska (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I know SPI has been overloaded lately but I hope both allegations can be dealt with soon; I know socking can be dealt with here as well as at WP:SPI.
 * Defacto is a community-banned editor and sock-puppeteer whose specialities include provocative editing on imperial and metric measurements and wasting the time of admins, mediators, notice-board volunteers and anyone else who takes Wikipedia seriously. Hir habits include creating accounts with a few edits and leaving them in the sock drawer for months while playing with other puppets, sometimes in back-to-back sessions editing first with one account, then with another (eg Ornaith and Pother, Curatrice and MeasureIT). Credibility gap's contribution history fits this pattern closely enough that an SPI request cannot be regarded as a breach of WP:AGF. Though most contributions date from 17 October 2013, the account was created on 11 January 2013 with 11 edits creating a user page that is a detailed pre-emptive refutation of any future accusations of socking. Minutes later DeFacto created a user page for hir sock Stevengriffiths, an account created in May 2012 but left in the drawer since then. The next day Credibility edited hir own talk page and made one other edit but no more in January while DeFacto carried on using the revived Stevengriffiths account vigorously until it was blocked as a sock on January 20th and talk-page blocked on 21st after the usual protestations.
 * Garamond Lethe has been editing since March 2012. S/he and I both participated in discussions at Talk:Kilometres per hour (!) and WP:DRN also involving Martinvl but deliberately prolonged by DeFacto socking as Ornaith. A great deal of Guy Macon's time was wasted trying to mediate. Garamond often disagreed with and was sometimes critical of Ornaith, Martinvl and myself but continued to try to work constructively with all. I have never before today considered the possibility that Garamond might be any sort of puppet of Martinvl and on reviewing some exchanges there, if it was puppetry it was a jaw dropping display that put DeFacto’s little dialogues to shame. NebY (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Mabuska wonders why I didn't raise an SPI. The reason is that I don't believe that we have a sockmaster/sockpuppet relationship here. I'm not sure what we do have, but I do know it looks suspicious, which is why I brought it to discussion here.


 * I note though that some have come here not to help understand what exactly the relationship is, but to throw counter allegations to throw the debate off-topic. That too is suspicious behaviour in my book, leading me to wonder what I have scratched the surface of here. For those in that category there is a common denominator, they have all been involved in many prolonged and acrimonious discussions related the the promotion of the metric system through Wikipedia, and seem to often act "as one" when the status of the metric system is questioned or challenged. I think we need to explore this aspect further. Credibility gap (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The DRN case referenced above may be found at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 37. I have no opinion regarding the current discussion other than pointing people to the right place in the DRN archives. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I see some of the "usual suspects" have contributed to that too. Credibility gap (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See the SPI request here. GL is most certainly not Martin. However, EZ is clearly DeFacto. Don't know about CG yet. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * CG's actions and general behaviour fits DeFacto quite clearly. Particularly with such a deflective ANI thread by a month-old account. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the evidence that EzEdit is "clearly DeFacto" up to the standard at which admin action to block him would be appropriate, because I don't see any action to do this yet?  DDStretch    (talk)  05:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Martinvl SPI, raised by another editor and mentioned above, found no technical link between Garamond Lethe and Martinlvl, which I am not surprised to see, but as I stated above, that wasn't an accusation that I was making here.


 * The clerk/administrator's comments are unusal though, and add weight to my suspicions. They said:


 * 'After discussion with a few others, we're caught in a strange place. On the one hand there are significant behavioral dissimilarities which suggest these are not the same user. On the other hand, there are significant similarities that suggest that they are related. Strangely, this is not a "gray area" case but rather one with conflicting information. I'm endorsing this for a check to clarify the conflicting information. There is enough positive evidence here to warrant a check.'


 * 'Closing this case with no action. It is possible that the two users are influencing each other, but it is clear with the added clarification from checkuser that these are not the same user.'


 * So that suggests a much closer relationship than that that normally exists between two editors with a common interest in te same subject area to me. Credibility gap (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I raised the SPI check mainly because of GL raising the SPI check alleging a DeFacto sock. I noted in the posting that I doubted Martin would sock, the main reason I did as noted to GL was to ensure there was a rapid resolution of the issue.  I would suggest you drop the WP:STICK at this time or beware the WP:BOOMERANG.  At the moment I and others hear the faint sound of quacking.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please remove freemasonry2 from an excluded template list, the template it redirects to is generally excluded in print now
Some templates, such as those used in Category:"Part_of_a_series_on"_templates, are particularly unhelpful when a page is printed out. Those templates should have Category:Exclude in print added. User:Pediapress/TemplateBlacklist is the last page on this wiki to link to the "Freemasonry2" template, and it's unnecessary because the exclude in print template has been added to the Freemasonry template, which Freemasonry2 was redirecting to anyway. Please remove the link to "Freemasonry2" from User:Pediapress/TemplateBlacklist and don't add a link to the Freemasonry template because that would just be redundant. Thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Three new accounts each creating a new account within minutes
We have

13:00, 2 November 2013 User account User:EDGARDO D. MAIGUE (talk | contribs | block) was created by User:Edgardo Maigue created at 12:54

13:01, 2 November 2013 User account User:4v32715661v2 (talk | contribs | block) was created by User:661v2 which was created at 12:56

13:01, 2 November 2013 User account User:NikkiYoung711Pineapples (talk | contribs | block) was created by User:NikkiYoung711 which was created at 12:58

Not sure if I should notify them as if this is normal I don't want to alarm them, although they'll be notified automatically. It's just that I haven't seen this pattern before. No edits so far. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija
has made a disruptive edit on the article "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Regarding this edit DIREKTOR reverted everything despite the fact that some of the edits were technical. That is out of order. I think this revert constitutes as disruptive editing and I would therefore like an admin to review this edit please. Regards IJA (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The flag of Serbia is not the flag of APKIM. There is no flag for APKIM, that is why we don't show one. Just like there is no flag of Northern Ireland, we don't show the UK flag do we? A consensus needs building if DIREKTOR wants to put a flag of Serbia on the article. What is next? Does DIREKTOR want to put the flag of Serbia on the info box of every town, village and city of Serbia which doesn't have it's own flag?
 * According to the Serbian Constitution, Albanian is one of two official languages of APKIM so why did DIREKTOR remove the Albanian spellings of Pristina? Why is it ok to show the Serbian spelling but not the Albanian spelling? That is in violation of WP:NPOV.
 * It is in great violation of NPOV to say that APKIM is a province/ still is a province, as I'm sure DIREKTOR is aware that is highly disputed.
 * DIREKTOR changed the spelling of the word "recognised" to "recognized" despite the rest of the article using the "is" spelling, that goes against WP:ENGVAR as we must be consistent with spelling variations.
 * DIREKTOR removed a citation tag for the sentence "In 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In 2006, Montenegro left the federation, while Serbia became its legal successor." On what grounds did DIREKTOR do that? Why would DIREKTOR object to this sentence being referenced?
 * DIREKTOR reinserted the sentence "The official status of the Kosovo province in the Serbian legal framework remained unchanged" despite me removing it because it was unreferenced and because it says that Kosovo is a province which is in violation of NPOV. I have no objection to that sentence being there if it is reworded to be more NPOV and if it is referenced.
 * What is so important about the word "unilateral"? Is it to distinguish from "bilateral" and "trilateral"?
 * Wow. I request that the user please discuss his edit and I'm reported on ANI. IJA, take this content dispute over to the talkpage where it belongs, please, and learn to cope when you're reverted. -- Director  ( talk )  14:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not just a content dispute, you're reverting technical and maintenance edits. That is being disruptive. IJA (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the "recognised" to "recognized" change can be described as "maintenance", and I apologize for reverting that too, the issues concerning British vs American spelling seem kind of irrelevant to me as an outsider.. -- Director  ( talk )  15:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And removing citation templates is a "content dispute". IJA (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, and not handled at ANI. The edits - whether "content" or "technical" are indeed CONTENT. We have a be BOLD, if REVERTED then DISCUSS process in order to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. That's the core concept of Wikipedia, and that's not disruption. I will warn all involved that I believe those articles are under a wide range of discretionary sanctions, so behaviour contrary to the common good will be met with unfortunate ends ES  &#38;L  15:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

IP range in South America being used disruptively
There is an editor who is using a range of IPs mostly from Peru to engage in genre-warring and category-warring at the articles of UK musicians and their albums and songs. Some of the IPs have been identified as spamming sites by Project Honey Pot, for instance IP 190.235.27.242 which for us is Special:Contributions/190.235.27.242. This IP changed a genre and a category of George Harrison to say he was not known for world music. The IP also changed a genre and category of Roger Waters to say Waters is not an Englishman living in the USA (Waters currently lives in New York state.) Similarly, the IP changed the biography of Jon Anderson to deny his status as an Englishman living in the USA.

IPs that have been engaged in the same behavior include:
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)
 * (blocked as a proxy)

I'm much less concerned about the accuracy of the IP's edits than the method. Some of the IP's edits are improvements, but many are not. The main point is that some persistent and probably banned or blocked editor has found a way around the rules by using spamming/proxy IPs in South America.

So, does anyone know what is the original account of the blocked/banned editor? Can we block such a huge range of IPs, for instance from 190.232.0.0 to 190.236.255.255? Is there any solution to this problem that does not spread collateral damage across a continent? Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rangeblocking is an option, but, going off that sample size, it's a /8 - more than ten million affected.
 * Is there a specific target/method of vandalism being used? Feel free to e-mail me the details and we can look at setting up an edit filter. m.o.p  20:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding another one active in the last few minutes:

My ultimate request would be to require user registration for any kind of editing. :) Since the WMF appears to be unready for such a leap, perhaps we can identify a pattern that can alerts some bots. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User registration won't solve the problem, and it it easy to track block and ban evaders with their IPs visible. I think the filter is a good option, if s/he triggers it, a bot can report him/her to AIV. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

162.157.152.134
Throught many weeks, and just this day, the user has been adding the categories about boy bands and girl group to multiple articles about bands. The problem is that the categories are incorrectly added as this user criteria is basically "the group/band is formed by men/women, therefore they are a boy band/girl group". This is incorrect and it is unsourced, as Wikipedia defines a boy band as "a vocal group consisting of young male singers, usually in their teenage years or in their twenties at the time of formation.". Neither of the bands this user is adding the category is defined as a boy band, and none of them are vocal groups. Examples of vocal group are Backstreet Boys, 'N Sync or One Direction, but Village People, The Beach Boys, Mills Brothers (a 1920s group, when boy bands didn't exist) or The Platters (that included a woman vocalist) are certainly not boy bands. Now this person has moved to Dixie Chicks or Bangles to assert they are girl groups. Girl groups are "acts featuring several young female singers who generally harmonise together", these two bands are not compound of "young women" and they do not "harmonise together" (the play instruments), examples of girl groups are the Spice Girls, The Supremes or Girls' Generation. The user has been reverted for weeks, warned by me four times today and reported to AIV, but the user insists to continue the miscategorization. I asked to block him, but he declined for personal reasons, and suggested me to take this case here. I don't want to edit-war for this, but 162 wants to. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 01:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked 162.~ 48 hours for disruptive editing. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Chilean vandal
For several months I've been chasing an user from Chile through en.wiki and es.wiki, among other Wikis. This has started to be obnoxius and has started to become from a simple disruption to complete vandalism. The issue is the next one:

The Chilean user, who hasn't created an account so I can give a precise name, has been vandalizing multiple pages in en.wiki and es.wiki, and less frequent other wikis. The method is to change a date to another, for example, a birthday or a release date of a work, in either value, the day, the month or the year. This is generally trivial, and no one would revert it unless it is pretty sure the original date was correct, but generally no one except I revert him. I begun "chasing" him/her in the article ...But Seriously, an album in which s/he changed the date from 7 November to 24 November. I confused this person with another editor, so I reverted him. Eventually this editor started to edit-war so I proved s/he was wrong, but continued to edit-war. The article was eventually PC and semi-protected. Once the semi-p expired s/he continued with the same, even claiming that Collings website was the ref, only to prove the user was blatanty vandalizing the article. I eventually discovered the edit had been vandalizing multiple articles here and in Spanish Wikipedia. To shorten the story, because a WP:LTA page can be created in fact, I am going to list the articles the editor has vandalized here and in other projects:


 * 190.96.41.191
 * 190.96.41.179
 * 190.96.32.228
 * 190.96.40.143
 * 190.96.34.32
 * 190.96.40.146
 * 190.96.33.71
 * 190.96.33.5
 * 190.96.32.193
 * 190.96.32.191
 * 190.96.41.12
 * 190.96.34.160


 * 190.96.34.156
 * 190.96.32.72
 * 190.96.41.106
 * 190.96.34.158
 * 190.96.33.111
 * 190.96.33.200
 * 190.96.32.63
 * 190.96.41.59
 * 190.96.33.229
 * 190.96.13.120
 * 190.96.32.72
 * etc.


 * Another range
 * 201.238.242.186


 * Spanish Wikipedia
 * Any "rvv", rollback to a 190.96.xxx.xx IP since June (Junio) 2013, or "Abuso en es/en wiki" revert


 * Other wikis
 * Portuguese
 * German
 * Polish
 * And maybe others I can't remember, and this tool isn't working.

A rangeblock should be performed not only here, but globally as the editor is a crosswiki vandal. The range, I think, is 190.96.32.0/20. The lattest known IP is, and per this vandal edit is why I decided to report him. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 00:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This has a very familiar ring to it. Wasn't this up here a week or so ago, a date changer? Anyway, rangeblockers unite: I'm not one of you. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Request filed at meta:Vandalism reports for assistance. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * /me does agree with a local range block (not on an /18 though, perhaps a /20; this could at least decrease the chances of him being able to edit without much collateral damage) but not with a range gblock. See my comments there. -- Glaisher   [talk]  06:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Francis Bacon
On the issue of the description of Bacon as "Irish born, British figurative painter" this has been a subject of dispute among a number of user/editors of Wikipedia, clearly the talk page requests users to be objective and report Facts supported by evidence in adhering to this principle the description "Irish born" is entirely appropriate back up by historical evidence of the Irish National census of 1911 (please see link http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/nai002575018/) .There is clearly a bias against describing Bacon as Irish as his nationality and forcefully purporting him to be a "British painter" due to his parents nationality they are described as "English" yes his mother was born in England but his father was born in Australia -as can be seen again the census 1911 enumerators abstract. In reporting these facts I would request the Lede be changed to reflect facts "Francis Bacon was born in Dublin, Ireland in 1909" etc, and delete the British description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) The consensus on the talk page is overwhelmingly in favor of "Irish-born British" as the optimal wording. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, Please see the above link to the census of Ireland 1911 not just Francis Bacon's description but also his parents Please try to be objective and report facts and not your opinion - It's not credible to describe Bacon as British he lived in Britain that is a fact and should be included by right, the consensus you mention applies to a motivated audience who participated at the time - recording a Fact the current does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseoffergeld (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Re: Creation


 * I've blocked this user for continued edit warring at Francis Bacon (artist); I did so before noticing this ANI post. Another admin is free to unblock if they believe I've been too hasty, or if it becomes clear the disruptive editing will cease. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , the user posted messages on so many talk pages. Just think of ANI as one more forum to repeat the same stuff. If anything, your block was too short given the disruptive SPA's history.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed; thanks Bbb23. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They removed the block notice following the block, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My account has been blocked
Dear Sir/Madam

I have a registered account from 2009 onwards. After a long time when I logged in to my account today... I see that I have been blocked and a message displayed

"It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts."

Can you please look into the matter.

Thank you Anoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your account isn't blocked - you wouldn't be able to post here if it was. Or are you referring to another account? If so, what is its name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other blocked account is, obviously. Fishface gurl (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then again, that account is not blocked either, so I guess problem solved. Fishface gurl (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Anoop is a relatively common name, of Indian origin. That account may have nothing to do with the OP's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This account isn't blocked but there exists a cat of blocked accounts suspected to belong to this user: . &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response. Actually I was referring to what Spaceman  just mentioned above. When I login to my account, I see a message "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC) The strange part is... I have no idea why those 5 account are linked to my account in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Because now inactive (since last May) admin CKatz blocked and tagged those accounts; given the SPI wikilink is red, I'm guessing they were so-called duck blocks (standard Ent rant goes here). I've cleared the tags and left CKatz a talk page message. NE Ent 10:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hold your breath waiting on a comment, they haven't been active several months.-- SKATER  T a l k 10:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NE Ent, please restore these tags for (at least) the duration of this discussion. You are making it a lot harder for other people to check this. While the tags shouldn't have included a redlink to the SPI (did Ckatz include this or was this a standard part of the tag?), suspected sockpuppets don't need a SPI. Considering that they edited wrt the exact same company, that the blocks came around the second edit from this SPA account (which was a mail to CKatz, the blocking admin), and that the blocked accounts include ones like User:Rajeev4uall, it looks to me to be a fairly clear WP:DUCK case, so I don't see why the tags should be removed. Socking and spamming should be fought against, not brushed under the carpet. Fram (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue appears to be that User:Anoop4uall has a notice that "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts." It is easy to see why that suspicion occurred—this account made a single edit (Special:Contributions/Anoop4uall) in October 2009, then another edit to post "you've got mail" on user talk:Ckatz in February 2011. The issue appears to be based on AdvocateKhoj and its website, see the February 2011 blacklist discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI - Articles for deletion/AdvocateKhoj. GiantSnowman 11:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your account isn't blocked and never has been. In 2009 you created the (perfectly valid} article AdvocateKhoj. Two years later some other accounts - Nikirai, Daddycoolboy, Abhishekraj12 and one similar to yours, Rajeev4uall - began spamming links to AdvocateKhoj into Indian legal articles. The admin Ckatz removed the spam and blocked these accounts as socks. It seems likely you were aware of this at the time, because your first and only interaction with Ckatz was to send them an email during the spam removal but before they tagged or blocked any of these spam accounts. Your email was also just before they tagged your userpage, and was your only edit in the 4-year period between 2009 and today.


 * Happy to believe you're not a sockmaster, and anyway the whole thing is ancient history. But I somehow doubt the claim that you just discovered all this today. Euryalus (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I had created this account so as to maintain the article AdvocateKhoj. However when it was blacklisted, I had shot an email to the admin who blacklisted it asking the reason for blacklisting. However, I never received any response. Since there was no purpose, I haven't logged in since... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So, we have established that you're not currently blocked. You have established that you created this account to maintain a specific article.  It would be helpful to know which other accounts you have or have had - there are a few valid reasons for using alternate accounts  ES  &#38;L  11:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

How would a user who hasn't edited for nearly a year and a half be aware that a certain site was blacklisted only 1 1/2 hour after the blacklisting happened, and more than 1 hour before the blacklisting admin edited the article for the first time? Seems hard to explain without some socks being reverted (things like this edit). I may have failed to think about some believable explanation here, but until such an explanation is given, the sockpuppetry one is thge most logical one, meaning that the suspected sock tags should be restored and this section closed (with or without boomerang). Fram (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing any unlawful activity here... all I wanted was to maintain the article, hope u can understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I got to know about the blacklist as there was a traffic drop from my Google Analytics Account so wanted to know more and so shot an email to the blacklisting admin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop4uall (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "I had created this account so as to maintain the article ,AdvocateKhoj. when it was blacklisted, I had shot an email to the admin who blacklisted it asking the reason for blacklisting. However, I never received any response. Since there was no purpose, I haven't logged in since..." - Anoop4uall, your userpage was tagged as a sockmaster 20 minutes after you emailed Ckatz. Are you seriously suggesting that having monitored Wikipedia for two entire years to "maintain the article" without making any edits at all, you suddenly notice an obscure blacklist entry mentioning it, email the admin concerned and then wait less than 20 minutes for an answer before logging out forever? If you had waited longer than that you would have noticed the sock template on your page in 2011 rather than in 2013 as you're now suggesting. Euryalus (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What might possibly have happened was that the user Anoop4uall might be in a blocked IP range. If the blocked IP range is wide enough, a user within the range can also be blocked from editing even if the user himself/herself is not individually blocked. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 13:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP clarified that he was not blocked, but received a message about blocked suspected sock accounts. The explanation of why these are not sock accounts is (to me) not convincing. I have accordingly restored the "suspected sock" tags to the blocked accounts (note that there some IPs active spamming as well which haven't been listed). Fram (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP has severe COI over the article in question. He may not have been socking; however he could well have been engaging in meatpuppetry. GiantSnowman 13:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There are things here that are hard to believe. In 2009 Anoop4uall creates an article in a single edit, and then stops editing for 2 years. Fine. But then:
 * In 2011 a collection of recent accounts spring up and start spamming external links to Anoop4uall's article subject. One of these spammer accounts coincidentally has a username very similar to Anoop4uall (that being Rajeev4uall);
 * Despite Anoop4uall not having edited for two years, they immediately notice the reversion of the spammed links and send an email to the admin reverting the spam;
 * Also despite not having made more than 1 edit in Wikipedia ever, Anoop4uall knows their way around enough to determine that the spammed links have been added to the blacklist and makes this (and not the spam reversion that led to it) the topic of their email. Even though the addition to the blacklist would not have affected Google Analytics as it is not retrospective (ie it doesn't remove all previous uses of that external link from Wikipedia). So the only believable way Anoop4uall could have known of the blacklisting would be if they or another account was also trying to spam the link at the same time as the socks, and had got the message that it was unable to be added.
 * Despite claiming to have an abiding interest in maintaining the article and an immediate concern at a sudden drop in web traffic apparently caused by the realtime removal of spam links (not the blacklisting), Anoop4uall then doesn't wait for a reply to their email about blacklisting but logs off immediately and forever, thereby missing the adding of a sock template to their userpage.
 * Despite knowing how to locate the spam-blacklist pages, watching the effect of their article and linkspam to it on Google Analytics, and monitoring the article itself on Wikipedia constantly over a two-year period, Anoop4uall is still enough of a newcomer to mistakenly believe their account is blocked. Presumably because they saw a block message when returning to Wikipedia in 2013. But where did they see it? Because the only blocked accounts are the socks who spammed the links in 2011.
 * This thread was opened as a query about why the account Anoop4uall was blocked. As the account is not blocked, I suggest we can close this section as resolved. On the wider topic of why there is a category of suspected socks here, its because there was clearly sock- or meatpuppetry going on, and the above points would make anyone credibly suspicious that Anoop4uall was either well aware or actually involved.
 * Either way, no action seems required. Anoop4uall, you're free to edit Wikipedia, and good luck to you with your future contributions. But I agree with Fram that the sock templates should be restored to the blocked accounts. They're sock or meat puppets of someone and the suspicions that led to the tagging are at least passably credible. Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not mean they are socks of Anoop4uall; as the editor made a single substantive edit before this ANI post, it's insane to conclude they are a sockmaster. To assert that is to assert there is a single individual in the world interested in promoting/spamming AdvocateKhoj. I don't care about the blocked accounts (and I doubt many other folks do, either), and if someone insists they be tagged with something, that's fine. But they should not be tagged "Anoop4uall" because the Wikipedia practice is (or at least used to be) you don't make accusations you can't back up with evidence. NE Ent 13:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same single interest, similar names, and restarting editing at the exact same time, is not the same as "accusations you can't back up with evidence". Whether they are socks or meatpuppets is not relevant, there is plenty of evidence that they are editing together for the same spamming purposes, and should thus be tagged as socks of each other. Fram (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please file an spi per policy at WP:HSOCK then. NE Ent 09:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And what will happen at that SPI? "Investigations are conducted by an administrator, who will compare the accounts' behaviour and determine whether they are probably connected; this is a behavioural evidence investigation." Which is what I have done here. I don't think that burocracy for the sake of burocracy will help anyone. Checkuser won't work anyway, since the other accounts are stale, so all there is now is a behavioural investigation. That the investaigation was done here instead of at SPI is hardly relevant. Fram (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (sigh) It's what I have done here also. So we've had an SPI conducted here on AN/I. The blocked accounts are socks or meatpuppets. It is suspected (note: suspected, not confirmed) that Anoop4uall is involved in that sock- or meatpuppetry. That's why there's a tag on their userpage. But Anoop4uall is not blocked, so their query seem resolved. And no one is suggesting they be blocked, so there's no further action to be taken. NE Ent, I have no objection to your reopening this conversation to have an additional say, but now that that has occurred and we are all just restating our positions, I respectfully propose we let this thread pass into the ether. Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, logically, Euryalus wasn't being truthful when you stated "Happy to believe you're not a sockmaster,"? or think it's okay to have accusation in place regardless of their belief in Anoop's innocence, or another possibility I'm missing? NE Ent 01:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the last of your options, the other posibility you're missing. The first comment was a (perhaps misplaced) assumption of good faith which predated both the detailed analysis of the issue by Fram and myself, and also Anoop4uall's own additional comments, which influenced my impression of their involvement in the issue. These points are all outlined elsewhere in this thread. Euryalus (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is only suspected and not confirmed, then the sockmaster tag needs to be removed per WP:HSOCK. NE Ent is correct on the policy for tagging socks.   GregJackP   Boomer!   11:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be contradictory or unclear instructions somewhere, I don't immediately see what you mean here. According to Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions, "If it's a WP:DUCK or case where CU was not involved or was not confirmed - Replace all content on the sock puppet's user page with ." Isn't this exactly what has been done here? It's a WP:DUCK, not confirmed by CU (which wasn't involved and can't be involved by now anymore), so the accounts are tagged with the "sock" template, exactly according to the instructions. I see no indications there that any tags need to be removed (unless a SPI or similar determines that they are not socks or the master is incorrect of course). Fram (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:HSOCK states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." (emphasis added). The so-called master was never blocked. The evidence is not sufficient for the master - there is absolutely no behavioral evidence that indicates Anoop4uall was a sockmaster other than the similarity of one name. The tag should be removed. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But Anoop isn't tagged as a suspected wikipedia sockpuppet, but as a sockpuppeteer. Sockpuppeteers don't need necessarily to be blocked to be tagged nevertheless. Fram (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous logic.  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Socks are blocked, the master account may or may not be blocked. I don't really care whether it remains tagged (as long as the socks stay tagged as such), but at least it served a purpose, i.e. make the editor aware that claims of him being a sockmaster were being made. I have seen in the past cases where some suspected socks were tagged, but the suspected sockmaster not tagged or warned in any way or shape, which means that he or she had no way of knowing about the accusation and couldn't defend or explain himself. Fram (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, you have first removed the sock templates from the blocked socks, and now, you have changed them to "unknown sockmaster", because there has been no SPI. As has been explained, an SPI is not needed, and the reason to have an SPI (to have an uninvolved admin confirm the DUCK suspicions) has been done here, in this very discussion. You may remain unconvinced, but claiming that there was no SPI is wikilawyering, and claiming that there was no evidence is not true. You may consider the evidence insufficient, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence of course. Please don't change the sock templates again. Fram (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ent's judgement on sock tags is not in line with practical application. It's annoying to say the least. GregJackP similarly knows diddly-squat about tagging, yet is here to back up Ent on the archaic wording of HSOCK that stupidly and inexplicably states that only blocked accounts may be tagged. I can't lay blame at either of their feet for this. Why can only blocked accounts be tagged? Why?! Can one user here adequately explain why only blocked accounts can be tagged without saying "Because it says so"? Doc   talk  10:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Practically is not present here. These are 18 month old dead accounts we're taking about. This about whether we actually follow our AGF and treat others with respect pillar or not. NE Ent 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The most important thing is the unfinished encyclopedia, and we're in a state of decay vis-a-vis intake of new editors. Accusing folks of things without solid evidence in vigilante posses is just rude, and even if we're right 9 out of 10 ten times, the one out of ten times we're wrong we lose a potential editor which is far more important in the long run. These accounts were blocked because of spam insertion -- which was dealt with by the blacklist. But that wasn't good enough -- we had also block the accounts and accuse a congenial non-deceptive spa editor of being in collusion. ("obviously meatpuppets"). Might as well block all the MOS editors as meatpuppets by that reasoning. Neither the five blocked accounts nor Anoop4all nor mine matter in the long run -- but doing the same thing over and over again does... there are a quarter million unreferenced templates to deal with -- we should be welcoming and intaking editors by the thousands instead of driving off every confused newbie unable or unwilling to wade through the arcane mass of wp-this and wp-that to figure out how to survive their first three months. NE Ent 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fram you stated above "I don't really care whether it remains tagged," so why restore the template making the accusation? NE Ent 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I stated that I don't really care whether the sockpuppeteer tag remains on the active account. That doesn't mean that the category of his older socks should be emptied though, which is what you did. Apart from that, perhaps save your energy for a case really worth fighting for, e.g. a true newbie, not a four year old SPA editor who is clearly only interested in promoting and driving viewers to the company. If you want to change policies (i.e. that spammers which are also clearly meat- or sockpuppets should not be blocked if a blacklist may be sufficient), then take it to the appropriate discussion board. As for "vigilante posses", well, strictly speaking as an admin I am not "vigilante" here. You wanted an SPI, which requires an uninvolved admin to check the accounts and evidence and base their conclusion on these. This is exactly what I did, but "here" instead of at the SPI pages. If that makes this a "vigilante posse" (I don't see much of a posse though, people agreeing independently is hardly a posse), then so be it. It makes your speech about the pillars a lot less convincing though. Fram (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also object to the "vigilante posse" notion. A crucial point that many seem to be missing is this: all tags ultimately must be backed with... solid evidence! The burden is firmly on the tagger; and if he or she cannot provide the necessary evidence for placing the tag, trouble will surely come their way. Instead of focusing on theoretical "taggee" victims, I feel we're better off applying greater AGF to those who tag accounts (and therefore must provide solid evidence for the tagging under the scrutiny that we all must adhere to). I don't buy the chasing off the newbies argument with the tagging procedure, but I respect your view. Doc   talk  06:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I see a lot of reason to AGF. If they were a clever person up to something, why would a person with an unblocked account come to a high/expert scrutiny place like wp:ani and ask to get looked at? North8000 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that since one of the user (Rajeev4uall) has a similar sounding name, I am related to that account? Do two people having same/similar names make them family? I was honest to admit that I am associated with AdvocateKhoj, but at the same time very clearly stated that I have no idea about those accounts... still I am tagged as a suspect!Anoop4uall (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Those blocked accounts did nothing but add spam links in support of AdvocateKhoj, a company of which you have admitted to being a partner, and which you wrote the article about. It is difficult to believe that you have no connection to them. -- 101.119.15.129 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's rather easy for me to believe, and it's supposed to be policy around here: assume good faith. It's joint US - India company that has been functioning for five years and relies on subscribers developing customers from potential clients posting on site. It's as likely the blocked accounts were different subscribers hoping to drive business to the site as it's likely the accounts are socks of partners in the site; they may not have even been aware they were violating policy. In fact, the blocking of User:Nikirai is particularly bad; they changed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Directive_Principles_in_India&diff=next&oldid=411577999] an external link to advocatekhoj.com to a wikilink to the existing article. Inter linking to another mainspace article is now spamming??? (It's not a correct reference, of course). The link to advocatekhoj was added about a month earlier [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Directive_Principles_in_India&diff=next&oldid=405678420] by an IP to fix a broken link. (Check it out, the previous reference, www.indialaw.com appears to be a dead website.) It's actually very easy to infer things other the socking if one is so inclined. Note: www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/equalremuneration/index.php?Title=Equal%20Remuneration%20Act,%201976 may be "spammy" but it at least contains the text referenced in Directive Principles in India; the current article is still pointing to a dead website. (I'm reminded of Frank Burns in the televsion show M*A*S*H spouting better dead than Red.) NE Ent 15:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's of course not the only edit Nikirai made (e.g. this was that account's first edit), and that's also ignoring the timing of all of these accounts startng editing at nearly the same time, or another one of the blocked accounts going to the same article to spam the site the very next day. How likely is it that different subscribers edit the same article two days in a row, and edit nothing but this spam? Again, for the sock policy and sock blocks, it doesn't matter if they are one editor, or multiple meatpuppets which are basically indistuingishable. And what's the point in discussing two year old blocks of editors spamming a blacklisted site and now deleted article anyway? [[User:Fram|Fram] (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute
I'm not a regular editor of Ludwig von Mises Institute, however, a content dispute was raised at WP:RSN. The issue concerned a WP:BLOG that was being used as a source for third-party information regarding living people which, unless I'm missing something, is a clear violation of WP:SPS and WP:BLP. I waited about a half a day for someone to remove the BLP violation. Nobody did so. As an RSN contributor, I don't usually get involved in the disputes that get raised at RSN. However, given that this was a BLP issue, I decided to be WP:BOLD and removed the BLP violation clearly identifying the reason for the removal in the edit summary: "Removed WP:BLP violation. We cannot use a blog as a source for third-party information about living people. See WP:SPS and discussion at WP:RSN for more information" I was instantly reverted.  Since this is a BLP violation, I undid the reversion.  I am now at 2RR for which I feel is a clear BLP violation. I detest edit-warring so I will stop at this point. But I invite other editors to examine my actions and request assistance/advice on how to proceed going forward. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two RfCs I closed here and here are relevant to this situation. Editors who have insisted on keeping them in for any particular claim seem to only read into the bolded part of the close rather than the portion that refers to WP:SPS.   I, JethroBT  drop me a line 04:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Jethro. Actually this is a different issue, see here  Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)


 * is not the only editor to remove this particular item. removed the item here:  and  removed it here: . The first removal was reverted by  and the second by  here: . But what is particularly telling is MilesMoney's removal of a SPS tag here  while the particular item is under discussion. Specifico again removed the SPS tag  with the comment that tagging the particular item was a "belated protest tag". (This issue – the removal of discussion tags – has been raised before.) Rather than wait for discussions about controversial material to be resolved, these editors behave as if the discussions are going in their favor. Such is not the case. Rather, we see comments that do not consider the import of BLP in WP and which label edits as "‎Edit-warring under the guise of BLP" & "instead of skipping over consensus". (Other comments, by each side of the issue, are available at the RSN.)  – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As helpful as Rich was, he sort of forgot that my edit comment explained why I removed the tag. The tag was for WP:SPS, but my comment read "newsblog not sps". This article has suffered from an inordinate amount of drive-by tagging, so I'm particularly sensitive to inaccurate tags, as well as ones that are not followed up on with a discussion.
 * After I restored what AQFK removed, I left them a note about their edit-warring, with the following additional comment:
 * "You do not have a BLP exception. There are editors questioning the reliability of the source, but they have not been successful at impeaching it. That's why they left a notice, as opposed to removing the material."
 * Just to be clear, the reason there's no BLP exception is that Ludwig von Mises Institute is not a biography of a living person or even a biography. The material that AQFK censored spoke of the entire institution without identifying any individual, living or otherwise. So while I share their concerns about WP:BLP violations, this cannot be one, and WP:BLP should not be used as a cover for edit-warring.
 * In their talk page response, AQFK demanded that I self-revert, which is impossible because they immediately reverted my edit. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder whether AQFK really understands what these policies are.
 * I'm going to politely ask that AQFK revert themselves and instead join the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Compared to BLP violations on a number of Austrian economics related articles, including actual BLPs, it is a minor violation of BLP. (See August 2013 WP:BLPN thread here.) However, it is quite typical of the edit warring behavior we have seen where one set of editors reverts concerns expressed by uninvolved editors who try to correct a problem, get reverted repeatedly, and are subjected to questionable arguments, and tag team editing. Soon enough the uninvolved editors, even those who bring issues to noticeboards, get fed up and leave.
 * Also, it should be noted that the Volokh Conspiracy website issue was brought to WP:RSN soon after I wrote I thought it was one of several that should be brought, all having NPOV implications. (Which to me does include BLP ones, since the article is replete with such poorly sourced negative comments written in such a way to reflect poorly upon anyone in the least associated with Ludwig von Mises Institute. Some such material also is then put into individuals BLPs, or inferred in a snide way when referring to their association with the Institute.) Since an editor jumped the gun and only brought Volokh Conspiracy to WP:RSN, I decided to share my other concerns in the thread directly below it, RSN. User:Carolmooredc  05:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strangely, you called this a WP:BLP issue on WP:RSN and were corrected there, too. To remind you, it's not any sort of BLP issue. As for all the other stuff you're talking about, I don't see how it relates to this discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple editors have alleged a BLP violation over this on multiple forums, but there's absolutely no merit because, among other things, WP:BLP isn't even relevant. Let's please just shut this down already so we can get back to the job of editing Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies EVERYWHERE in WP. Talk pages, Bios, articles on cats.  Defamation of character is probably the most serious issue that WP encounters.  To claim that BLP cannot be relevant because the article is not a Bio shows a severe misunderstanding of the BLP policy.  Arzel (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article, "The institute has a staff of 16 Senior Fellows and about 70 adjunct scholars from the United States and other countries." According to WP:BLPN, "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no specific allegation made above. All I see is a broad, abstract restatement of policy. I ask that OP please specifically and concretely state how the relevant BLP policy was violated by the content s/he links to. Steeletrap (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Request for more specific restatement of concern:
 * How is this an issue for ANI? It has been properly raised at RSN; it is also under discussion at BLPN.  Unless there is some obvious need for admin action, the discussion here should be closed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You took the words right out of my mouth. Let's close this. MilesMoney (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is confusing. You cannot use a blog to accuse living people of being "racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists". The administrative action required is that any editor who continues to violate BLP either needs to be blocked or the article needs to be protected with the BLP violation omitted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that this article is under newly established discretionary sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As the thread on BLPN involved the particular source (Volkh) already under discussion, I closed the BLP thread and provided a link to the RSN page. Yet another thread is open here. Perhaps WP:AN3 would have been a better place for it at the time. But the EW problem is now moot because of the general sanctions. I recommend that further comments, including BLP concerns, be posted on the RSN. (And I regret that I needlessly furthered the discussion here by adding my own comments.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As an involved editor, and with BLP concerns having been expressed in several places, including the RSN, it was inappropriate for you to close the BLPN thread. Please undo your close ASAP.  If you choose not to do so, I ask any Admin please to do so.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Statements about organizations "not normally" BLP statements
Per WP:BLPGROUP, "this policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal person" (which LvMI falls into). The only explicit exception they make to this rule is when an organization is very small. The Institute has nearly 100 associated scholars, hundreds of associated authors, dozens of other co-workers, and thousands and thousands of members/students who don't work there but support the Institute and are heavily involved in its activities. The Institute, with its global following an multi-million dollar endowment, is not by any reasonable definition a "very small" organization, and therefore BLP doesn't apply. (Apart from common sense, the best argument for this is that 1) organizations/corporations/other entities (e.g. non-profits like the Institute) are mostly exempt from BLP and 2) LvMI has a larger endowment, higher profile, greater membership, and bigger staff than the median (i.e. BLP exempt) organizations/companies/non-profit/legal entity. This entire thread is a category error and makes no sense because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * BLP certainly DOES apply. Let's say John Doe is listed in an article about SmallBusiness, and he's still alive.  In the article about SmallBusiness, someone says "the members of SmallBusiness sleep around on their wives, as per this blog".  That, by first year logic a=b, and b=c, therefore a=c is a flat out BLP violation as it accuses John Doe of sleeping around on his wife.  ES  &#38;L  17:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good example! And a number of people are named in the article. Also, something that needs clarifying is that most of the racism accusations like at Volokh Conspiracy site come from or refer to the 2008 period when Ron Paul newsletters were widely publicized and people were accusing Mises leader Lew Rockwell of doing them and Rockwell was saying someone else did and would not identify that person. Obviously, trying to make it look like these are ongoing contemporary accusations applying to everyone associated with Mises, when they are related to a historical brouhaha related to a couple people is problematic. I haven't even tried to fix that with proper framing, given that even getting rid of obvious WP:RS problems is an issue, it's not something I want to tussle with right now. User:Carolmooredc  17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The example is confused, and another (logical) category error, because it relates to conduct that is necessarily personal (a person or persons engaged in physical acts with other people's spouses), not an abstract statement about the (in thie case, allegedly racist) ideoogical culture of the organization. WP:BLPGROUP, which indicates that statements about the large majority of organizations do not qualify as BLPs, must apply. The caveat to the generally rule is only meant to apply to those organizations (probably firms comprised of only a few (e.g. 1, 2 or 3 people) that are logically indistinct from individuals. By virtue of its 350 faculty members (1), multi-million dollar endowment, and tens of thousands-strong global membership, LvMI is certainly a logically distinct entity from any individual person. Steeletrap (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it's confused? If I say "the people at SmallBusiness are racist", it still meets a=c ... seriously, WTF.  ES  &#38;L  18:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPGROUP does not apply because it is possible "to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." The LvMI has, according to its website, over 350 faculty members working with it, and thousands of donors in 50 states and 80 countries.  Individuals may join for as little as $50 per year.  That does not include active members who have died or left.  If we write about a rock band, then by implication we are writing about each and every member, but no one believes that every LvMI supporter participates in their day to day workings.  This discussion belongs in the policy talk page, because as written the policy does not cover such large organizations.  TFD (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I hate to bring this up, but aren't debates about WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP supposed to be settled on WP:BLPN, not WP:ANI? This isn't even a hypothetical matter, because it was actually brought up on WP:BLPN before it came here, but Rich closed it down. From what I saw, it didn't look as if there was much support for the idea that it was a BLP violation.
 * I'm really unhappy with Rich about this because the matter was essentially settled until it leaked out onto this page and Rich shut down the original discussion before it could formally come to a conclusion. I view this as an abuse of non-admin closing, and I don't believe we should allow this on sanctioned articles.
 * I'm asking that an admin involved in enforcing sanctions look into Rich's actions, as linked to above, and rule on whether they are acceptable. If not, I would expect him to receive a formal warning, at the very least. MilesMoney (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Even if every person covered in the article were dead, it's still a violation of WP:SPS: you cannot use a blog as a source for third-parties. I am sorry if I am the first person to explain Wikipedia's policy about V, but this is simply not allowed. Period. I suggest that you take a step back and reflect upon this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But the disparaging comments are about an organization. Please discuss BLP issues on BLPN; I've re-opened that section.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to use a blog to making disparaging comments about living people. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP.  Even if every person covered in the article were dead, it's still a violation of WP:SPS: you cannot use a blog as a source for third-parties.  I am sorry if I am the first person to explain Wikipedia's policy about V, but this is simply not allowed.  Period.  I suggest that you take a step back and reflect upon this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This topic has been reopened on WP:BLPN. I see no reason to discuss it here any longer. MilesMoney (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If any editor continues to violate WP:BLP or WP:SPS, then admin action is required. Either such editors be blocked and/or topic-banned, or the article needs to be protected with the BLP violation removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Need definitive admin answer for similar issues at three notice boards?
The question as to whether Self-Published blog entries by knowledgeable but not necessarily expert people who make highly negative accusations with little real evidence can be used in this article is discussed at these three noticeboards [changed later to order listed; note by four different editors]:

This issue has repeatedly been brought to noticeboards, usually regarding actual biographies, over the last six months (links available on request) and even though SPS usually have been shot down, the same editors keep defending doing this over and over. Is there someway to get a definitive answer or even add this issue to the Austrian economics community sanctions? User:Carolmooredc  19:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. 22:05, 25 October 2013 (Good overview of actual quotes and sources in question.)
 * BLPN 16:56, 26 October 2013
 * Here, WP:ANI. 3:59, 27 October 2013
 * This is already covered by WP:SPS. This is an exact quote:

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people
 * There are no exceptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert: This has been quoted and argued repeatedly, but there's always some excuse... sigh... User:Carolmooredc  20:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)]
 * Carol, your summary is not factual. In particular, people such as Callahan and Bernstein are not merely knowledgeable, but are published experts in the relevant field. Also, as AQFK's own quote shows, the prohibition against self-published sources only applies to WP:BLP and the LvMI is not a living person or a small organization, so WP:BLP does not cover it. MilesMoney (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If I have understood correctly, Bernstein is a professor of law, he is not a scholar of anti-semittism, racism or conspiracy theories. His statements about this is more his personal view (which may well be correct, but is not based on scholarship). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for MilesMoney based on accusations of tendentious editing

 * Support Enough is enough.  I support this topic ban for the violation of WP:BLP and WP:SPS.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Query. For which articles? For how long? - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the specifics to the admins, but I would suggest a 30-day topic ban regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute broadly construed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support It is all but impossible to discuss this or any issue with him.  His attempt to change what Rand Paul said regarding same-sex marriage is another good example.  Going against consensus, BLP, and continuous TE during the entire process.  Probably the biggest reason is that MM seems to have a severe misunderstanding regarding the basic aspects of BLP in that we cannot present our interpretation of what a person has said.  Arzel (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support MilesMoney's hectoring tendentiousness and often wayward interpretations of policy etc suggest that a short break might be beneficial. The umpteen recurring issues on the articles will not go away but if a break gives MM a chance to calm down a bit and spend a little more time understanding our policies then that can only be A Good Thing. Although an unintentional consequence (ie: not a reason to block per se), such a restriction might also give some others involved in the subject area some pause for thought. - Sitush (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – Two weeks ago I drafted a listing of MM's te diffs. It ran for 80+ items, not counting those directed towards me. Eighty items = WP:TLDR, so I set it aside. Shall I post it? – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Please note: The listing of diffs I've got spans all sorts of topic, not just Mises.org. 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MM's posts on user talk pages (comments and replies are all quoted remarks) posted by S. Rich


 * This is one listing of diffs I complied re MM's behavior – limited to user talk page comments. (Other diffs on Noticeboards, advisories & warnings, and MM's opening of and SPI as to other editors is available.) With these diffs which simply involve interaction with individual members of the community, I propose that sanctions on MM extend beyond particular topics. – S. Rich (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose You all haven't even made your case for a violation here, in this one instance, yet (UPDATE: with the exception of Srich, who added the table) you are calling for a "topic ban" without any supporting diffs, or even, a warning for Miles' alleged "misconduct." This evidence-less "me-tooism" taking over the LvMI pages is highly disconcerting. Steeletrap (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cor blimey. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support MM has been an abrasive and accusatory presence on these articles. If we're to break through this long-standing conflict on these articles, this seems a good a place to start as any.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Indefinite ban for conservative and libertarian topics in the U.S. I noticed that he edit-warred and argued to call the possible U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz an immigrant from Canada ("he was 4 when he came to America, so he's obviously an immigrant").  TFD (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support at least a topic ban on libertarian topics, broadly construed. MilesMoney is only here to increase discord, not to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any basis for a topic ban or block, given what Wikipedia policy says. Occasionally making people unhappy is sometimes a foreseeable but unavoidable consequence of insisting that we follow the rules. However, it is not a punishable offense. It is not clear what I might have done that would justify removing me from Wikipedia. Given that I've never even been blocked, this would be akin to the death penalty for an alleged parking violation.
 * The strongest argument presented so far would be Rich's cherry-picked diffs, which show that I was a bit rough around the edges when I first started editing. Of course, as the lack of any recent diffs show, I've since learned to be civil. I know Rich has been holding on to those diffs for a while now. They were old when he collected them, and they're irrelevant now.
 * In any case, the goal of this ANI section is to discuss BLP violations, and it turns out that there weren't any. How this got changed into an attack eludes me. I would recommend closing this thread down because it's out of order; it's trolling. Instead, I open my talk page to anyone who wants to share their concerns with me one-on-one. If you're bashful, I also accept email. But this whole thing is counterproductive and is an affront to decency and policy alike. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're past the point where you can solve this with one to one conversations. Certainly everyone has a learning curve, and everyone has a bad day where they might snap at someone, and no one is going to blame you for any hostile remarks to at least one person on that list above, since he's hostile to everyone.  But there's a pattern of hostility that clearly exists, and your refusal to even acknowledge the problem convinces me that this discussion here, whatever the outcome, is necessary.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Miles' conduct in some of his early days here often violated policy. But that's really quite common for noobs, and he's made major strides since then. This really resembles a lynch mob more than anything else, and makes feel me discouraged about the community's capacity for fairness and evidence-based discourse. Steeletrap (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A fine example would be my recent encounter here, where I maintained decorum despite repeated personal attacks against me. This is all in the last day or so, so it's not ancient history. MilesMoney (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like you were asked (rudely) to leave a user talk page, and instead you posted three more comments. A pertinent guideline says "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you agree that they were rude and I was polite, and that I've therefore proven my point about civility. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A lynch mob? Please don't be ridiculous.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MM, it is possible to be civil and still be tendentious, and to be civil yet still not understand policy. You're still doing it, eg: here. - Sitush (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point but a terrible example, since everything I said there was both civil and true. A much better one can be found here, where you threatened to get me blocked, right before you started stalking my edits on pages you've never shown any interest in before. With all due respect, you have admitted to holding a grudge against me, and this is not a sufficient reason for the community to block me. MilesMoney (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not true that I was presenting "a boogeyman being waved around to scare us into scrubbing the article of well-supported criticism". And yet, even a couple of minutes ago, you were persisting in WP:IDHT behaviour regarding the point. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that you've sworn to get me blocked, and are currently trying to do so, I suppose I can't expect you to be entirely objective. Still, anyone who looks can see that you brought up the threat of a wildly implausible lawsuit in an attempt to scare editors into compliance. MilesMoney (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - it's the only kind of editing s/he seems to do! Good work compiling evidence. User:Carolmooredc  03:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, given that you "rewrote" (your words) your own Wikipedia page (created by an anon IP originally, but effectively re-created by you) when you were a noob (1). Of your edits, you later said "I... rewrote a very POV/WP:OR peice as a newbie that was quickly reverted." I'm surprised that you are so critical of misconduct which occurred when a user was new to this community, and could not be reasonably expected to know all community policies. (Note to WP:Battleground-ing editors: before you erroneously accuse me of a personal attack, please note the logical difference between a factual assertion (namely that Carol created a wiki entry for herself as a noob) and a (by definition, subjective) ad hominem remark.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are engaging in irrelevant personal attacks. I explained my newbie mistakes at Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination) (this diff) and did not argue to keep the article which I was happy to see deleted. The important point is: I was not so disruptive that articles I edited were constantly brought to noticeboards and that many editors complained about my editing on them. I myself didn't bring any issue to a noticeboard for probably 2.5 years after starting editing. I also have not been accused of being a sock puppet. So find a better defense for MilesMoney. User:Carolmooredc  05:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the only person to ever bring me to a noticeboard, and all your attempts have failed. That some of your efforts are now "succeeding" only reveals the ANI process as arbitrary. Even if you think there is rampant anti-LvMI bias, you still have to concede that they're arbitrary, since all of the previous efforts were ignored and dismissed by admins as content disputes. Steeletrap (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Enough of the unsupported claims and personal attacks. Also note that my ANI complaint about talk page harassment did result in a warning to you here. This also is starting to feel like harassment. User:Carolmooredc  05:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reminder: We are discussing the editing behavior of MilesMoney. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're discussing a BLP issue, but you've had that table of cherry-picked diffs on hand for weeks now, and you've finally found a chance to use it against me. I don't think this is how collegial editing is supposed to work. MilesMoney (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Less than 21% of your edits have been on articles. The rest is talk page commentary. Indeed, it did take me a while to go through the comments. I believe the data I provided is accurate in every respect. E.g., the material is yours.  However, comments about me were left out of my "cherry-picked" table, so it is incomplete.  And I could have gone on and posted comments from the last 2 weeks. So, yes, the listing of 80+ diffs only tells part of the story. I will comment further: Your talk page has several reminders about civility, and you've "scrubbed" them with dismissive comments. Attempting to divert this subsection into a "discussing BLP" issue does not work. Repeating AQFK's opening comment "Enough is enough."  – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to call your bluff on that one. I have been increasingly civil since I learned of the requirement, and have continued to be so even in the face of extreme provocation. As for talk page edits, that's a very good thing. It means that I'm discussing content instead of edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MilesMoney, can you explain why you pushed the view that Ted Cruz was an immigrant? In my view you are trying to popularize a "birther" myth about him.  This is not the forum to start myths.  And you are more interested in presenting negative views about libertarians with no concern about rs or weight, than with trying to write neutral articles about them.  TFD (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was very clear on Cruz being an American citizen, so the birther comparison is a slur. However, I care very much about telling the whole truth, not just the pleasant part. We have plenty of sources that say he has dual Canadian citizenship and emigrated as a child. The fact that you want to block me for trying to put these reliable sources into the article is telling. The way you make it sound, this isn't about my behavior, it's about your objection to the content I support. Well, I support what our sources say, even when threatened and insulted. MilesMoney (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. For this edit alone, taking part in an edit war to restore BLP vios (even if the content is only a suspected BLP vio) is not on. Although the topic ban ought to be for all american political articles given what TFD has said and MM's tendentious editing on the BLP of Rand Paul. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support due to the long-running crusade/problems that this user has had. Some of the people attempting to defend them (Steeletrap) are clearly ignoring the numerous diffs that show how disruptive MM is. Trying to edit-war dodgy sources in to articles is bang out of order. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Much as I agree with his political POV, MilesMoney is clearly POV-pushing, in addition to the incivility and battleground mentality. Neljack (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that you feel the need to clarify your political agreements with Miles (presumably on gay marriage) is telling, as it implies that even you (an anti-Miles editor) implicitly acknowledge that political biases are or may be perceived to be a driving force of this ANI. Steeletrap (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I only mentioned my political agreement with Miles (on the Mises Institute - I don't know what his views are on gay marriage or why they are relevant) because it was apparent that there was an attempt to portray this as an ideologically-motivated witch-hunt. Neljack (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Admin note I received two good faith requests via email to let this run longer, so I've reversed my earlier closure.--v/r - TP 01:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – From User talk:MilesMoney's "post-mortem", I'd say he's burned his bridges. (And this is not the first time that MilesMoney had unpleasant things to say about WP. See: .)  Still, I'll respond to his calling my bluff, above. E.g., "I have been increasingly civil since I learned of the requirement, ...."
 * MilesMoney learned of the requirement when posted a welcome message back in July . Doesn't the welcome message say something about the WP:5PILLARS? (PrairieKid later removed the welcome in an expression of disgust .)
 * A month later I posted a message about editor interaction here:.
 * More talk page messages about EW and NPA were posted, and on 20 August MilesMoney said "I think we need to be very careful to stay civil while still being honest and direct. It's not that easy, and when I slip, I will apologize and correct myself, especially if it's pointed out.".
 * An admin reminder from about civility was posted in September here:.
 * In light of this history of early reminders about civility, can we really expect MilesMoney to reform? In light of MilesMoney's second "Fuck Wikipedia", do we moderate the topic ban? Or, as I would advocate, do we block him all together? – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban for all pages related to libertarianism or the Tea Party. I had hoped the general sanctions applied to several of his favored topics would work to reign in his behavior and push him in a better direction. However, his comments after the initial closing of this thread indicate that his behavior was undertaken with prior knowledge that it would create conflict and draw sanctions. (More on my view of those comments here.) In that context, it seems unlikely that he can contribute beneficially at all, and definitely not to subjects where he has already manifested negative behavior. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:RL0919, none of Miles' conduct contained in the diffs above occurred post-sanctions. Please correct your remarks by noting this. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell I did not make any claims that require correction. You seem to be inferring something that I didn't say. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in sharing complete and unbiased evidence here, I think that your table should begin one step back and have a column for the diff to which MilesMoney was responding in your first column. That would be the least we would need to understand the context of MilesMoney's comments in the first diff. In addition, since you have studied all the details and circumstances surrounding the cited diffs, please provide a few sentences about how, in each case, they demonstrate serious offenses. Let there be no question You should demonstrate that you've presented the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  00:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The magic of diffs is that editors can go forward and back in the edit history to put comments in context. But to ask me to match MM's comments with the surrounding article edits, etc. is going too far. Perhaps you could do so, and thereby refute the negative import of MM's comments. (Good luck in that regard.) Defend your client with facts if you feel injustice is being done. MM is getting more than his "day in court". His peers have spoken, and are speaking still. But poor MilesMoney has not spoken up for himself, so I can see why you may not wish to put in the effort. – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This break has cooled things on the articles, and the BLP issue is turning out in MilesMoney's favor and against those who accused him of EW.  With sanctions in place, there is little chance that Miles or any other editor could disrupt the article for long in the future.  And nothing precludes any future ANI actions if warranted and supported by factual evidence rather than content disagreement and personal frustration.  The table presented in this section provides no evidence to support a block, and its author has declined to discuss it.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - his tendentious editing on Ayn Rand prevented positive progress for weeks or months. Yworo (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @srich32977 - Look at your comment above. It demonstrates everything that is wrong and dysfunctional with your edits on WP. The model of our work here is a collaborative process, not an adverserial processs.  Your model, Srich, is one you bring from your other passions, military battle and litigation. We're not warriors and we're not litigators.  We're not adversaries here.
 * When your battle cry is to "defend your client" and "push on a pole" when you mis-cite and misapply policy because, what the heck -- it might stick, you are following the model of a warrior and a litigator. Litigators and warriors set traps, boldly state half-truths, and seek to defeat their enemies. Never surrender! Well, WP is not a battlefield and Miles is not your enemy, Srich32977. Your inability to defend your own table of insinuation and distortion is not the act of a collaborator.  Well, now  has posted a detailed and reasoned rebuttal of your claims. If you don't step up with a good-faith reply, then your complaints are just another battleground tactic dressed up in a pretty matrix.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reopening of the thread
We've just seen a lynchmob in action on this thread, and much to the credit of Admin TP, he has reopened the thread so that we can try to live up to the principles and ideals of the WP community. Those ideals include clear, accurate, and logical discussion of disputes so that the community can proceed to principled consensus. Instead, on the matter of the proposed topic ban for User:MilesMoney we saw a group of otherwise reasonable individuals come together in a flash mob of frustrated accusation to conduct a full-blown old-fashioned lynching of MilesMoney. It was off-topic for this thread. Only one editor even attempted to provide anything other than personal opinion, feeling, and accusation in support of this proposed ban. Is that what we want for WP community process? User Srich proudly shared his dossier on MilesMoney, but without any discussion or explanation of his rather dubious and spin-doctored yarn.

We already knew that there have been behavioral problems -- widespread -- at the Mises-related articles. In the long thread which recently ended, we decided to apply Community Sanctions to stop those abuses. That thread had more than its own share of personal attack, spin-doctoring, and disingenuous rhetoric by several participants who piously joined the lynch mob here two days later.

We all know that from time to time, these conflicts between BLP and EW/3RR arise on many articles. MilesMoney was not the one who originally inserted the Bernstein text, and he was not the only one to revert its removal. He engaged in good faith discussion of the issue on the talk and noticeboard pages. He's not the only one who rejects the BLP claim. If you review the BLPN and RSN threads, you'll see many good faith editors who support MM's analysis and reject the BLP claim.

Miles has a quick and sharp edge to some of his posts. On others he is startlingly clear and insightful. I can say the same of just about every editor who joined the lynchmob here. You often make capable and productive contributions, and sometimes you are snide, obstinate and reckless. Some of you have impressive block records to prove it.

If there is to be an ANI concerning MilesMoney's behavior it should be a well-formulated complaint with a clear description of the complaint and supported by diffs which match the allegations and complaints. That's a core principle of WP process.

The subsection about Miles should be hatted and closed. The original BLP issue should be resolved. My personal view is that the EW/BLP-reverts have stopped and that the content issues are progressing satisfactorily on the content board, so that thread also can be closed at this time. If any of the editors on the ban-Miles thread wishes to open a separate, well formed ANI complaint against Miles they should do so. I don't think this is warranted at this time. Apparently no Admin saw fit to warn Miles, because only Srich has received a warning under the General Sanctions thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
 * This last comment is completely off topic. Moreover, I did not receive a "warning". I received a notice in which Mark Arsten said "I think it might have been inappropriate for you to close that discussion." I do not protest that notification; but, inserting it here, characterized as a "warning", is inappropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - Hello Srich32977. Here it is, in case you were not aware.  This is the formal record pursuant to Community Sanctions.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "In case you were not aware"? Duh, I quoted Mark's message. Why do you insist on harping on this point? "S.Rich received a message and MilesMoney did not, therefore MilesMoney should be exonerated." Is that your argument? – S. Rich (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In case you were not aware that it was a formal notice under Sanctions and not just an ordinary course communication. No need for you to get your blood pressure up.  Cheers.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Close the Miles sections of this ANI with no action.
 * Support - If editors wish to open a separate and well documented complaint, that is of course their right. SPECIFICO  talk  02:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: BLP claims verifiably false I'm going to have to mull over your request, SPECIFICO, esp. in light of my suggestion below. However, I do have to note that the BLP charges for which Miles was accused of vandalism are verifiably false. In short, User:Arzel claims Miles added an edit which misrepresented the remarks of Professor Bernstein. However, I emailed Professor Bernstein and he said the remarks (added by me originally and reverted by Miles) did not misrepresent him. Case closed (I am happy to forward the email to the admin). I know consensus is supposed to determine these things, but consensus based on a verifiably false premise can't be worth anything. Steeletrap (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I provided an example or two of continuing problems and there was at the time an entire thread visible here that included various links etc on the general LvMI subject. This request for re-opening seems itself to border on being an example of the tendentious type of behaviour that has become such a problem in the area of WP. I'm not even sure that I want to even get involved in !voting again as it will likely only encourage further examples. Specifico, you have had comments about your own issues in this regard (eg: here and here) and, like MilesMoney, you exercised your right to ban someone from your talk page, as here. (MM had banned four people - me, Srich, MrX and Adjwilley). Despite not wanting to interact with said people on your talk pages, both of you have been happy to interact with them on their talk pages, which seems like a case of double-standards. Please also bear in mind since the original closure of this thread, MilesMoney cleared their talk page and posted some philosophical meanderings that seem to border on indicating that they saw their involvement in Wikipedia as an experiment in how far they could go/how the community would react - they were always pushing the boundaries and admit that they stayed around "exactly two weeks longer than [their] initial estimate". As with anywhere else in the world, if you go looking for trouble then you'll quite likely find it. - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Specifico claims above that MilesMoney was not warned of the sanctions. MilesMoney took part in the discussion that gave rise to the general sanctions, which was archived only hours ago. They'd also been warned of sanctions on the related Ayn Rand subject and have had umpteen other warnings and advisory comments. Pages such as the LvMI talk have also had the GS template in place. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - Excuse me, Sitush. Where did I state that MilesMoney was not warned of the Sanctions? Diff, please. Unfortunately, and WP's Founding Principles to the contrary notwithstanding, it appears that unfounded assertions are too often accepted as fact.  Please provide a diff, or correct and revise your statement about me. This kind of disregard for verification of evidence and "fact" is another example as to why Due Process demands we close this and open a properly constituted thread concerning MilesMoney.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You said Apparently no Admin saw fit to warn Miles, because only Srich has received a warning under the General Sanctions thus far in your opening comment above, where it seems that you also misrepresented what had happened to Srich (at least, you did according to Srich - I haven't checked it). - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. As the context should have made clear, my point was not that MilesMoney was unaware of the Sanctions. It was, instead, that no Admin had issued a warning/notice to MilesMoney per the Sanctions for any behavior which would -- if continued -- have warranted a ban. I will try to be more clear in the future. Srich did receive such a warning/notice, despite his denial, and it can be seen on the log for the Sanctions.  You would also know that if you had brought yourself up to date reading this ANI thread, before accusing me of misrepresenting the matter.  While you're here, why not check out Srich's table which purports to be evidence and look at the context and substance of the entire diffs. I suspect that most people, when looking at that table, would think that it was Miles who is accused of the acts written in bold type in the second column. The table gives a very different impression after one invests the time to read and research the underlying data. It's unfortunate that the editor who posted the table gave no narrative or explanation as to the meaning he was intending to assert and how it was supported by his table.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can be as specious as you wish, Specifico. It is often the way of people who are righteous but lacking a leg to stand on. As I recall, you were opposing the sanctions at one point even though you admitted to not knowing how they worked/what such things were. (I'll find the diff if you want). It seems that you're still a bit off-kilter: please note that no general sanctions regime is required in order to propose/implement a topic ban at ANI. Anyone can be topic banned at any time if the consensus is in favour of that. I've no idea what the Srich table said and nor am I particularly interested: I'd seen enough tendentiousness to form my own opinion and I gave an example of it. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am afraid that, from the evidence presented above, MilesMoney shows every sign of being a POV-warrior who is unable to edit neutrally and collaboratively in this area. Neljack (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The one good thing about MilesMoney was he ticked off so many people that he brought them to articles like Mises Institute to see the policy-violating editing being done and supported by the couple editors who he worked with to add huge amounts of negative material to a series of articles - mostly BLPS - of individuals involved, even loosely, with the iInstitute. Nevertheless, such disruptive editing just drives people away from Wikipedia - I'm now only very reluctantly involved at all, and mostly to deal with these serious editing issues. Editors knowing they can work together to tarnish reputations along a whole spectrum of articles by adding poorly sourced POV smear material based on the flimsiest of evidence is a great way to turn Wikipedia into the National Enquirer. That's why WP:BLP reads: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.  User:Carolmooredc  14:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to all editors and Admins Fellow editors on this board, per WP community norms, who will join me in asking Carolmooredc to provide documented evidence of these alleged BLP violations by the accused MilesMoney?   Please document MilesMoney's BLP violations and "huge amounts of negative material" which you assert.  I expect my fellow editors, per WP due process, to require diffs to support the above statement concerning alleged BLP abuse by MilesMoney. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My, my. With all the other generalized comments without diffs that have been posted above, I find it interesting that you single out me for a specific request. Have something else to do right now, but by end of day shall easily find a few where either he does it or he vehemently supports another editor doing it (including reverts). It will be my pleasure. (Unless an admin says it's unnecessary, of course.) User:Carolmooredc  14:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi - I am not singling you out, Carolmooredc.  In my first statement above I called for the closing of this ANI due to my observation that most of the assembled editors commented without diffs or documentation.  That is why I view this thread as a lynching and call for closure so that a proper thread can be opened according to due process.  If the credibility of WP process is undermined by failure to adhere to what amounts to WP's Bill of Rights, then the stature of WP as a whole is degraded.  I suspect that you share my concern for civil liberties, due process, and the rights of even the despicable accused, so I ask you to join me in calling for a fresh thread here and closure/abandonment of the current ANI.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since MilesMoney seems to have accepted the ban, I've only spent 40 minutes finding a few of the examples of questionable BLP activity, more with talk page discussion headers than diffs. These only go back to Sept 30 when the "newbie" issue less relevant. In short, MilesMoney supports using poor sources to push a negative POV against certain libertarians and Austrian economists (including within articles about their organizations), working with two other editors who do the same.
 * As Binksternet wrote during the Ludwig von Mises Institute discussion here MilesMoney antics distracted from the POV editing of two other editors who “show certain parties in a positive light, and just as slowly but surely highlights the negative.” I personally think his antics helped support their POV edits.
 * The Mises Institute is a cult section supports using dubious refs to make the point that critics have compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult. (Many named individuals are in the article.) More discussion of Institute as a cult here. (MilesMoney edit warring with other editors on this issue led to protection of the article.)
 * In current WP:RSN discussions on 1) Volokh Conspiracy and 2) three other dubious sources, MilesMoney supports questionable sources which attack both the institute and its members (also supported primarily by the two editors he usually agrees with).
 * Support for using non-WP:RS to make a negative claim in a bio that led to this discussion: Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe. MilesMoney edit which adds unsourced info about media credentials to back up his contention a source should be used.
 * Defense of sources several editors find questionable on Talk:Gary_North_(economist)
 * Other non-libertarian BLP issues:
 * This inaccurate claim that led to this discussion: Ted Cruz' Canadian birth.
 * Snotty comment about subject of a BLP (a physicist who philosophizes.)
 * Not a perfect list, but since SPECIFICO seemed so anxious for it... User:Carolmooredc  01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But Those are BLP issues only either in your own mind or allegations of BLP issues, later rejected, which various editors have used to suppress well-sourced article content.  The Bernstein blog which is ostensibly the subject of this ANI is a recent case in point.  The BLP claim has been scrutinized and is no longer finding any support.  Somehow, nonetheless in your mind even wrongful accusations -- of BLP abuse, sockpuppetry, or anything else -- live on as settled fact which you can cite to mislead others too naive to doubt your word or too busy to check the facts.  Any newcomers to Carolmoore's style on these ANIs can review the recent von Mieses Institute ANI of last week or for another great example, the ANI she brought against me around July 1 which was on its way to a WP:BOOMERANG block for Carolmooredc until she ended the mess by voluntarily declaring she'd stop editing the affected articles.  I know of very few experienced editors who take your statements at face value, Carol.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bernstein - pretty much dismissed at RSN here - is not even in Ludwig von Mises Institute any more. Show me the diffs of the other accusations, as I showed you mine... Thanks. User:Carolmooredc  02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "pretty much dismissed"? The response to the RSN has been mixed; there is no consensus yet. It's out of the article because the "biased" users who support its addition are content to wait out the process. Steeletrap (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I struck Volokh Conspiracy from listing above since saw he didn't comment there. First, it's clear that most editors at WP:RSN do agree it's undue weight and on those grounds should be removed. People mentioned SPS a couple times as well and lack of expertise. It still looks like an unedited, negative personal opinion blog entry. I don't see any ref that he's a "libertarian" or an expert on the topic in his article bio. User:Carolmooredc  13:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, that's another misrepresentation. Any editor who wishes to verify that Carol has misrepresented that thread can read it. Of course that's a huge expenditure of time which should be unnecessary if we knew we could rely on Carolmooredc's statements. Editors of many stripes at the RSN thread have distinguished between the Weight issue and the RS issue, the current inclination being that it is indeed RS but may still be Undue, and editors are preparing to take the weight issue to the article talk page.  Carolmooredc, if you ask me, your stream of misrepresentation, personal invective, and fantasy is the very essence of tendentious editing.  It confuses rational WP process and wastes huge amounts of editor and Admin resources.  In fact, from a purely strategic point of view, I can see why this passive-aggressive kind of obstruction could be effective.  Most editors will not waste their time verifying piles and piles of garbled assertions and links to off-topic half truth and misrepresented narrative.  Editors who care to invest (waste) some time in verifying my statement can look up and read the voluminous files of carolmooredc's failed Noticeboard filings over the past six months.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * People can interpret things differently, obviously. I think your main problem with me is a produce too many diffs... User:Carolmooredc  14:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, his tendentious editing on Ayn Rand prevented reasonable progress on that article for weeks or even months. Yworo (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose No new evidence has been presented to require re-opening the thread. TFD (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello TFD. The thread has already been reopened.  The close and block were undone.  The proposal I made was to WP:BLOWITUP and start over with a clearly stated and documented ANI against Miles if any editor chooses to file one.  This thread is long on accusation and anger and short on evidence or policy-based discussion of an appropriate remedy. I have seen a few snippy posts MilesMoney made to you.  I've also seen much good substantive discussion and collaboration with you.   SPECIFICO  talk  13:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, trout SPECIFICO for the ludicrous attempts to allow MilesMoney to continue to be abusive. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I see nothing at all to make me feel my last vote was wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on your terrible behavior, it should be clear to any impartial observer that your view is too biased for us to take it seriously. MilesMoney (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya, cos of course your first encounter with me was, you templating my talk page for being disruptive, over a single edit. You threatened me with sanctions, over that one edit. And all I had done was remove a crappy blog source. So take a guess as to why I think you are a tendentious editor? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Translation: You reacted with hostility when I templated you for your disruptive edit, so now you're here, calling for my head. Like I said, you are someone whose bias against me is so extreme that your motives are suspect. Your vote should be disregarded. MilesMoney (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support This thread is going nowhere and is flooded by heavily involved users. The above, uninvolved user Analyst's attempt to close the thread is spot on, and his reasoning for doing so sound. Steeletrap (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles' response to diffs
Preamble: I think User Miles should have the opportunity to respond to some or all of the diffs Srich provides, and I request he do in the place I've provided below. I simply don't see what would be the harm in allowing him to do so, even if it takes a few days to a week. The right to be heard is a pretty important component of any legitimate disciplinary hearing, and he hasn't yet had the chance to respond to Rich's (extremely extensive) post. Without looking at them all, it appears to me that some of the diffs Rich posts (most to all of which appear to be drawn from when Miles was a noob, and could not be expected to know all the policies) constitute policy violations, but others (particularly within the last couple months, when he was no longer a noob) do not. To prevent the possibility that they are being quoted out of context, Miles should have the opportunity to contextualize his remarks. If, for instance, one of his "PA"s came in response to a PA being leveled at him, while his response may have been inappropriate, it is certainly much more understandable than an unprovoked remark. I already see that one remark appears to have been lifted out of context (from 9/27), insofar as it was directed at a user who was engaged in disruptive editing, rather than a user who simply disagreed with Miles. Miles should also have the opportunity to provide a general response to the allegations. Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If MM wants to post then they can. Inserting yet another section, as you have here, is pretty typical of how this entire Austrian Economics mess has become so convoluted. People seem to be using a plethora of section headings etc almost as a way of making point-y comments. - Sitush (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ... A MilesMoney example of which can be seen here. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MilesMoney was kind enough to post a link to an old sandbox page on which I was working. Doing so saved me the "embarrassment" of posting the 80+diff TLDR table above. But MilesMoney' linking served to show that he was aware of what might have come about if he had protested too much. It is not pertinent (or fair) to suggest that my draft (unposted) had anything out of context. (After all, the magic of diffs is that editors can look at the before and after threads.) Still, if anything – anything –  on my listing (posted or unposted) is unfair or inappropriate, I invite editors to contact me on my talk page and point out errors, etc. I've made mistakes before, and I've owned up to mistakes when I was wrong. So I will make changes as appropriate. But given the overall theme of MilesMoney's participation in the project, I do not think changes to my diff listings will make much difference. – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles' remarks
To the best of my understanding, this entire sub-report about a topic ban is out of order; it is in violation of Wikipedia policy. As such, the correct response by admins is to close without action. This does not prevent anyone from deciding to follow the rules and open a legitimate report against me, but this report is not legitimate.

If no admin is willing to abort this sub-report, then I will defend myself. Otherwise, anything I say in my own defense now would only add legitimacy to the illegitimate. MilesMoney (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been informed by email that, even though I consider this sub-report to be illegitimate, based on what policy says, if I do not respond here, the response on my talk page will be ignored. Therefore, and only under protest, I am moving it here. Please do not take this move as any sort of acknowledgement of legitimacy. MilesMoney (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Cherry-picked diffs by Srich32977
One way or another, it looks like I need to address the table of diffs that TParis highlighted as the key to his attempt to ban me. I won't give life to the illegitimate ANI by participating it, but the claims deserve a response, as they'll invariably be brought up again in future attempts. Keep in mind that I've been rather busy in real life and haven't had the time to do all the research and put this all together. In fact, as soon as I post this, I'm going to have to go away for a little bit.

Rich had been accumulating these diffs for some time, and he admitted that his only goal was to spring them on me when the opportunity presented itself during unrelated drama. He did not act in good faith by talking to me about his concerns, either informally or through an RFC/U. There was nothing constructive about it; he just wanted to get rid of me, and he said as much.

That was his goal, and his method was to find things which he hoped would look bad if carefully quoted out of context. His method was death by gotcha sound bites. He acted in bad faith even when it came to the contents, counting on nobody taking the time to dig deeper and see for themselves. Based on the comments on ANI, he was right.

So what I'm going to do here is briefly add context, talking about the circumstances and perhaps adding quotes. I won't get defensive and I won't claim innocence, just lack of guilt. My claim is that these quotes do not represent an honest reflection of my behavior, nor do they indicate anything other than constant improvement. I fully realize that any attempt to explain, much less excuse, my previous behavior can be used against me as an argument that I am unrepentant. I trust that you can see through the circularity of that argument, however.

1) The Arzel diff is dated July 23, placing it within my first week of editing. On that basis alone, it should be disregarded, especially considering that I'd never even heard of WP:CIVIL. But I want to discuss context and motivation.

Arzel was basically my welcome wagon to Wikipedia, which is to say that he bit me hard. He reverted my changes on multiple articles, to the point where I genuinely felt that he was stalking me, and said so. Despite what he later claimed, some of his reverts were to articles he'd never edited before, where he'd apparently followed me.

Still, if you're looking for something vulgar, or a personal attack, you won't find it here. The most aggressive part was a reflection of my naiveté; I didn't understand how things worked so I imagined that promising to report someone for bad behavior would have some effect.

By the way, I wasn't paranoid to think that Arzel held a grudge against me. He later filed a report against me on ANI, trying to get me blocked for good. This was dismissed with instructions to take it to WP:RSN. He also supported the SPI that attempted to have me blocked, and he even filed the meritless WP:BLPN report that culminated in the attempted topic ban.

As an aside, I find it bizarre that people like Arzel, AQFK, Binkersnet, Carol, Darkness Shines, RL0919, Sitush, Yworo and Rich, who very clearly see themselves as my die-hard opponents, are permitted to vote on a topic ban. Why would we expect them to be impartial or fair? Why would we give their views any weight? The whole point of saying it's not a vote is that we have to look deeper than how many thumbs are pointed down. I demand a jury of my peers, not my sworn enemies!

2) The StAnselm diff is more of the same. It came on July 28, only days after the Arzel diff, making it irrelevant because of how close it is to my start. Still, let's look at the context.

StAnselm removed a citation, leaving the comment "removed dubious claim per talk page discussion". I restored it, with the comment, "StAnselm's edit comment was untrue; he didn't remove any dubious claims or any claims, just a ref, so I put it back". Even then, I knew it was wrong to leave an edit comment that misrepresented the contents of an edit. When I followed up on their talk page, I said I would report them for lying.

If I'd known about civility, I would probably not used the word "lying". If I'd known how inconsistently the rules are enforced, I wouldn't have bothered saying I'd report them. While it may not be ideally civil to call it a lie, it is factually correct that he was lying.

3) The RL0919 diff is interesting. Let's look at the context.

This is about a month after I started, and I'd found that RL opposed pretty much every change I suggested to Ayn Rand. Why? Well, it turns out that he's a super-fan. He even hosts an authoritative web site dedicated to Rand. So he's very aggressive in maintaining the sanctity of her biography against facts that he doesn't like.

What led to this comment was his bizarre claim that he didn't know what "popular philosophy" even meant. Given that he said he didn't even understand what the words meant, I took that as an admission that he was not WP:COMPETENT to edit the part of the article that was to use those words. Alternately, if you disbelieve his statement, then he wasn't incompetent, just being an obstructionist.

Regardless, I didn't see why we should give weight to his opinion after he admits that he has no understanding of the issue, and that's what I said. I recommend that you read the entire comment for yourself. You'll note that there's no vulgarity, and that the reference to competence was to WP:COMPETENT, and not a personal attack. Even though the comment was an expression of my frustration with him, I ended by explaining that this wasn't intended as an insult.

"Now, I can't stop you from taking this as an insult, but it's really all about your demonstrated behavior and ability, so it's not personal at all. I don't hate you, I just don't think your opinion about Ayn Rand can be trusted, so I can't give it any weight at all."

I'll also point out that RL's response was pretty aggressive, but I didn't take the bait.

4) The RenRen8123 diff is among the strangest of Rich's picks.

Ren was an account with very few edits, but the only talk page he ever touched was Rich's. He didn't discuss Ayn Rand, he just edit-warred with insulting comments like, "Undid an edit by a very persistent vandal[...]".

I took offense to being called a vandal, so I asked him to stop calling me one, which I believe is entirely reasonable. Still, no vulgarity, no personal attacks. The naïve part, again, was my notion that he could be blocked for such behavior, but I'd been editing for less than a month at the time, so I didn't know any better.

5) The Binkersnet diff is a fine example of missing context.

Bink had made some huge factual errors when editing Hans-Hermann Hoppe, leading SPECIFICO and Steeletrap to bring up WP:COMPETENCE. They each linked to the policy to make it clear that this wasn't a personal attack. I came in at the end, read the entire thread, and was bothered by Bink's statement about refusing to accept that he might not be competent to edit on this topic that he apparently knows nothing about and has done no research on. The gist of my post is that he shouldn't take it as a personal attack, and that he should instead consider that maybe he doesn't know enough about the field to understand that there's more to know.

Out of context, my comment about lots of people calling him incompetent could look like a personal attack. In context, it's clearly not. My comment was constructive criticism that RL rejected.

6) The DagonAmigaOS diff is somewhat ironic. My crime here was that I briefly and politely referred to Dagon's edits as "tendentious", which is precisely what AQFK did in his illegitimate sub-report. Now, Rich conveniently quoted Dagon's response about how a single edit can't be tendentious. However, this isn't true.

Dagon is an WP:SPI whose edits were confined to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. They briefly edited under an IP before creating this account, and those edits were likewise constrained. Their goal was much like RL's -- to make Ayn look perfect despite the facts -- but they were less subtle and more... tendentious.

In this context, it's clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong with what I did here.

7) The first Arsten diff was apparently chosen because I referred to an unspecified group of editors as "POV-pushers". What's strange here is that, on the ANI, Neljack called me one! If this is tendentious, why isn't Neljack banned? If it's not, then why is it being brought up? I don't appreciate the double standard.

Besides, the quote was carefully cut out of context to make it look worse. The previous sentence was: "As for consensus, the problem we're having is that Rand is very popular, which is to say she has many fans who are apparently more interested in the article making her look perfect than being accurate." The sentence Rich chose was referring to these "many fans who are apparently more interested in the article making her look perfect than being accurate" as "POV-pushers" in summary. In other words, I wasn't using it as an insult or attack, just a pronoun.

8) The second Arsten diff is actually a response to Arzel, who was himself responding to the diff immediately above.

So what did Arzel say? He said: "What a load of BS. The version frozen definately does not have any concensus regardless of the lack of good faith illustrated by MM." I consider this to be a rather aggressive comment, and certainly not civil. Arzel is a long-time editor, not someone who started in July, so he should know better.

I urge you to read my response to this, as it was quite mild despite the provocation. I pointed out his incivility in passing, then redirected back to the subject of the discussion. I think that was actually quite well done. Many editors would have taken the bait and responded in kind, but not me. How this is "tendentious" eludes me.

9) The 198.228.217.149 diff is pure cherry-picking. The IP was an apparent sock, one of a few IP editors in the same geographical region who made the same edit.

I suppose I could have tossed some formal template on their talk page. What I did was to write a polite personal note, encouraging them to create an account, join the talk page discussion and read up on reliable source policies. Please read it; I'm proud of it.

10) The Adjwilley diff is a can of worms, but it's a relevant one. Before I get into it, I want to point out that this is the only diff submitted by Rich that was in the last month. All of the previous ones reflect my behavior before I had gotten the hang of civility.

Early on, Adjwilley filed an SPI against me to get me blocked, but it had no merit. He never let go, though. Even in his response, he once again repeats the rejected sock puppet accusation (though I don't take the bait). Carol, who voted for banning me, likewise repeated it, on ANI. It seems as though, for some of the people voting to get rid of me, it's not about me, it's about their delusion that I'm the ghost of someone else. I would suggest that anyone who believes this conspiracy theory should not get to vote.

The context of the diff is that I encountered some obvious meat puppetry, later traced definitively to a subreddit, so I filed an SPI. Orlady brought up the failed SPI against me in an attempt to discredit the one I'd just filed, which was kind of bizarre. In my response, I contrasted myself with Adjwilley, in that I had a clean track record with regard to filing SPI's. This angered Adjwilley so he attacked me. Please read my full response and consider how mild it is given the circumstances. Even calling his SPI a witch hunt isn't particularly extreme given the context, although I'd probably avoid that term in hindsight.

On a side note, I've been calling the illegitimate ANI sub-report a lynch mob, but I didn't originate the term. It came from a message I received from an admin who used that term and said that admins have little ability to stop such mobs. I'd like to see someone prove them wrong.

Again, I fully expect someone to spin my self-defense as proof that I'm unrepentant, but that's just nonsense. As I made clear above, I had no concept of civility when I started and I allowed myself to be baited. In recent time, this has changed. I am unfailingly polite, even in the face of extreme provocation. I'm not perfect, I'm not an angel, but I'm visibly improved over when I started; I control my temper.

I'm going to just throw something out there. If you look at the complaints, are they about my behavior or are they about content? The impression I get from the comments on the ANI is that they're angry with me for opposing them on content issues, and it doesn't really matter to them that I follow all of the rules. When I insist that they follow the rules, such as by filing a legitimate RFC/U instead of this illegitimate ANI sub-report, they don't see to care, either.

Is Wikipedia a popularity contest or a reasonable, orderly environment where we don't pretend that disagreement is sufficient basis for assassination? MilesMoney (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User discussion
MilesMoney has responded to the block on his talk page. Wikipedia editors are "are increasingly inbred and crazed." They "lie, scheme and cheat to get their way." "The worst part of Wikipedia is not how it provides a safe home for anti-social misfits, or scares away experts and academics, but how it twists the behavior of the relatively sane to turn them into zealots." Editors can read the posting which contains more of the same. MilesMoney is not willing to edit cooperatively. The expression "inbred" is extremely insulting. He has the ability, but a break from editing may persuade him of the necessity. TFD (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The language, while harsh, was not directed to a specific user (thus, no PA occured). Moreover, it was provoked by a frankly premature and unfair closure of the ANI. Perhaps recognizing the problem with the closure, the admin has re-opened the ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)
 * Note, I reopened the case because I received two good faith requests to do so; one of them being from you. There was nothing premature or unfair about it.  Please do not infer my reasoning for reopening it, especially when I specifically told you via email what that reasoning was.  Insulting me after I did you a favor is frankly rude.--v/r - TP 13:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:TParis, I basically said the same thing to you in our email exchange that I said above. I am surprised that you take this to be a PA. I believe that the closing was premature and wasn't fair to Miles. You're entitled to disagree, but I didn't make a PA. I certainly wasn't saying your intention was to close it prematurely (and as I say, many/most editors here disagree with my view in that regard). Steeletrap (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD didn't say that it was a PA. You are deflecting. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * MilesMoney's comments make me think that an indefinite block or ban would be more appropriate. As with the Ted Cruz article, he is likely to take his tendentious editing to other areas.  TFD (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * MilesMoney has responded to the reopening. See . – S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume that the reopening means a chance for MilesMoney to make a constructive comment and for other individuals who have not commented to do so. Not that it means previous comments will be ignored; probably not all previous posters saw the reopening or are not watching ANI now. (I thought at first Specifico had done it himself and had to search around for verification it was legit.)
 * Anyway, seeing others have chimed in yet again (even if they did forget to sign), I did so too, with a slightly different perspective than previously stated. User:Carolmooredc  14:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to your point, Carolmooredc, what is at stake here is much more than the future of User:MilesMoney. It's much larger. It's whether we as a community uphold the founding principles and ideals of WP.  Due process and rational evidence-based consensus are core founding values must be upheld.   you have reminded us so many times of your commitment to WP that I hope you will join me in supporting closure of this thread, with the understanding that any editor may open an ANI against miles with a clearly stated, fully documented grievance and proposed remedy.  As a libertarian I would hope your dedication to the rights of the accused would compel you to give this defendant his day in court according to our Founding Principles.  We need to WP:BLOWITUP and start fresh.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A founding principle, often abrogated by US Govt, is freedom of contract. When you edit wikipedia to enter into a contract to work within a community consensus process, as imperfect as it may be. And one of those consensus is if people bring one issue to an ANI and a related on pops up and a proposal is made within that ANI that Admins can act on that proposal. That is what is happening. Whether it was closed a day or two ago or will be closed in a day or two more, I think the outcome will be the same since MilesMoney has angered so many people. But more one the details later. Must run out now. User:Carolmooredc  14:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "defendant" has, in effect, confessed with this edit. He indicates that he expected to draw some type of sanction before he even started editing: "I came here to see just how little good I could do before I was attacked and finally shut down", which happened in "104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate." He looks down upon other editors with "pity and disgust". We are "otakus", "inbred and crazed", "incompetents and sociopaths", etc. I didn't chime in to support this topic ban proposal before, despite having witnessed and having been the target of his hostilities. I thought perhaps the sanctions already applied to many of the topics where he was editing would work to reign him in and channel him to more productive behavior. Now, however, any assumption of good faith is shattered by his own admissions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RL, do you really wish to assert that a person attacked by a lynchmob who expresses anger and contempt for the lynchmob is thereby validating its actions? This sounds like the Salem witch trials.  BTW, I was quite surprised to see that MilesMoney posted some links to third party examination of the WP community which supported some of his views -- not that you and I agree with those views.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifico, your continued references to "lynchmob" etc are putting you on very thin ice here. You may not like the outcome and (presumably) you & Steeletrap convinced TParis to revert the closure pending further discussion, but repeated accusations of this type are not helpful. People have provided diffs, people have seen the past ANI threads and links thereto etc, and we have WP:CONSENSUS. Since Milesmoney has both shot themselves in the foot with their "post mortem" and then indicated that they have no intention of participating in this thread or even recognising the validity of it, I really don't see much point in prolonging this agony. At best, it is going to achieve nothing (MM has made his mind up); at worst, someone else is going to be sanctioned for PA, tendentiousness or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Milesmoney's conduct has defined tendentious editing. As far as I've seen, there are two Editors he gets along with, Specifico and Steeletrap. Everyone else, well, it depends on whether or not he agrees with their political stance. Abrasiveness seems to be tolerated in long-time Editors who make valuable contributions to article space. But Miles spends most (80%) of his edits on Talk Pages and Wiki-related pages like AN/I. Of course, that is not grounds for any kind of block or ban in itself, it just indicates that he seems to spend a fair amount of time and effort arguing.
 * That said, I wish MM would come to AN/I to discuss this rather than throwing in the towel as I read on User talk:MilesMoney. His behavior has alienated some Editors but if he could address his conduct, rather than characterize this discussion as a "lynching", something constructive might come out of this. As far as I've seen, Editors are not trying to drive him off WP, just get him to moderate his behavior. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have a political stance. Rather, I'm motivated by what I see as intentional gaps in articles, where reliably-sourced facts are omitted because they don't sit well with the views of editors with strong opinions. So, for example, while I've edited [Ted Cruz, I have no opinion about him as a politician and have no need to ever build one, as I cannot vote in the USA. I'm explain this to offer you insight into my motives.
 * When I started editing, I focused on changing articles. With articles that are controversial, this approach just doesn't work. I found that I need to spend more time supporting the proposed change than making it. The alternative is an edit war that quickly leads to the article being protected, and therefore to more debating. Based on this, I don't believe that the fact that I have so many talk page edits is any sort of negative.
 * To be very clear, I am not the one who brought up the notion that this is a lynching, although I can't disagree. I was told privately by an admin that this was a lynch mob and that no admin could do anything to stop it. I believe they were wrong on the latter part, although to be fair, no admin has even tried to stop it, so we don't know if they could.
 * The reason I agree with the characterization of this banning effort as a lynch mob is that it is the result of angry people who are not allowing the rules to stand in the way of their desired conclusion. This report is invalid in a variety of ways, which is one of the reasons I've avoided commenting on it after it was closed prematurely and only belatedly reopened. There is no pretense of neutrality, with almost everyone who's commented coming from the pool of "combatants".
 * There is one point where I must correct your views: These editors are not trying to get me to change my behavior, they're trying to get rid of me. A long, broad topic ban would prevent me from editing any of the articles I've worked on so far, excuse a few about my home town. At that point, there would be absolutely no reason for me to continue. This isn't an accident, it's the whole point of the ban. It's not a topic ban; it's a permanent ban. If they wanted to discuss my behavior, I have a talk page and I'd work with an RFC/U (though obviously not while under ban). MilesMoney (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Liz, reread the above discussions. Users are calling for a permanent topic ban, despite the fact that Miles has never been subject to any disciplinary action before. Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, with the Sanctions now in place. It would be an airtight solution to issue a short ban or General Sanctions Notice to any editor on these articles, with the threat of Admin action upon any misdemeanor after return. Anything beyond that is punitive and as we know the purpose of bans on WP is remedial not punitive.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get along with Miles but I think a topic ban of "Libertarianism" and all related topics is far too broad. By the way, this is exactly what I was concerned about when everyone voted for discretionary sanctions. I think that's all I'm going to say about that. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User::Liz, if all you want to say is that you oppose the proposed ban, please do so by voting to close this report without further action. I have, in practice, already been banned for days, yet Wikipedia has failed to turn into a libertarian paradise while I was silenced. MilesMoney (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But this is even more problematic. With Sanctions, there's a clear notice before block and there's an uninvolved Admin taking responsibility for the block.  Nobody particularly got along with Miles, but I'm very surprised to see the WP community apparently willing to take vengeance on an editor merely for reasoned advocacy (even if strident, it was reasoned) of good faith views.  The Bernstein blog source turned out to be a false issue, and I don't see anyone calling for the necks of those who erroneously called it a BLP violation.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor's antics can keep editors new to his editing so busy on talk pages and noticeboards trying to reason with him, that they don't jump straight to WP:ANI. But when they discover there is a related ANI and a lot of people are chiming in with horror stories, the consensus may become "topic ban this individual". (The fact these supporters of banning haven't all come back for the re-opening should not reduce the merit of their earlier words; it was not widely announced or people were just burned out. Mostly his two friendly advocates keep posting here over and over again, plus a couple more optimistic souls.)
 * His attitude about being topic banned was that of someone whose been there, done that before. He wrote on this talk page that his ban was after "104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate" and "it was over before it began." Frankly I wonder if he is a sock puppet of StillStanding-247 -(See this Sockpuppet investigation) - who went through a number of processes to adjust to Wikipolicy, before admins gave up and banned him. There is solid evidence presented on the SPI page, even if the admin refused to do a check user - and StillStanding seemed sophisticated enough to get around it anyway.
 * In any case, I predict if MilesMoney is unbanned, we'll have more people coming more quickly to ANI to complain about his antics and yet another ban. User:Carolmooredc  01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , you often remind us of your abiding dedication to the betterment of WP. It's hard for me to believe that your off-topic ruminations and incessant repetition of rejected claims and accusations are the kind of conduct which strengthens this community. By the way, I don't think you get it.  MilesMoney has not been banned.  This thread is open.  But to address your speculations:  IF  were to roam free, and IF he behaves tendentiously or "abuses BLP and SPS" or whatever else has been hoisted up the pole here, then an Admin will give him a swift GS notice.  And if MilesMoney breaches that notice/warning, he will vanish -- fulfilling your fondest hopes.  That doesn't seem like a big risk to me, when compared with the alternative of killing off a knowledgeable, able, and occasionally snide contributor on account of lots of folks don't like him. If any of the many Admins with their eye on the Mises article had thought Miles' behavior was the violation asserted here by OP, then that Admin would have issued a warning notice to MilesMoney on the spot. But none of the watchful Admins saw the need for that.  Hmmm...  SPECIFICO  talk  01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, I've defended two Editors I thought were unfairly indefinitely blocked. It didn't matter that I didn't agree with either of the users, I criticized the process. It seems like there are times when there is a general feeling among regulars who pay attention to noticeboard discussions that a troublesome Editor needs some kind of block to call attention to their disruptive behavior. Then, someone who is fed up comes to the noticeboard with some example of misbehavior or a violation of the rules. It can take several times for an Editor to be brought up on a noticeboard before it is followed up by a block. But there comes a point where there are more annoyed Editors and Admins than defenders, the evidence against the Editor has grown and a block is imposed. And it seems like because the annoyance is higher than normal, AN/I blocks seem to be harsher than normal blocks, and warnings are often bypassed because action on AN/I moves swiftly (sometimes in a matter of hours, not days).
 * I will say that I admire you, or anyone, sticking up for an Editor based on a belief that a block was unfairly harsh or long. But I can say from experience that some will attack you for doing this. Defending an Editor that the community is fed up with will not make you popular. Going against the tide has its costs. Just thought I should give you a head's up. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Liz, the respect is mutual. I hope it's clear that MilesMoney, whoever (s)he is, means nothing to me. Just a bunch of particularly agitated electrons on my screen. What matters, though is how very disappointed I am to see that the longtime editors and Admins who watch these boards care so little about keeping the ANI threads on some kind of even keel of policy, fact-based discourse, and civility.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * since we're talking in general terms about defending the - undefendable?? :-)...I'll have to look for SPECIFICO's defenses of topic or banned editors Xerographica and Byelf2007 who who worked on Austrian economics articles earlier this year. Of course, defending one's compatriot in arms is only self-defense... User:Carolmooredc  02:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm an old ACLU type, it's tru. Now, who will defend you one day?  That's interesting to consider.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect SPECIFICO's ACLU background, support of free speech and general commitment to libertarianism is what animates him/her to improve these articles. Many supposed supporters of LvMI want to censor their (RS-covered) views, whether it's Lew's AIDS Denial; Ron Paul's creationism; Rothbard's skepticism of evolution, support of torturing criminal suspects, opposition to MLK, promotion of Holocaust denying "historians", and support for letting children starve to death; Hoppe's support for "physically removing" the "habitual advocates of homosexuality" from society; and Gary North's support for stoning gays to death. We oppose censorship and believe these men are entitled to express their views in the public square. Steeletrap (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert] Steeletrap's comments above betray his hostility to these people, which MilesMoney more obnoxiously supports, adding his own disruptive style. Steeletrap only writes on these topics which he evidently spends hours researching; often presents WP:Self-published blog entries and we have to keep going back to WP:RSN again and again about them; presents the material in a usually biased and exaggerated way, with big section headers for even minor faux pas and sentence after sentence describing them. No matter how many times I have quoted WP:BLP on NPOV and balance and "not a tabloid", he ignores it. He and SPECIFICO (and doubtless MilesMoney) also remove perfectly WP:RS neutral factual material on the flimsiest of excuses, which has been discussed over and over on various article talk pages like Murray Rothbard and Jesus Huerta de Soto. Between dealing with the WP:Undue material and non-RS added and fighting over the neutral material deleted, the articles become WP:Attack pieces. User:Carolmooredc  13:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC) |
 * Carol, please strike your false assertions from the text (e.g. that I only write on these topics, when I've made hundreds of edits to non-Mises related pages). The above are illustrations of the views of these scholars, which are not attacks, but constitute factual information about their fringe views. When RS cover their fringe views, I've inserted them. Before I came here, the articles were typically hagiographies (Most of the ones I've encountered were largely written by an employee of the Mises Institute, and at least one was self-authored) which omitted the controversial views and associations of the authors. You should be happy that's changed, per WP:NPOV. But I don't think you're too concerned about neutrality, given that you ignored the massive problems with these articles for years. You're instead concerned with presenting Mises scholars positively, which is not the point of Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you have been told previously that I prefer to be referred to by the female pronoun. Typically I would of course accord this sort of thing a good faith assumption, but given your prior remarks about my self-identification (e.g. replying to a post where I identify as a (trans) female by linking to an essay which says m-f trans people cannnot be female), I feel no obligation to do so. Please modify your remarks accordingly. Steeletrap (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert:After SPECIFICO harassment on my talk page about this issue, I just noticed this note. All I remember is Steeletrap comments about being transgender (which swings both ways) and one comment supporting Wikipedia downplaying Bill Clinton's sexual attacks on women as a mere public image problem by proclaiming being a proud woman. That could mean they are a proud female now who intends to be a proud male later, or vice versa. So please don't make statements you cannot support. User:Carolmooredc  16:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, you're just not telling the truth. I or other users have said to you on numerous occasions that I identify as a woman. You responded in one case to my self-identification as a woman (1) by linking to womyn born womyn, a page devoted to the proposition that transgender women aren't women (and that only those assigned the female gender at birth are). Every WP users is entitled hold intolerant views, but in this context you clearly intended to personalize them, which is unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The diff you link to is the one that I was thinking of though frankly I didn't think it worth looking up. You can infer from ambiguous statements what you like. Please stop harassing me about this. If you feel there is a policy violation, deal with it separately. User:Carolmooredc  18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder – this portion of the discussion is regarding MilesMoney and whether the topic ban on MM should be modified. Unsigned by Srich32977 02:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Correction - Srich, you know perfectly well that there is no topic ban on MM. This thread has not been closed. Please strike that comment, which is false and prejudicial. SPECIFICO talk  03:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let the admin comment on whether it is modified or withdrawn for now. Not clear to me.
 * In any case, the bottom line is SRich presented a whole chart above of bad behavior by MilesMoney; a few other editor, including myself, added more diffs and links; editors have been topic banned for so much less. The constant carping accusations of two editors who work closely with MilesMoney should not be allowed to twist the process, especially when, IMHO, these editors actually rely on MilesMoneys antics to distract people from their own questionable edits and even to drive NPOV editors off articles. Carping in response to carping... User:Carolmooredc  13:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you followed the alleged misbehavior listed in Srich32977's table? If so, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain how, for each line, this documents misbehavior by MilesMoney.  For example, we see the text stalking in bold in line 1.  Do you think that means MilesMoney was stalking?  If so, you didn't read the links.  It turns out that Arzel was stalking Miles and Miles asked him to stop.  Similarly we see other words (disingenuously? -- shouting?) bolded by Srich but it turns out that those are words which Miles is using and not acts which MilesMoney is committing.  So, carolmooredc, please refer to the table and explain to the group here how and why you believe that this table demonstrates serious offenses by User:Milesmoney.  Let's uphold the Founding Principles of WP and, if action is to be taken, dedicate ourselves to evidence-based and rational decisions. We must not act from casual judgment and personal frustration.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can feel free to debunk accusations against your comrade in arms anywhere you please in this ANI. I've more than adequately had my say. User:Carolmooredc  14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Admin note I've completely withdrawn the close and topic ban. I continue to consider myself uninvolved, however.  I agree that a new admin closing it would be preferred, but I'm not opposed to determining what the current consensus is if someone requests the thread to be closed.--v/r - TP 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert to TParis]Requested formally here. Hope that helps. User:Carolmooredc  14:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert]Closure would be premature at this time, as there is ongoing discussion. MilesMoney has not edited articles during this ANI, and there is nothing to be gained from hasty closure at the expense of consensus resolution -- which we most certainly and evidently do not have at this time. SPECIFICO talk  15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two points – One: the bold typeface in the table simply reflects the various section headings that MilesMoney posted, and the table heading says so. Two: rather than continue this "discussion" (in which MilesMoney has not participated), I think posting an WP:ANRFC is the best course of action.  – S. Rich (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, Srich, if I understand your proposal it is consistent with mine above -- to wit -- that this thread be closed with no action, no block for MilesMoney, and then that you will open an RFC/U for MilesMoney? If so, please register your support above.  I am not familiar with RFC/U but I commend you for your support of closure here and I will read up on RFC/U today when I have a break in my schedule.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * e.c. RfC/U are not supposed to be brought by cheerleaders for the subject. See WP:RFC/U "WP:RFC/U is an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with specific editors who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Should such an RfC/U ensure, I assume we'll be able to notify every participant in this discussion? User:Carolmooredc  14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifico, you do not understand. A closure means the admin makes a decision, and does not simply stop a discussion. But your description of my proposal is a distortion of what I have said. I think the topic ban on MM should be instituted (and I would actually block MM based on his "fuck Wikipedia" comments if nothing else). You are correct in one sense, you do not know anything about RFC/U – that process requires some participation from the involved editor, which MM gives no indication of wanting. And given the interaction that many editors have had with MM, I doubt that many would have the stomach to engage MM in such a forum. Why do I say you are distorting my statement? You suggest my position is "consistent with" yours. There is no truth in that statement.  – S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is untrue. In fact, I requested an RFC/U. This is incompatible with your claim that I am unwilling to participate in it. Please retract your false statement immediately. MilesMoney (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You mentioned RFC/U here on 28 October, but it does not look like a "request". I do not see other mentions, much less a request, anywhere else. But if you will provide a diff showing you want an RFC/U or requested an RFC/U, I shall retract the statement. As it stands, your assertion of my making a false/untrue statement is incorrect. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it a number of times, including this one. I believe it's time for you to retract that false statement. MilesMoney (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The diff you posted goes to the same edit I posted. Please provide diffs for the "number of times" where you said you wanted a RFC/U. Still, if you could convince editors that you were willing to participate in the RFC/U process, in accordance with WP:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2, I'd be amazed. – S. Rich (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My initial response to the out-of-order ban attempt was: "Instead, I open my talk page to anyone who wants to share their concerns with me one-on-one. If you're bashful, I also accept email." I think this makes it painfully clear that I gave indication of a willingness for "participation from the involved editor". Now retract your false statement. MilesMoney (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you get to choose the venue. Even your supporters here seem to be expecting you to respond at this venue: one of them even created a separate subheading just for you. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't? AQFK chose this venue for a BLP report even when there was an active report on [WP:BLPN. Why is there a separate set of standards for me? Besides, it's not that I'm shopping for a venue, the way they did, it's that this is the wrong venue, the sub-report is illegitimate because it violated policy, and there have been multiple irregularities, including a premature close. If you still believe this is an ANI issue, the proper action is to abort this report and begin a valid one. Start by actually notifying me, the way you're obligated to. Then give me adequate time to defend myself, as opposed to closing it while everyone sleeps.

But, hey, that would be fair. And this shows that you've got a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, and have tried repeatedly to intimidate and harass me. You shouldn't even be here, arguing for my removal. You should, in fact, be blocked for your poor behavior. Given your huge grudge, your opinion of me is not something that any admin should take seriously. MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The following is moved from the previous section:
 * Regarding diff 5, Miles characterizes me as having made "some huge factual errors" when editing Hans-Hermann Hoppe, however the only editing I had done on that article prior to his pile-on insult was this change to a subheader, and a second identical change after being reverted. I changed the subheader so that the section was not about "physical removal of homosexuals" but to be about "restrictive libertarian covenant communities". I did this after reading the literature about this passage, and figuring out what the published sources were saying about it, so there were no "huge factual errors" involved. It is instructive to look at the current version of the subheader, one that I suggested and everyone there accepted: "Intolerance in covenant communities". The "huge errors" Miles thinks I made are actually worked into the current version in a not-very-different wording. His insulting comment about my competency apparently came after he did no research for himself. This action of his is a perfect example of the way he works on Wikipedia: he decides who he likes and doesn't like, he adds his weight in numbers and hostile comments, and he joins arguments and edit wars without bringing insight obtained from reliable sources. I consider MilesMoney a net negative with regard to Wikipedia's collegial editing environment, and especially with regard to serving the reader. A topic ban from libertarian articles is likely just the beginning. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You just said your only edit previous to that discussion was this, on Sept. 18th. But anyone who looks at the article edit history can see that this is false. You edited on Sept. 6th, and a couple of times in between.
 * This is precisely what I was talking about: you seem to mean well, but you make these huge mistakes. This is why people keep bringing up WP:COMPETENT. It's not a personal attack, not an insult. It's a simple recognition that you are, how shall we say?, error-prone.
 * Anyhow, a look at your edit history shows that you worked with Rich to tag-team revert me on other articles, and a visit to your talk page shows that you're quite hostile towards me. This is a sign of a personal grudge big enough to disqualify you from serving on the jury. Like Rich, you're a witness for the prosecution, or one of the prosecutors, so there's a conflict of interest here. MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What a load of baloney. I have no conflict of interest (!) in this manner—I'm a professional audio engineer who has no horse in the libertarian race. My personal politics are American-style liberalism which advocates strong government involvement in social programs. I look at libertarianism as an interesting argument, nothing more. If you feel I'm a prosecutor of some sort then that means you are placing yourself in the perpetrator role. I have no "personal grudge", only the conclusion reached over the course of weeks of interaction that you are a disruptive editor.
 * If you examine the diff which you offered above, comparing it to the talk page and the article's current version, you will see that nobody protested that deletion of mine. The article continues to be free of that little cherry-picked bit of slime. Binksternet (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bink, I don't think anyone is seriously maintaining that you are incompetent in the way the term is colloquially used. You're obviously an intelligent and affable guy. Rather, Miles was referring to a very specific kind of incompetence, as outlined in WP:Competence (which, while not technically a policy, is often invoked as one by admins and other users on ANIs). While I agree the choice of words could be much more sensitive, I believe that your editing of Mises-related pages has been problematic. You have made a lot of mistakes, and -- to your credit -- admit you know virtually nothing about the subject matter. I know I'm incompetent on a looooong list of subjects, and I defer to more knowledgeable users on those. I wish you would do the same with respect to economics. Steeletrap (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Similarly, User:RL0919 is accused of incompetence by Miles because he is a big fan of Rand and is editing her page. WP:Competence indicates that "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively." I strongly disagree with Miles here -- I think RL is a fine editor on most all subjects, including Rand and libertarian ones. But there is a good-faith rationale behind his argument; namely: Can a user be competent on a subject he has a strong bias towards? Again, I disagree with Miles on this, but it's not a personal attack to ask questions about another reader's (basically admitted) strong biases, or even to conclude that they render her or him incompetent on a specific subject matter or article.  Steeletrap (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Time to reclose?
This discussion was already closed once with MilesMoney receiving a topic-ban. It was re-opened by the closing admin after good faith requests were made to keep the discussion open a little longer. The discussion has continued and it doesn't appear as if anyone changed their !vote. I suggest another admin evaluate consensus and close the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, AQFK, but do you have a crystal ball or are you perhaps a psychic? If not, then why do you act as if you know what other people will do? At most, you can speak for yourself, and all you're really saying is that you're acting in bad faith so nothing I say could change your mind. But anyone who looks at our interactions can see that you've been hostile from the get-go, and you're doing this because you're angry and have this grudge. Once again, you're not in the jury, you're the prosecution. Your opinion is a foregone conclusion, therefore irrelevant. No admin should pay attention to your vote. MilesMoney (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @MilesMoney: Your first two sentences make absolutely no sense. What I said was "it doesn't appear as if anyone changed their !vote".  "Changed" is past-tense.  Why does making statements about the past require a crystal ball or being a psychic?  In any case, the rest of your statement is an excellent example of problematic behavior: assumptions of bad faith, personalization of disputes, false accusations, dismissal of opinions that differ from your own, etc..  This is on top of your WP:BLP violation that prompted this discussion.  Thus far, you've demonstrated no ability to learn from your mistakes.  I suggest that the closing admin extend the topic ban from libertarian articles to all biographical material.  Anyone who thinks there's nothing wrong with using a blog to accuse living people of being "racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists" should not be allowed to edit BLPs.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Miles has only just had a chance to reply. Some people can't patrol this website 24/7 (as I sadly have done the last week or so). Give a few days for others to address his remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose What's the hurry? I haven't made a single article-space edit since this started. I might as well be topic-banned, for all I'm doing. So there's nothing to be gained in once again rushing to a premature conclusion. MilesMoney (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose AQFK you've made an outright misrepresentation "keep the discussion a little longer" WHAT? Like a kid asking to stay up another 5 minutes on Saturday night? What is the basis for your assertion? None. Please redact it. It is irresponsible and creates the appearance that you are being malicious. SPECIFICO talk  02:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I should imagine that AQFK based their remark on the comment above by TParis (01:24, 29 October): "I received two good faith requests via email to let this run longer, so I've reversed my earlier closure". I see no misrepresentation by AQFK. I do see the same three people caterwauling despite even more people tending towards support of a ban. I guess three people can dig a hole faster but do you all really want to fall into it? The longer this goes on, the more likely that outcome will be. You are risking everything on accusations regarding the Srich table and generally ignoring the fact that a lot of people have not even referred to it in arriving at their opinion. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite extreme provocation, I'm going to gently point out a couple of things.
 * You're violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA and a few other behavioral policies with "caterwauling", "dig a hole faster", and so on. Most importantly, you are trying to intimidate and threaten SPECIFICO, just as you tried to do the same to me. Try as I might, I cannot distinguish your actions from those of a schoolyard bully. Given your extreme hostility and bias, you cannot even begin to pretend to be a neutral "concerned citizen". You are an aggressor here and do not have any legitimate role in this already-broken sub-report. You are not a member of the jury; your opinion about me was so negative from the start and is so utterly immune to change that it simply does not matter. No admin should take it into account.
 * Very little of what you said is actually true, and all of it is severely biased. TParis specifically mentioned Rich's diff table as justification for closing this as a legitimate ban. Given this, if someone voted without reading the diff table, they weren't doing their jobs. And if someone doesn't care that the diff table was so easily refuted, they're so incredibly biased and resistant to facts that, like yours, their opinion cannot be counted. Remember, this was supposed to have been about whether I'm complying with policy, not simply a popularity contest. "I don't like Miles" is not a valid reason to vote for a ban, and any ban on that basis is illegitimate. The same goes for, "I don't agree with Miles about content".
 * Those are the two things I wanted to say. MilesMoney (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response seems like a case of WP:TE - you, Steeletrap and Specifico are all just saying the same thing over and over, although I will point out that there is no requirement to read the table prior to reaching a decision - one's own experience can suffice. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can see that you made an attempt to intimidate SPECIFICO, threatening him with 'falling into a hole' if he continued to defend me. That's completely unacceptable behavior! Unfortunately, it's consistent with how you attempted to intimidate me on my own talk page, as linked to above. Your presence here is one big WP:BOOMERANG.
 * And, as a reminder to everyone, WP:TE is not even a policy, so nobody can ever be banned for violating it. It's just an essay, with as much weight as "How I Spent My Summer Vacation". It references actual policies whose violation is punishable by blocks, not bans. A ban would require an ongoing pattern of violating actual policies with no interest in changing. This has not been demonstrated in any way and I have a clean block record.
 * What I do notice is that this banning attempt is made possible only due to the participation of people such as yourself, which is to say, those who either have an open grudge against me and/or are unhappy with the fact that I want content to be based on sources, not biases. Combined with the illegitimacy of the effort, the complete disregard for policy and due process, it's quite clear that the only goal here is to get rid of me, not to help Wikipedia. It is, as many have said now, a lynching. MilesMoney (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me re reread Tendentious editing, an essay which states: Other policies and guidelines covering tendentious behaviors include: Neutral point of view, Consensus; Common tendentious behaviors – Edit warring, Disruptive editing, What Wikipedia is not, Gaming the system / Abuse of process, Wikilawyering, Disruption to make a point, "I didn't hear that" An essay which helps make clear common threads in policies and guidelines certainly is helpful. User:Carolmooredc  13:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * YO! Sitush! You're an editor of demonstrated intelligence, so I am surprised you don't see the difference if somebody said that you were an editor of little demonstrated intelligence. Same thing, right.  Yup.  Talk about disruptive...  SPECIFICO  talk  14:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Intelligent or not, I don't understand your comment at all, Specifico. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of hatting this whole mess because it has failed to gain traction or attract significant input from people not involved in the dispute. I strongly recommend that the matter be taken to a formal dispute resolution process, or even arbitration, so that the parties can be assured of examination of their complaints by uninvolved editors. In my opinion anyone who has commented more than once in the hatted section could initiate or be a party to a case. alanyst 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not an admin, this should really be left to an administrator. As such I have un-hatted the discussion but left your view.  I suggest you request an admin to do this task.  Arzel (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-hatted; see my remarks below with the same timestamp as this comment. alanyst 17:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The overload of WP:involved editors, who are often ideologically opposed to Miles (a passionate liberal editing pages populated by passionate libertarians), and the abundance of PAs on the thread, make its usefulness very limited. Steeletrap (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for throwing this rotting mess into the garbage. Obviously, I'm willing to participate in a formal dispute resolution or arbitration process. I believe the key would be to focus on the content dispute that underlies this while keeping all participants on their best behavior. Or, in plain English, focus on the problem, not on whose neck we can slip a noose over. MilesMoney (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Analyst is not in any position to close this discussion. His/her opinion is only as valid as the rest of us.  This needs to be done by an Admin.  Arzel (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The silence of uninvolved admins is deafening, and should count for something, as should a respected, uninvolved user's attempt to hat the page. Steeletrap (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have re-hatted it, but any uninvolved admin is free to undo my action if they object to it. I will not edit war over the hatting so this is the last time I will take action to hat the discussion.  But Arzel, instead of focusing on whether I have the admin bit, could you perhaps give a reason why this dispute should remain open here at AN/I instead of being taken to a formal dispute resolution venue? alanyst 17:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have asked  to close this thread.  Please refrain from further discussion until his closure.--v/r - TP 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gwillhickers on Thomas Jefferson and also slavery
At the Thomas Jefferson article, User:Gwillhickers has been disruptive about how we portray Jefferson as a slave owner, especially with regard to how we portray Jefferson fathering children by his slave Sally Hemings. As I look further into Gwillhickers' history on the topic of slavery, I see that many editors have observed his disruptive pattern of continuing to post repetitive and tiresome talk page arguments, and failing to recognize that a consensus has been reached against him. These themes were covered in detail at Requests for comment/Gwillhickers in May–July 2011. User:Brad101 said at the RfC that Gwillhickers was the instigator of disruption. User:Alanscottwalker said Gwillhickers "refused to recognize consensus for much too long." User:Stephan Schulz said Gwillhickers frequently attacks modern scholarship, and he observed Gwillhickers' "apparent inability to change his mind even if confronted with the weight of academic opinion." User:Parkwells noted in a separate section Gwillhickers' "disruptive and tendentious" behavior regarding Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, with the poor behavior traced to January 2011 when Gwillhickers responded to these changes by User:Ebanony. Ebanony posted a NORN report the next month but nobody responded. At the RFCU, Parkwells noted the Fringe noticeboard entry filed by Ebanony in March 2011, in which Ebanony describes as fringe Gwillhickers' stance on the Jefferson paternity of Hemings' children. User:Joe bob attacks endorsed Ebanony's summary of Gwillhickers' disruption. The proposed RFCU solution (Requests for comment/Gwillhickers) was that Gwillhickers be limited to 1RR, minimize conflict, stop being combative, recognize consensus against him, and apply for a mentor. This solution was not adopted. These are the exact problems I have been seeing since I first posted a comment at Talk:Thomas Jefferson in early September 2013. In the short time I have participated there, I have been amazed at how tendentious and argumentative is Gwillhickers, beating a dead horse long after all the other participants have reached an agreement or working compromise. What is more amazing is that nothing positive appears to have been accomplished by the 2011 RFCU. It's long past time for some kind of solution.

I was shocked recently at the Jefferson talk page when Gwillhickers made a deeply racist observation on October 3. He said: (Typically, Gwillhickers modified his own talk page entry afterward, in this case by changing "bias" to "acute bias".) Clicking on either of the two URLs shows a photo of an African American scholar. The clear inference was that these two scholars are biased because they are African Americans. User:The Four Deuces was so stunned by what appeared to be an outright racist observation that he asked for clarification. I needed no clarification so I said that the statement was "a racist reaction pure and simple." Several days later and after many other talk page edits, Gwillhickers posted a reply saying that he was not calling the two scholars biased because of their race but "because of their involvements"; see Talk:Thomas Jefferson for the context. Reminding him several times of his racist comment, I tried to shut down the repetitive and disruptive talk page edits by Gwillhickers, but he did not yield. He said he was not racist.
 * Racism

The Jefferson talk page was not the only place Gwillhickers made racist observations. In June 2013 at Talk:United_States/Archive 53, he said slavery was not so bad, that slaves lived healthier and longer lives, and that they had thrived in America, multiplying by the millions. He complained that there is a "modern day stigma" against slavery, making it seem as if he would be happy to see it re-instituted. In June 2013, User:Cmguy777 wrote a shocked response to what he took to be a "racist and inappropriate" remark by Gwillhickers, one in which Gwillhickers wondered why American slaves were never known for making fine cigars. The various responses to this can be seen at Talk:United States/Archive 54.

Because of three major behavioral problems—expressions of racism, repetitive and disruptive arguments, and failing to recognize and abide by consensus—I propose that Gwillhickers be indefinitely topic-banned on two topics: Thomas Jefferson and slavery, broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Topic ban proposal
 * Support - Unfortunately, action about this matter is necessary at this point... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Is it necessary to include a topic ban on Jefferson? If there is a topic ban on American slavery, wouldn't that cover anything relating to Jefferson and Hemings? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  04:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried to work with Gwillhickers for years. I even assume that he is acting in good faith. My impression is that he is very much a fan of Thomas Jefferson, and that he perceives any bit of criticism of Jefferson as an attack on America and/or himself (I'm not sure this can be differentiated). I'm quite sure Gwillhickers does not even consciously notice the racism - it's just a way for him to be able to discard one class of scholars who have helped (in my view ;-) to give us a more differentiated picture of Jefferson or (in his view) who try to smear the greatest (or, being generous, second-greatest) being who ever walked on Earth. Similarly, or so the argument goes, Jefferson was a slaveholder, so slavery cannot have been so bad. In my opinion, Jefferson is the source and primary locus of the disruption. As an aside: the discussion at the page made me buy (and read) two books and one journal edition. So there is a positive side to the debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support He wrote "If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF."  Both of the links he provided were to people who appeared to be African American.  Later he said that he was referring to the fact that one of them was part of the NAACP, but that is disingenuous since the other person was not.  And he would not have said "look at", just mentioned their connection.  Gwhillickers has been arguing for years without receiving support, and is disruptive.  TFD (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - Gwhillickers central objection seems to be over whether a) an academic controversy can be described in the Thomas Jefferson article, which seems to be within WP policy, or b) whether only the majority of recent scholarship can be represented, which brings controversy. Exchanges have not been collegial. I agree with Jprg1966 to question a ban for Gwhillickers on Jefferson altogether. As to slavery, as I remember, the quote objecting to ‘modern day stigma’ against slavery was an objection to anachronistic narrative inappropriately condemning Jefferson, not Gwhillickers advocating race-based slavery in the modern day. I’m interested in what Yopienso has to say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban, or an indef block under WP:NOTHERE, unless anyone can show somewhere this user has contributed positively enough to negate all of this racist rubbish. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers was recently Editor of the Week at the Editor Retention Project. He does a lot of work on 18th and 19th century naval battles. Binksternet (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and then he turns around and does a lot of work creating 21st century Wikipedia battles :-)  ES  &#38;L  11:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I participated in the 2011 RfC, and I'm disappointed that his behavior is little changed since then.  I stopped contributing to the Jefferson page solely because of Gwillhickers's intrasignce and edits that really test my ability to assume good faith. His damage to the Jefferson article is real; there are a number of devoted, consensus-minded editors there who would likely have brought the article to GA or FA if not for being mired in this never-ending dispute.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify my response. I have no idea if Gwillhickers is racist or not. To me, his comments seem more ignorant and ill-considered than actually racist.  I support this topic ban because he has been a disruptive editor who ignores consensus, attacks anyone who disagrees with him, and activley holds back progress on the articles he edits.  I make no claims to know the cause of his attitude; it may be racism, it may be not.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question I'm confused, I don't see the racism in this edit. Are you saying that posing the question "Is there reverse discrimination?" or more bluntly "Are these folks racist against white people?" is racist in itself?--v/r - TP 12:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? Nowhere is the question "Is there reverse discrimination?", or "Are these folks racist against white people?" Moreover, on what basis was any such question posed? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "If you want to see bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond..." The OP said of this sentence "The clear inference was that these two scholars are biased because they are African Americans."  I disagree.  I think that is a clear intent to deliberately misunderstand.  As I read it, the user is saying that if you reviewed the actions of Julian Bond, you'd see discrimination and racism by him.  Racism isn't a "white person" condition or trait.  Anyone can be racist.  Anyone can be hateful.  So, I'm asking for clarification.  Is there something else I missed or am I to assume I'm correct that the OP, whom I've known for awhile and have respect for, made a stretch of to paraphrase this user in a way that paints their comments as racist?  Because any time this subject comes up, it's quite easy to paint just about everyone as racist.  I believe we need to stick with the facts and leave interpretation to the sideline.--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Why would anyone make such an accusation on the Jefferson talk page? Moreover, no one said that, the "bias" was an alleged bias regarding Jefferson scholarship (which by the way had no basis, except "look").  And what would be the basis for accusing Dianne Swann-Wright of anything, at all?  And why are we accusing living people on our talk pages (see WP:BLP)? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TP. There is no misunderstanding. There is certainly not "a clear intent to deliberately misunderstand", which is an accusation of lying, by the way. Gwillhickers has repeatedly made clear his view that Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children is something promoted by African-Americans for ideological reasons (though I've never been entirely clear what those reasons are in his mind). Gwillhickers provided links to photographs when he made those statements. The only plausible explanation is that he wanted us to see what they looked like. Did he link to Bond's writings, or to an article that "reviewed the actions of Julian Bond" providing evidence of "discrimination and racism by him"? No he did not. Your attempt to explain away Gwillhickers' remark makes no sense at all. And your attempt to smear the the OP User:Binksternet is outrageous. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Outrageous? Chill your horses.  The OP presented a diff and characterized it in the most offensive way possible to pass the bar of racism.  So, it's outrageous to question it?  Please, don't ever speak to me if you are beyond reasonable questioning.  I'm tired of the "If you question us, you're ____________ist" crowd.  I just want an answer and since I have no dime in this fight that means I'm uninvolved.  And if an uninvolved person can read Gwillhickers' comment different than Binksternet's interpretation, than it deserves some scrutiny.  Your comment makes me want to oppose this straight out because you, Paul, are coming off like your part of a lynch mob.  If you want my support, you need to be more convincing and less combative.--v/r - TP 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP presented a diff and characterised it in the only way that makes any kind of sense. You then accused the OP of deliberately misunderstanding - which means you are accusing him of lying. If that's not outrageous, I don't know what it is. The rest of your post is just histrionics. Apparently it's OK for you to accuse an editor of lying, but not to be criticised for it. You have no response to the point that your interpretation is simply unsustainable and unintelligible. BTW, I always switch off when an editor starts referring to a "lynch mob". It should be the Wikipedian equivalent of Godwin's law. The first person to accuse those who support a sanction of some sort against some editor of being "part of a lynch mob" should automatically lose the argument. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The OP presented a diff and characterised it in the only way that makes any kind of sense" Any kind of sense to you, obviously. That's why you disagree, but clearly I'm not the only one who sees more possibility, and more likely from my perspective, than what the OP has presented. I don't, and I never will, buy the automatic kneejerk accusations of _____isms that plague this project. The OP stretched the meaning of the comment; that's my position and you haven't made any kind of scratch in that. You've came in here with fists flying. I don't put up with that bullying crap. Find someone else to push around.--v/r - TP 19:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see again you have no response to the central point that Gwillhickers asked the reader to "look at" the people he was commenting on and linked to pictures of them. Hence your explanation simply makes no sense. And you have no response to the fact that you in effect made a specious accusation of lying. Of course "kneejerk" accusations are wrong. Accusations clearly supported by evidence are not. Your reply is just bluster, fairly typical of editorial practices of "pushing around" and bullying rather than making an argued and coherent point. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And once again, your going to the furthest extreme you can and expecting it to stick. "Paul, I want you to look at on Bill Gates to see why Microsoft is so wealthy."  That statement is not telling you to go look at Bill's skin color.  It's telling you to go look at Bill Gates the person and read about him.  "If you want to see Right-wing extremist, go look at Bill O'Rielly."  That's not a statement to go look at his skin color.  It's a statement to go look at the person.  He linked to their biographies.  I can point to literally millions of Wikipedia article that link to folks biographical articles.  There is nothing nefarious in that.  And yet, you continue to insist there is.  Here, Paul, go look at Barack Obama.  Now go ahead, call me a racist, see how far that gets you.--v/r - TP 19:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, the mere phrase "look at" is not a problem in itself. It's a problem when he then links to photographs and the context makes it clear that he's asking us to look at their faces. And no, he did not link to "biographies". If he had wanted to, he would not have chosen pages with next-to-no informative content (barely a couple of sentences) except pictures. I've no doubt he thinks that being associated with NAACP or being interested in African-American history is also a problem, but that's just further evidence of the problem with his approach. He is rejecting people because of who they are, not because he is providing evidence that allows the reader to "review the actions of Julian Bond" demonstrating "discrimination and racism by him". Neither of the pages linked do any such thing.Paul B (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he was not linking to photos. I'm sure he is perfectly capable of linking photos if he chose to. But even if he were linking there specifically to point out their photos, linking to photos is racist now? There couldn't possibly be a benign reason for it like for, gee whiz, identification? Again, waiting for your accusation because, oopsie, I just linked a photo. I'm willing to concede that a lot of this guy's comments come off as racist and if he's not racist than he's at least completely ignorant to acceptable behavior.  But this specific diff is not it.--v/r - TP 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you are just being daft. The linking to photos is meaningful in the context, given the statement made. How on earth does the photo help to "identify" the person in this context, unless he thinks we might to bump into them in the street and ask about their research? But there is clearly no point in engaging in discussion with you. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, now we're going to get into a "No you are, but what am I?" If anyone is being daft, it's you.  He's not linking to a photo.  He's perfectly capable of linking to a photo if he chose to.  He didn't.  He linked to a bio.  And even if he did, even in the context of the sentence, it's still not racist.  You want desperately for something to be there that's not and it's a blatant lie to make it out to be that.  There is obviously apt material on this guy, find something with more bite.  You've not convinced me, and frankly that's probably because you came in here all jerkish and pushy and now I'm completely put off and not really interested in what you have to say.  If you had been less dickish, perhaps you could've convinced me, but you didn't.  I'm not convinced by that diff.  Other arguments are convincing me, but not that one.--v/r - TP 23:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TParis, do you not realise how offensive it is to compare people who are raising issues of racism with a lynch mob? Please note for the avoidance of doubt, given your sensitivity on the subject, that I am not saying you were racist, merely racially insensitive. Neljack (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification because yes that was the first thing that went through my mind. If you read what I wrote, I said that Paul B specifically was acting like a he was part of a lynch mob.  My quote exactly: "you, Paul, are coming off like your part of a lynch mob."  So no, I haven't compared people who are raising issues of racism, I've compared Paul B.  I feel like, sometimes, these issues are more of a "I'm going to prove I'm not a racist by slamming someone else for racism".  If the feeling is a good "I've fought racism today" instead of a terrible "I can't believe people continue to believe these things" then there is a problem.  Both thoughts serve the same ends, but one isn't altruistic.  The specific diff that the OP quotes doesn't meet the threshold.  I've explained that but it seems thumping a racist is more important to some people than getting it right.  I'm concerned with 'getting it right' be it racists, homophobes, transphobes, sexists, nationalists, and really any form of hatred.  It's so easy to take someone's benign words and make them out to be hateful.  I want to be sure we are morally right in what we're doing.  I'm not here to defend Gwillhickers, I'm here to defend Wikipedia's morality by making sure we're being meticulous in our claims.--v/r - TP 13:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your polite and thoughtful reply, TParis. I feel, however, that you are not extending the same assumption of good faith that you make towards Gwillhickers to Binksternet and Paul Barlow. They are not deliberately misrepresenting the comments or lying - they just disagree with your interpretation of them. And quite reasonably, in my view. If you suggest two black people are biased on a matter relating to slavery, fail to point to anything they've said or done to justify this claim, and have made a number of other comments that read as an apology for slavery, then you shouldn't be surprised if people interpret your suggestion of bias as racist. Neljack (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, because the proposal makes baseless accusations and completely fails to prove its point — TParis hits the nail on the head. "Clear inferences" are not racism, and the proposer seems to be saying that statements of fact are racism: "slaves thrived in America" and "slaves lived healthier and longer lives" are either accurate factual statements or inaccurate factual statements, but they're not racism.  Race card playing is no more appropriate here than anywhere else, and this needs to be demonstrated clearly.  Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then reject those allegations you find distateful, and turn your attention to the other issues raised. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, Nyttend, one could see them as such, and Gwillhickers probably does--but I don't understand how you, a person of fairly sound mind, could honestly say that "slaves thrived in America" is neutral, since "thrived" does not mean "increased in number". If slaves "thrived" in that manner it's more likely because chattel slavery proved successful, for the while, as a population strategy. Those comments along the line of "slaves in the US didn't have it so bad and thrived", that's some serious nonsense with terrifically racist implications, since "thrive" suggests all kinds of things (flourish, increase in wealth or success, prosper) that are simply not true, besides insulting and ignorant. The RfC is troubling enough, and the "Presentation of 'most historians' claim" section on the Jefferson talk page is really laughable. (That whole section is like a dungheap, attracting comments like "There isn't any question that the NAACP's agenda is racist.") I'm not so convinced by the inference from the "key staff members" incident, but that's also due to Gwhillhickers' apparent inability or unwillingness to explain what they meant by it, and that in turn has led to a long section of...timesinkery. Initially, I was just going to place a note in the margin of Nyttend's remark, but the more I look at this the more I think that a topic ban from Jefferson and from any slavery-related article (section? discussion?) is a good thing, and we should throw in US Civil Rights. I will defer to the closing admin to phrase "slavery broadly construed"; I don't want to deny Gwillhickers the privilege of editing United States and other general articles as a whole, but I want them to stay away from the slavery and Civil Rights bits. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * question – Are you sure you want to do this with both topics? Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  18:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for slavery topic ban based on the evidence. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for topic ban from Jefferson, all Hemings-related articles (including Controversy), and slavery- Gwillhickers has refused to recognize the consensus of modern scholarship on these issues, or of editors who tried to work together on these articles. Over months of trying to deal with him on this topic, he suggested that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello), scholars such as Annette Gordon-Reed, Paul Finkleman, and David Brion Davis (among others), and publications such as those by the National Genealogical Society (which he persisted in confusing with the National Geographic Society), Smithsonian Institution, and a PBS program on this topic, among others, did not constitute RS. He is extremely disruptive, diverting other editors' attempts at reasonable discussion and ignoring cited scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out before, there are 100's of historians who have written about Jefferson and their opinions on various topics vary greatly. Some editors have claimed that "modern historians" share the same opinion and have claimed they are the vast majority -- but this is only a claim made by a few biased authors and orgs like the Thomas Jefferson foundation. As I have pointed out on the Jefferson talk page there are many historians who do not share the opinions that you claim "most modern historians" do. Again, there is a wide margin of differing opinion about Jefferson and your comments here are proof of the ongoing attempt to manipulate the page with one-sided opinion rather than presenting the facts, with mention of the varying opinions, and letting the readers decide for themselves what is what regarding Jefferson and his ideals. -- Gwillhickers 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for topic ban from Jefferson, all Hemings-related articles". This is not really about whether or not Gwillhickers has made comments that are "racist". It's about his general propensity for bizarre conspiracy theories, according to which respected scholars are not to be trusted because of some supposed agenda, whether determined by their race, their politics or their nationality. One of his most recent interventions has been to call into question the integrity of the famous science journal Nature, apparently because it is based in Britain . He writes "At this late date there is also a lot of unanswered questions about why DNA analysis was handled in Britain, not in the USA, who funded and oversaw the experiments and how the DNA samples were handled. These are fair questions, still unanswered and quite warranted considering the way Britain's Nature magazine reported and skewed the facts in the typical fashion still practiced today."  What on earth does "the typical fashion still practiced today" mean? Typical of who? The British? Nature? The anti-Jefferson cabal? Clearly there is a heavy hint of some sort of nefarious plot, but its actual content remains unclear (are the British are still harbouring resentment against Jefferson for his role in undermining the Empire?). Interventions like this are commonplace from this editor, and only serve to muddy the waters. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written...I encourage Gwillhickers to be much less confrontational and work within consensus. Unlike Binksternet, I do not see the links to Bond and Swann-Wright to be racist in overtone. Without violating BLP, it isn't a fringe belief that Bond has made some controversial comments (as our own article even refers to them as) and that's the toned down examples. Some of the other comments by Gwillhickers are somewhat disruptive...so I propose a 30 day topic ban from Jefferson, Hemings and articles about race and slavery or where there is a discussion ongoing about race or slavery..--MONGO 23:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the singling out one user, or any user, who raises fair points and questions in a complex and controversial subject. Trying to punish a user for making points on a talk page that are not agreeable with certain individuals is a 'solution'(?) worse than this perceived problem, and playing the race card by the OP is the all time low here. Binksternet was losing the debate regarding sourced statements and this hearing is the result. All of my edits in the article have been sourced and made with compromise so this entire hearing is uncalled for imo. Support a temporary topic ban on Jefferson page for all users until tempers cool. We need a resolution for all participants to abide by. -- Gwillhickers 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, sadly. Gwillhickers edits in good faith, but seems unable to distinguish between opinions of WP editors and opinions of scholars. Dedicated to upholding a sterling legacy for TJ, he rejects scholars' opinions with which he disagrees. He does not realize that the article isn't supposed to decide whether or not current scholarship may be flawed, but simply reflect that scholarship for better or for worse.
 * I believe the ban should be on Jefferson and slavery since he sincerely doesn't understand our objections to his edits and therefore is unlikely to change. Yopienso (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support full ban of Gwillhickers on the Thomas Jefferson page, all Hemings related articles, and slavery (after seeing his comments above). Gwillhickers has been at this for almost three years. I am an occasional Wikipedia editor and a history professor. My students typically use wikipedia as a starting point for their research. I originally contributed to this page in early 2011. I returned to the page out of curiosity. So I was somewhat surprised that Gwillhickers was still POV pushing some of the same minor ideas and fringe sources. There is already a consensus on the Hemings relationship and Jefferson's views on slavery in the historical community, as extensive research has been done, including timelines and reviews of his personal letters. There will always be fringe historians who disagree with the views of the majority on any major historical figure or event. It's just human nature. But continuing to push these ideas in an effort to change the page constitutes persistent and pervasive POV pushing. I would not normally support a ban for POV pushing as editors can be occasionally passionate, but Gwillhickers has been doing this for years and has no intention of stopping. I believe this person is more akin to a legacy protector, which is not what wikipedia should be used for.
 * However, I am most concerned with Gwillhickers making unsourced confrontational (and controversial) statements. For example, Gwillhckers stated that the Hemings family was somehow "coached" not to exhume their deceased relative. I believe Gwillhickers was insinuating this as proof that the Hemings family are not descended from Thomas Jefferson. I asked Gwillhickers to source this, which he/she could not do. Gwillhickers has made other blanket statements without sourcing them. As a historian, I find this concerning. I would not typically support banning a user from a topic, but this editor has engaged in blatant POV pushing on this topic for almost three years. This editor also responds to fellow editors in a confrontational manner. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As Joe Bob' is well aware I have provided a long list of historians and professors from notable universities and elsewhere that have a different view about the Hemings controversy, and they are by no means a "fringe" group. Yet Joe Bob continues to use such deceptive language in his account here, so all I can do is ask that his comments now be considered with this sort of testimony in mind. Btw, I am only one of several editors who have been active on the Jefferson page for a number of years. As I pointed out above, the Jefferson page was being used as a coatrack for the Hemings issue a couple of years ago, with some five pages devoted to this topic. I brought attention to this problem and drew large support to remedy the situation, which is apparently why Joe bob is here now, as he was out voted by a wide margin which more than explains why this editor is here now trying to invent other issues as he has just demonstrated. -- Gwillhickers 05:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your "long list" is not only not very long, it also contains people who have been dead for 10 years (and hence are not a measure of current opinion) and people and organizations which are decidedly not reliable sources for the topic. It also misrepresents the qualifications and opinions of people on the list (Patrick Mullins, e.g., was only a PhD student, not a PhD, in 2001, when your source for his opinion was written - and, of course, at least nominally he only reports on the so-called Scholars Commission Report, not endorse it). In other words, it's the typical result of an unfiltered Google trawl for confirmation of an pre-existing bias, not a useful list to gauge current expert consensus. The problem is that you keep bringing up such low-quality sources and defend them far beyond what's reasonable - that is, you are only doing less than half of your homework, but then insist that it's A grade material. This is an enormous waste of time for other editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the list is quite long and only the tip of the iceberg. To this day no one has presented a list representing the other view. Just claims backed up by TJF, PBS (which is a peer-driven media source with advertisers and grant givers to appease), and a couple of other authors. Btw, there are books written by Finkleman and A.G. Reed that are more than ten years old, so are you saying they should be ignored also? Speaking of wasting time, is this the place to be arguing the validity of sources? -- Gwillhickers 19:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly not - but if you keep bringing bad sources (my interpretation) here, they need to be discussed. Gordon-Reed and Finkelman are both alive, and actively publishing in the relevant field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe Bob is the only editor I know of that has demanded sources for statements made in a discussion. I have made no unsourced edits in the Jefferson article itself and all potentially controversial edits have been made with compromise. Re: The coaching claim. The present day Hemings descendents were at first willing to go along with further DNA tests, then changed their minds. One (among others) source says: Why did the eight descendants of Madison Hemings originally give me their oral approval to exhume William Beverly Hemings and then refuse to give written approval just a few days later? I read somewhere many months back that they were coached into changing their minds, but regrettably I can not find that source today, but as I told Joe Bob, it was not my intention to include the coaching claim into the article, yet he is still trying to turn such things into some sort of issue now. 'This' is the sort of thing I and other editors have had to deal with from time to time trying to maintain balance and neutrality on the Jefferson page. -- Gwillhickers 05:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe Bob is the only one who has asked for sources for your comments? Either you have misunderstood others requests or you have not heard them (see, WP:IDHT). (Also, did you insert responses into Joe Bob's comments? Don't do that, please.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what Gwillhickers is referring to. We reached consensus on this topic several years ago, which was no easy feat with Gwillhickers' tactics. I am also not the only editor to question Gwillhickers sources. I am not a contentious editor. I don't follow this page continually. The problem is that Gwillhickers uses unsourced statements to bolster his argument. His statement that the Hemings family was somehow "coached" cannot be sourced. His source that the Hemings family "changed their minds" on exhumation has problems too. It comes from a WordPress blog, which would be fine if I could read about the blogger's qualifications. It also doesn't explain how the blogger came about the information. Historians typically source their research meticulously. Also I continue to be concerned about some of Gwillhickers comments. Even after all this debate he continues to insinuate that Jefferson's slaves must have been well treated. Again, another unsourced statement. See his comment below.
 * "We were discussing the treatment of slaves. The analogy was made to point out that slavery in the U.S., and in particular regarding Jefferson, was dealt with in an entirely different manner than it was in Africa, Brazil and other parts of the world. When someone closely examines the history and the manner in which Jefferson treated slaves they see a very different picture than the one you would apparently have us believe." Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Per Drmies, Stephan Schulz, Paul B and others. (Many of us supporting have had substantive disagreements with each other in the past and will likely have them in the future but on this we agree, and it is not because we think disagreement bad.) I recently decided to abandon the Jefferson article, which I at one time hoped to help advance to improved article status. It was sadly due to Gwillhickers. Gwillhickers appears too personally invested in off-site battle on certain issues and importing it to Wiki talk pages, which is a detriment to the project, especially in such subjects. That is the most AGF determination to make at this point. Being too personally invested led, in part, to the his RfC/U. (As an aside, I am still mystified by the Dianne Swann-Wright comment (see WP:BLP) -- which is hardly improved by the ad hominem w/r/t the NAACP -- and many of his other comments discussed above). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker, if I ever disagreed with you, it was most likely my fault. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sure that some of you will be surprised I oppose a topic ban however, Gwill is not and has not been the only contentious editor of that article or the talk page battles. I'm not going to mention any names because this is no place to drag them in. Once I took a good look at the Jefferson article several years back it was evident that POV pushing was going on. At one time the Jefferson/Hemings debacle dominated the entire article and mentions of the supposed relationship were inserted everywhere. After much battle it was finally brought down to a reasonable level and myself - and I believe Gwill - have had to watch the Jefferson article to keep the debate from spreading all over again. The reoccurring theme of the Jefferson article is that a consensus is reached but not long after someone else jumps in making edits and the whole circus starts all over again. Gwill and myself have been accused of having a 'White Supremest' agenda and that we belonged to the KKK. Most of you here seemed to have missed that part. I took a lot of abuse for preventing the article from projecting Jefferson as only a cruel slave owner and nothing else, and I believe that's still Gwill's perspective. After a couple years of playing sentinel I got sick of the whole thing and left after realizing the article would likely never progress any further and I see that I was right. Gwill is no angel btw, he needs to learn when to call it quits and work better with other editors but a topic ban is out of line. Brad (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised, but as your comment suggests detachment is what is sorely needed there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I remember, some years ago one user was very persistent in inserting Hemings-related material with a negative spin, even to the extent of trying to have Jefferson characterised as a "rapist" (on the grounds that Hemings was unable to withhold consent). So, of course there are extremists on the opposite side of the debate. But that's not the issue here. It's not about supporting a "side", but about Gwhillickers unrelenting questioning of sources on spurious grounds and attritional warfare on the talk page in a way that creates problems for other editors. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul, please take a close look at the way debate involving sources has unfolded on the Jefferson talk page. It always starts with the general claim that some of my sources are "fringe" and not published by mainstream publishers. I have demonstrated that there is a wide body of sources written by historians and professors from notable universities, most of whom have published their works in mainstream publications. (Search the talk page for 'mainstream') The debate about sources is quite warranted I'm afraid, and one that I have never initiated. -- Gwillhickers 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban for both Jefferson and slavery as written. While I am concerned at Gwhillickers personal attacks on alternative sources, a) I believe both sides of the controversy about parentage should be expressed with the modern majority view denoted in the article body, and b) variations in the severity of slavery practice should be admitted into the narrative without indicating approval of it, even for that time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The idea that one can not express opinions about claims without being banned for having "wrong opinions" is antithetical to the basic premise of Wikipedia, and that appears to be the root cause presented here.  Using topic bans to prevent discourse on a topic is silly at best.    Collect (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The principal issue is not that Gwhillickers' views are 'wrong', but that his attritional approach and conspiracy-theory attitude to sources is a problem for other editors. Where do you get the idea that anyone is trying to "prevent discourse"? Paul B (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I take no issue with opposing views. There is a time and a place for such views and they should be presented. However, this person is POV pushing to the extreme. This person is not just an editor with opposing views. This person wishes to rewrite Jefferson's obituary. He cannot edit this page objectively. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposing views are healthy on a talk page. The problem with Gwillhickers is that he does not recognize compromise or consensus; everything is viewed through his particular lenses. As one example, he stated on October 26 that the involved editors had reached a compromise solution regarding one paragraph in the lead section. He said, "We struck a compromise, it went back and forth a couple of times with other edits, and then it ended." This was after 26 days of a bunch of reverting and rewriting the paragraph in question, and after about 100 kb of ongoing talk page discussion on the topic, with Alanscottwalker, TFD, Yopienso, Stephan Schulz, Joe bob attacks and myself generally opining against Gwillhickers, while Rjensen, TheDarkOneLives and TheVirginiaHistorian generally making comments that were aligned with Gwillhickers. By coincidence, the involved editors left the disputed article text alone for five days while discussion continued on the talk page, but there was no settlement, no compromise reached. The last person to tweak the article text was Gwillhickers (after a lot of back-and-forthing), so his preferred text remained in the article for five days. When he said on the talk page that a compromise had been reached, I was astounded, and I quickly rewrote the disputed text. There was never a compromise "struck", the discussion was still developing. That's the problem—Gwillhickers thinks that his final reversion/adjustment is somehow the new compromise version even though discussion is still under way. Such a viewpoint favors the most bullheaded editors, the most likely to engage in edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This account is (far) less than accurate on several notes. The compromise you're referring to above was a draft/proposal written by Yopienso, one that no one else but you opposed. It was the same basic lede statement 'opposed slavery all his life' (+ -) that was in place during Aug. 2012 all the way up to recently in Oct. 2013. All you've ever done is attempt to change this well sourced statement by (later, when pressed) citing some cherry-picked opinions only. Not facts. The article was quite stable until you came along when you just jumped in and began making major edits. You are not solely to blame -- another editor came along and tweaked the DNA statement to imply it only pointed to T.Jefferson, with no objection from you, btw. All my edits and debate were simply devoted to returning the page to the state it was in where we discussed neutrality for months to get it to that place. Finally, you have been no less "bullheaded" than myself on various points, and all my edits (save reverting yours) were preceded with discussion, so here too your account is one-sided and serves only to pat yourself on the back at my expense. Sadly, your less than honest account here is typical of your opening statements also. -- Gwillhickers 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban for all articles related to Jefferson, Hemmings and slavery The user's POV is clearly so strong that they are unable to edit neutrally and collaboratively in this area. The racism is extremely concerning. Neljack (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Making observations about Julian Bond and slavery in Brazil compared to the U.S. is not "racism" in the least so I don't appreciate these attempts to use buzz-words to turn heads here. If you are going to allege "racism" the least you could do is explain why. -- Gwillhickers 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert: I am concerned by some of Gwhillhickers responses below, especially his conversations with Beyond My Ken, which has spilled over to Beyond Ken's talk page. This interaction makes a compelling argument to topic ban this person. I am unsure about the process, so I respectuflly leave it to the discretion of other editors, but I believe the necessary votes have already been acquired to topic ban this person. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * query It will be interesting to see how declarations are counted. nine support, -- six oppose, -- one supports but would oppose if GW has made any other contributions, which he has, -- one supports to ban slavery but opposes ban Jefferson. So as written, the count is nine-for, eight-against. Is banning for a limited time? Is it accomplished by a simple majority? How long is the poll left open? -- two or more days for a severe penalty? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a poll, its a discussion. It also is not (at least officially) decided by counting snouts, but by weight of argument, as judged by the closing admin (if any - sometimes these things just peter out with no-one being interested to pursue it to the end). Admins rarely go against overwhelming majority, but may overrule small majorities or find no consensus. There is no specific time limit for ANI discussions. And your count seems to be very much off. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban. Reading all this reminds me of a lynch mob.  No evidence has been provided showing that Gwillhickers has done anything much wrong.  Plenty of of evidence has been provided that Gwillhickers has views on slavery that I and many other readers strongly disagree with.  But before we lynch him/her for disagreeing with us, let us remember that for thousands of years, vast numbers of sensible people have regarded slavery either as a good thing, or as a natural and normal feature of civilisation.  It is no bad thing to have someone honest enough to make the case for slavery on Wikipedia.  It helps avoid group think.  My Tea Party friends whittle on about how the "founding fathers" of the USA were so great.  In Gwillhickers we have someone who really thinks what the founding fathers really thought, and not the propaganda rubbish they spouted in their declaration of independence, etc.  By they way, millions of people in 2013 exist in de facto slavery; of course their owners are not so honest as Gwillhickers.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My only position regarding slavery in regard to Jefferson is that he opposed it all of his life and that he went through extraordinary measures to provide for slaves, working them no longer or harder than free farmers worked, allowing them to grow their own gardens, raise their own chickens, decent cloths, provisions, etc, all of which is supported by numerous sources. Bringing this perspective to the biography is not an endorsement of slavery as some would have you believe. This is all clearly evident with my edits in the article and on the talk page. Much of the disagreement is over how the various sources attempt to represent this affair in moral terms. And as I look around this noticeboard I can only notice how easy it's been for almost everyone here to get involved in debate over the sources, and just as frequently. Same with the Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers 00:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban per TFD Pass a Method   talk  12:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban sadly. As an uninvolved editor I have to say there really is not much that can be done to defend a comment like this one:
 * Yes, they have a bias against anyone trying to promote falsehoods based on racially charged speculations based on sketchy evidence that would never stand up in a court if law, at least not in the free world. If you want to see bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond, President of the NAACP and Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American and "special programs" at TJF. --
 * Linking to the profile pictures of african-american people and saying "all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members..." (emphasis added) has an undeniable racial undertone. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Tparis. So he linked to a picture and called it biased. Does he expect you to look at their face? In pearticular, if who he had linked to was white, would we even be discussing this? I'm tired of people in society playing the race card or saying "if you disagree with my position you're a ____ist, radical, or worse".  Konveyor   Belt  15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Wee Curry Monster. Binksternet is using as prescription what could be later turned into a psychological observation: A "majority of observers... accepted the very high probability...". Reasonable doubt, a redoubtable notion. --Askedonty (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see such sanction as warranted in current situation. To be honest, I find Binksternet's original post here quite a bit more disturbing. Lots of "racism" accusations thrown around on quite weak grounds, and even such gem about Gwillhickers and slavery "making it seem as if he would be happy to see it re-instituted". Like seriously? If anything, this looks more like potential case for WP:BOOMERANG.--Staberinde (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you believe I am off base regarding the racism allegation, can you address the remaining disruptive behaviors, the ones that came up in 2011 at the RFCU and have continued unabated? Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban as proposed. User:Joe bob attacks is right, "POV pushing minor ideas for almost three years is a problem". Attrition is disruptive. It wears people out. Can I make a proposal of my own? Please let's ANI topic ban the next idiot who says "lynch mob". Bishonen &#124; talk 16:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
 * You take exception to one form of name calling, yet you use the word "idiot" in the same breath, all the while you ignore names like "racist". Hello? Aside from your over reacting, wanting to go as far as banning someone who employs name calling like yourself, your behavior is rather hypocritical and as such doesn't carry much weight except maybe with other like minded individuals. Btw, lynch mobs hang people because they assume they are guilty, with no actual facts to support their behavior, so perhaps the reference has some weight after all. -- Gwillhickers 20:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Support- Wow. Reading the threads below and the article Talk page(along with the comments at the top pointed to by Binksternet, it's hard to believe anyone would not support a Topic ban for this editor. There has been no good reason given for citing the two AA board members as 'biased' with the link to their bios. One would have to stick their head in the sand to not see the racism. Especially considering the compiled edits by the editor discussing this issue. Wow. Dave Dial (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "See racism", or 'assume racism'? Typically you did not actually point to a given statement and explain any "racism". All you're doing is assuming such, which is plain wrong. The reference to Julian Bond was warranted, as this individual has a long history of racially divisive statements and is now the head a prominent member of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Calling this observation "racist" only suggests that perhaps you harbor some of your own prejudices against anyone who has ever criticized someone who happens to be African American. I have criticized several authors who are white -- are you suggesting because of Bond's race that he is above criticism? Virtually all the recent debates on the Jefferson page were initiated or instigated by someone else. If you look at the entire history of that page (i.e.the whole truth), you will see ongoing debates that involve many others besides myself. Don't appreciate being solely accused of something that has been going on there with many others for the longest time. The debates started long before I arrived. -- Gwillhickers 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ban topic for everyone then. Or do you perhaps see a difference with: "A brief check on some of the people listed shows that they seem to be right-wing. Harvey Mansfield is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, David N. Mayer is a "close associate" of the Atlas Society and his publisher is the Cato Institute, Paul A. Rahe is a fellow of the Hoover Institution and host at the National Review, and Forrest McDonald is a "paleo-conservative". --Askedonty (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there is a clear link between the "he didn't bang the slave girl" faction and a wider ideological view of revering the Founding Fathers, allied to a particular religio-moral agenda. It's comparable to the link between climate change denial and Free Market ideology. Such ideologically motivated rejections of scientific and historical evidence are characteristic of both the "right" and the "left". Right-wing fundamentalists will reject Darwinian models of evolution; left-wing Feminists will often reject Darwinian models of differences between male and female sexual behaviour. When we see a consensus of unaffiliated historians and scientists affirming a position on evidence, while the opponents are all clearly identified with an ideology, we have good reason to note that the opponents all seem to be Religious Fundamentalists, or Radical Feminists, or whatever: groups who are already committed to a belief that is threatened by the position they reject. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking position against an ideology does not allow so easily to be not dependent on ideology(/ies). Regarding Hemings-Jefferson the DNA evidence did not change fundamentally the equation, there always was the possibility to believe it was the one case or it was the opposite. But "reasonable doubt" is not clearing the way if there is any need to readjust one's certainties, it maintains a divisive situation for the minority faction. What you need is either certainties, or hopes. -- Askedonty (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your first sentence at all. It is not a question of taking a position "against an ideology", but of noting that views held in the face of evidence are linked to ideology in particular cases. The DNA evidence did change fundamentally the equation when combined with historical evidence. "Reasonable doubt" is a legal concept that can't sensibly be applied to history. We couldn't even say that there is a historical consensus that Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar if we applied that test, since all we have is legally "hearsay" evidence and some coins with pictures of daggers on them. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the impact of the 1998 DNA tests—it was enormous. The historiography of Jefferson is now split into two parts: pre-1998 and post-1998. All of the post-1998 biographies and histories of the Founding Fathers have had to decide how to deal with the DNA case. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I was going to stay out of this one - but having seen this comment by GWillhickers, I think there's no choice but to topic ban, and most likely start a new RFC/U. There's no room for that type of response, even if you feel you've been the victim first.  Willhickers needs to get out of Dodge until he's actually ready to behave in a community manner, with a lot less emotion  ES  &#38;L  20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Insert: I apologize in advance for this post, as I had hoped to leave this debate entirely. After a day of reflection, I understand that Gwillhickers is passionate about this topic, as TJ is a hero for him. I can understand where his passion comes from, as TJ is also a hero for me, but unlike Gwillhickers, I admire TJ's greatness and his flaws: "warts and all," as the old phrase goes. Historians love flaws. It's what makes our subjects relatable and interesting. So I truly wanted to look at this situation with a fresh set of eyes and give this editor the benefit of the doubt. Cooler heads and all. But unfortunately this is not the first time this editor has been reported to the Admin Board and it will likely not be the last. Gwillhickers has been to the Admin Board before and has also previously been on the receiving end of a RFC. Wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:SOAP or a forum WP:FORUM. We are prohibited from advocating or promotion WP:PROMOTION. I don't really have anything to gain or lose here. I do not believe Jefferson to be either a saint or a sinner, but somewhere in between (which is where most of us reside).
 * Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents - involving Gwillhickers
 * July 2013
 * December 2012
 * July 2012
 * July 2011
 * March 2011


 * I fully expect to return to Jefferson's page in a year or two to see Gwillhickers engaged in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I would like to be wrong. I have heard one editor accuse other editors of provoking him. I don't see how. Editors come and go, but there is only one common denominator.


 * The reason I'm' here: After reaching consensus with Gwhillhickers in March of 2011, I was surprised to see Gwillhickers still pushing the same minor ideas in October of 2013. Fine--we can all debate if the ideas are in fact minor or not, but once consensus is reached, one editor should not be continuing the debate...for years. Perhaps, as Gwillhickers has suggested, I don't know the full story behind the incidents over the last two years? What I do know is that some of his information is sourced, but some of it isn't. Some of his information is based on his own personal opinion. So perhaps he should be topic banned this time, perhaps not, or perhaps we all should? I don't know. As it appears that Gwillhickers and I are on opposite sides, perhaps he and I can work together to come up with a satisfying solution?


 * I am more than willing to compile yet another list of peer reviewed sources (some of which has already posted in the TJ talk page and throughout other wikipedia pages). One I can recall off the top of my head was done at the University of Virginia with Professor Jan Lewis and Peter Onuf and a group of historians. If people want additional information from me please respond to my talk page. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor additional comment - User:Joe bob attacks who looks quite well accustomed to wikipedia rules and functioning considering the way he wikilinks different policies here, and has been very active on "frontline" of this discussion, has made three (read 3) content edits to wikipedia since 2009, and if we discount 2 reverts then he has added exactly 1 sentence of new content to wikipedia. I personally find it somewhat strange, but thats just me.--Staberinde (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have added more than 1 sentence. Perhaps I didn't log in and just edited under my IP address (at the time), but I know I've made edits to the John Adams pages some years ago. I've also edited several pages about movies and musicians. But is there something you're accusing me of? I am accustomed to wiki rules because I have actually read through the guidelines. I was under the impression that was what people should do? Also, I have seen/observed how others edit since 2009. It doesn't take a genius to figure out after four years. I have stated on more than one once that I am an occasional editor. I participated in the consensus building on the Jefferson page in 2011. I returned to that particular page just recently. I have been very open about that. I'm pretty actively engaged in other research currently, which unfortunately limits my wiki editing time, but that doesn't mean I am not an active wiki reader. I especially enjoy reading talk pages. I may only return to edit a page every year or so. I'm not sure if you're insinuating that my opinion is somehow less valuable or that I'm up to something nefarious? Either way, you're incorrect. And this conversation shouldn't be about me. Please feel free to do a check of my IP address. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban - This smacks of a majority beating up on the adherent of a minority viewpoint, perceived as disruptive for not yielding his defense of a minority academic position. Not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, sorry. Carrite (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Gwillhickers
No edits made by me in the Jefferson article warrant that I be singled out and topic banned, as all edits involving potentially controversial topics are done with compromise, discussion and are well sourced. This is simply an underhanded attempt by user Binksternet to keep me and others from maintaining balance and neutrality regarding slavery on the Thomas Jefferson page. This issue started with debate about the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the entire Jefferson biography, with each topic summarized with a sentence -- yet the Sally Hemings (a slave) topic is a short paragraph, with details and commentary added to it, unlike any other topic in the lede. I went along and compromised on this, and even left it up to another editor to draft a suitable statement for it in the lede, and user Binksternet has even objected to that, and has not been willing to strike a compromise on anything. The Thomas Jefferson page has a long history of similar abuse. At one time the Slavery and Hemings topics took up some five pages on that page and there was an overwhelming consensus to fix that. I was accused of being "racist" by one editor for trying to remedy that also. Most of the editors who gave their support then have since left the page, and not because of me but because they grew weary of the constant debate. All of my recent edits regarding slavery and Hemings are well sourced and have been tempered with compromise and added with consensus. IMO this hearing is just an end run to get around that by user Binksternet who is bent on using cherry picked opinions from selected historians to represent the topic rather than simply stating the established historical facts with fair mention of varying opinions from the 100's of historians. Regarding this latest accusation of racism, this is yet another cheap attempt to stigmatize my participation. I indeed referred to Julian Bond, head of the NAACP and who is now the board member at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, an org that is used as a source for various statements on the Jefferson page, and which I have even used as a source for other statements. I accused Bond, and Swann-Wright, on the talk page, of bias and linked to their pictures at the Thomas Jefferson foundation, not because they are African American but because of their social and political involvements. Bond has a long history of racially divisive comments and it is my observation that they are using the Thomas Jefferson Foundation for their own agenda. My central position has always be neutral and that we include facts first, per an encyclopedia, and mention the varying opinions by historians past and present, yet this is not good enough for user Binksternet. There are 100's of sources for Jefferson so we can not be cherry picking opinions from a few select authors, as has been attempted before and recently. I am also for a temporary topic ban, but one that does not single me out, until tempers cool down, as this racially charged topic has dominated the Jefferson talk page for too long and has kept the Jefferson article in a constantly changing and unstable condition. -- Gwillhickers 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am also asking for a resolution about how the lede should be configured, as this has been central to all the heated debate here. As I've indicated, the Hemings topic has been given a paragraph of coverage in the lede. Banning the topic alone is not going to avert future problems. The cause of the problem needs to be addressed. All the topics in the lede, i.e.established historical facts like the Declaration of Independence, the Louisiana Purchase, etc, are covered with one sentence -- yet the Hemings topic, a theory no less, is covered with a paragraph with added details and commentary about opinions from historians, etc. This brings up undue weight issues and summary in the lede  issues. I ask that the proper authorities here come forward and make resolutions that everyone must follow. -- Gwillhickers 22:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Good for you!! It's high time someone stood up and tried to restore some balance to the issue of slavery. For too long now, all we've heard are the bad things about slavery, while all the good stuff have been ignored or actively suppressed. We need someone like you to insure that our coverage of slavery is as fair and balanced as possible. Well done!! (Can we please topic ban'' this person?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has said there is any "good stuff" about slavery, only that the topic be treated with objectivity in regards to Jefferson who apparently you know little about. Your false statement and sarcasm only typifies the behavior some individuals must resort to to get over in a debate about such sensitive issues. Thanks for addressing the issue with such 'maturity'. -- Gwillhickers 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Then why -- before I made you aware that I was being sarcastic -- do you thank me on my talk page for my comment?  If you don't believe that there's anything good about slavery, why did you thank me for saying it?  You did ask for an explanation of why I asked for you to be topic banned, because that confused you, but you did not take me to task for my ersatz pro-slavery remarks -- those you seemed OK with.  This leads me to believe that you are indeed, as speculated here, a wolf in sheep's clothing -- or, to be more precise, a racist masquerading as someone concerned about "balance." That's the kind of stance taken by some of the less foaming-at-the-mouth Holocaust deniers - "I'm just trying to set the record straight." Well, Wikipedia is not here for you to right great wrongs, especially when there's nothing particularly wrong about exposing the essential nature of slavery, and nothing to "right", no "balance" which isn't despicable to civilized people.  We don't need people who cannot put their personal point of view aside and edit neutrally, especially when that point of view is as vile as that of a racist.  Since you asked, that's why you should be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a general thank you but rest assured I at first thought you were referring to some of the good things that were done for slaves. Apparently you find this prospect amazing. All my potentially controversial edits on the Jefferson page have been made with compromise. No one is attempting to 'right past wrongs', just that the topic be told in a neutral and fair manner pointing out Jefferson struggled with the idea of slavery and made many concessions to improve the lives of slaves and made many attempts in his life to oppose it -- starting with the Declaration of Independence. Some editors, and apparently you, would like to erase that part of the history entirely. I have made no edits that come close to warranting that I be topic banned. This noticeboard affair is just an end run by the OP editor who couldn't get his way, and even refused to abide by compromises and consensus for various statements that were restored to the article (they were there for the longest time to begin with). Now you know. -- Gwillhickers 05:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't try to deflect here. Jefferson, for all his genius, was a man of his time and place, but the subject here is you and your behavior, not Jefferson's. You say you are not a racist, but your edits and commentary belie that.  You need to be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one of the points I've always stressed -- Jefferson in his time and place and all the realities he had to deal with. As for my "behavior", there's not one thing I've said or done that is "racist". My observation of Bond's behavior and long history of racially divisive remarks was and is warranted. I've also compared slavery in Brazil and the Caribbean to the U.S., per Jefferson in particular, in the hopes of bringing some perspective to the biography -- not as any sort of excuse for slavery. For you or anyone to try and spin it into anything else is vindictive and simply wrong. -- Gwillhickers 07:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Above you wrote, "My observation of Bond's behavior and long history of racially divisive remarks", but this is not anything close to what you wrote about Bond on October 3. Rather, you said that if talk page participants wanted to "see" bias they only had to "look at" Bond and Swann-Wright. There was absolutely no comment back then about Bond's behavior or his remarks, and that sort of information was not at the URL you brought forward. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Gwillhickers was not aware that Beyond Ken was being saracastic with his comment above. Beyond Ken saracastically said that Gwillhickers was attempting to "restore some balance to the issue of slavery. For too long now, all we've heard are the bad things about slavery, while all the good stuff have been ignored or actively suppressed. We need someone like you to insure that our coverage of slavery is as fair and balanced as possible. Well done!!" Of course, most editors understood that Beyond Ken was being sarcastic, however, Gwillhickers actually went on Beyond Ken's talk page and thanked him for these comments. This concerns me, as this indicates that Gwillhickers actually supports this belief. "Hi Beyond My Ken, Thanks for your comments at the Noticeboard!." I am unsure of the process, but I believe that there are already the necessary votes to topic ban this person from the pages noted above. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk about "confrontational". As I said, this was a general thank you and a request for clarification as I saw the apparent sarcasm but assumed good faith and asked for clarification. You make statements about the debate spilling over to a talk page, which we were already informed about, and then turn around and drag the entire discussion, such that it was, a couple of sentences, here at the noticeboard. Now you're trying to twist it into something that says I think slavery was a good thing. Unbelievable. This is yet another example of the malicious underhanded tact that has been resorted to, not only here, but on the Jefferson talk page where you've attempted similar sniping. And I like to think it takes more than just votes to ban (censure) anyone from a topic but actual reasons that stand up to objective scrutiny. I can only hope that those in charge here can see past the sort of sniping and race baiting that has been resorted to here. Well, if anything, you've demonstrated why there is so much arguing and disagreement on the Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A general thank you to someone who says and I quote "we've heard are the bad things about slavery, while all the good stuff have been ignored or actively suppressed. We need someone like you to insure that our coverage of slavery is as fair and balanced as possible. Well done." It's a serious problem for you not to see that it's a serious problem for you to agree with a statement like that. Consider this our last conversation. I will no longer respond to you directly, as it is becoming far too contentious. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above sarcastic quote is not mine, and that Joe Bob is, once again, contentiously trying to make it seem that it is. This less than honest sniping needs to stop. -- Gwillhickers 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, I am not trying to work in any underhanded fashion here. Instead, I am making a very public statement about your disruption in an effort to fix the problem. If I were simply trying to win a content dispute everyone here would quickly see through the deception, and my reputation would suffer greatly. I value my reputation here on Wikipedia, so the fact that I am taking this major step at ANI is a gamble for me, a risk I am taking because of the seriousness of the problem I am reporting. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have taken the simple observations I have made and tried to pass them off as racist. That is very underhanded. The article was stable for quite some time and all I attempted to do was return it to its prior state, so your apparent concern for disruptive behavior is questionable, esp since on several occasions you abandoned the discussion and went ahead and made edits anyway. Every point brought to your attention (political realities faced by Jefferson, sources, etc) was ultimately ignored by you as you couldn't refute the points made. That is why you are here and for no other reason. -- Gwillhickers 00:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers' posts removed from the original post where they were inserted disruptively. Binksternet 00:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the RFCU
 * Ebanony and Parkwells were largely responsible for bloating the section to an absurd five pages in length and since then they have harbored a resentment for my calling attention to the problem, establishing a consensus, and fixing the problem, The reason Ebanony's complaint at the NOR noticeboard was ignored is becuase it was a basless accusation and simply an act of revenge for my bringing attention to a problem that needed to be fixed. You (Binksternet) are behaving in a similar fashion, simply because things have not gone your way. -- Gwillhickers 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Julian Bond and Dianne Swann-Wright comment
 * Making the legitimate observations I have made is not racist, at all. You (Binksternet) are simply playing on feelings of racism and trying to rally support that you couldn't get on the Thomas Jefferson page. If anything, your behavior and methods should be called into question. -- Gwillhickers 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding observations about slavery at the U.S. article talk page
 * This is really getting ridiculous. I pointed out that the life expectancy for slaves in Brazil and the Caribbean was about seven years, compared to the United States were slaves lived out their lives and were able to multiply. This is "racist" comment?? This is typical of the distortions you (Binksternet) have made on my behalf in your underhanded effort to goad me away from participation on the Thomas Jefferson page. -- Gwillhickers 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : That's not quite how you worded it. However, even if you attempted to word it the way you just did, you're essentially saying "Come on now, it wasn't that bad." Wikipedia is not the place for statements like this. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Come on now..."?? Now you're putting words into my mouth. We were discussing the treatment of slaves. The analogy was made to point out that slavery in the U.S., and in particular regarding Jefferson, was dealt with in an entirely different manner than it was in Africa, Brazil and other parts of the world. When someone closely examines the history and the manner in which Jefferson treated slaves they see a very different picture than the one you would apparently have us believe. -- Gwillhickers 05:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another unsourced statement. Please provide your sources. I would like to read about how Jefferson's slaves (excluding the Hemings, who clearly had a special place on Monticello), were treated in relation to the treatement of slaves in Brazil and Africa. Again, these are blanket statements that need to be sourced. I say this b/c you asked me on the other talk page to be specific with you. I am also not insinuating that editors cannot discuss things without sourcing every detail, but you are making blanket statements to bolster your argument. These statements should be sourced.Joe bob attacks (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Joe bob just gave us another good reason to keep Gwhillickers around. Did you check Ira Berlin’s Many thousands gone: the first two centuries of slavery in North America (2000)? In his first chapters he contrasts the first sugar slavery regimes under Spanish and Portuguese and those of the English in sugar and tobacco in North America. Later, Berlin documents variations among slave masters labor relations with their slave workforce, both in the American South and within the same crop cultivations, I regret the volume is not readily at hand for a page cite. - I have at hand only Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery American Freedom: the ordeal of colonial Virginia, (1975) p. 301, slaves on Barbados plantations had to be replaced at a rate of about 6 percent per year, while those in Virginia retained their health and multiplied because of “the less strenuous work of cultivating tobacco, as opposed to sugar”. --- Morgan makes no particular conclusion about any moral superiority being ascribed to the Virginian tobacco plantation masters per se, only that there were variations in the slavery regime which directly affected mortality, which is Gwhillickers point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert': Your point is that Morgan made "no particular conclusion." That is not the case with Gwillhickers. He is making conclusions and presenting them as factual, sometimes without sourcing his statemenets. Joe bob attacks (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, all edits in the article are well sourced. You are only sniping at one item, "coached", on the talk page that came up in discussion. This has been addressed, yet you're still repeating that same point over and again, and then turn around and try to make an issue about why the debate is "contentious". You say one thing, but your actions are telling us a different story. -- Gwillhickers 21:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TVH, thanks for providing some background. Joe Bob has been and continues to grasp at straws at points made on the talk page, assuming wrongly that I just go along and make things up on the fly. Most of us are well read on Jefferson and over the years our knowledge comes into play during discussion. No editor sources a discussion unless asked to do so in terms of making the statement in the actual article. This is just an other example of the measures used to sandbag opposing discussions and goad me away from topics -- and now they are being employed here. Odly, he only targets my discussions, not edits made in the actual article, which are well sourced and often entered with compromise. This sort of sniping and lack of integrity has become typical not only on the Jefferson pages, but now here. -- Gwillhickers 18:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Independent Observation
I have had dealings with Gwhillickers before on 19th Century ships and I've always found him to be helpful, collegial and knowledgable.

I've also just spent an hour reading the entire talk page discussion. I have to comment that there is something to what Gwhillickers is saying. Binkersnet and others use the racism allegations against him to justify not listening to some quite reasonable comments on content. The central theme I got from reading a lot of the discussion is that there is not universal acceptance of the alleged fathering of children by Thomas Jefferson with one of his slaves, which he does back up with sources. There has been an attempt to portray only part of the debate as universally accepted to be the truth, when there remains a range of opinions both for and against in the literature. WP:NPOV requires we reflect the entire range of opinions but IMHO there appears certain contributors who only include those they agree with. The article has also suffered historically from an obsession with the issue around this allegation. The article clearly has not followed WP:NPOV and has given WP:UNDUE prominence to this allegation. For example this statement in the lead:

Historical research, bolstered by DNA tests showing that a Jefferson family member was the father of one of Hemings' sons, has led to a consensus among most modern historians that widower Jefferson fathered Hemings' children.

This is untrue, there isn't a consensus from what I've read and Gwhillickers is correct to point this out. I'm sure someone will shortly post a quote by someone who says pretty much that (I read that this statement is "sourced" so who am I to question it). I would advise that person to learn to differentiate WP:FACT from WP:OPINION. On this Gwhillickers is correct, "Presenting a self serving opinion (i.e.most people agree with us!) as a fact is the worst sort of POV "

Equally Gwhillickers is not blameless, the remarks about members of the NAACP and TJF weren't needed in the discussion. The discussion gets lost in the hysteria about comments he made about members of the NAACP and TJF, who claim that the DNA evidence is conclusive. Though ironically some of those making the allegations of racism dismiss Gwhillickers on the basis they're "right wing". I would characterise the remark that the TJF has focused too much on slavery as another. Whilst the former clearly isn't racism, the latter can well be taken for it. This really should have been argued on the basis of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, whilst separating WP:FACT from WP:OPINION.

There is far too much shouting, too much WP:IDHT and I will be blunt in saying there are few on that page qualified to edit in such a controversial area. Really a very large WP:BOOMERANG should be headed in the direct of the OP on this thread because their conduct has been far from ideal. And to be even more blunt, the whole thread seems to be about removing the opinion of an editor expressing the need for a range of views.

I would observe a one sided topic ban is clearly not warranted at this juncture, however, this cannot be allowed to continue to fester in the way that it has. I would propose instead that a topic ban is delivered on a number of the editors at the page, as none appear to be able to discuss the matter calmly. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to say the same thing.--MONGO 19:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus and it is reliably sourced. If you think there is not, then could you point to any academic book or article that disputes the claim.  TFD (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, this is far from a clear comment. There are plenty of sources on both sides of the fence as has been pointed out to you and others. All you are doing here is demonstrating a point WCM makes above. -- Gwillhickers 19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WCM, thank you for your objective and neutral assessment. I think a general and temporary topic ban for everyone, on the Jefferson page, might be in order until tempers cool down. This attempt to censure one side of the debate, currently represented by myself mostly, reflects badly on the spirit of Wikipedia altogether. -- Gwillhickers 19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if you were right, it does not give you license to continue arguing your one point for years when virtually every other editor has rejected it. TFD (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very bull-headed comment. You might want to read it again because I very much doubt you meant to say that.--v/r - TP 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD, the point is argued only when an editor makes an unfounded claim ("fringe", "not published by mainstream", etc), claims that have been addressed and refuted and which you continue to ignore. You are only demonstrating why the debate drags on. I have never initiated the debate about sources, and there are plenty of other editors who agree with my assessment, so I don't appreciate your attempt to portray the situation as 'me against the world'. This ongoing attempt to distort and misrepresent my participation is quite less than honest and needs to stop. -- Gwillhickers 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As an American history professor, I have to say that there has been consensus on this subject for a while. I say that I'm an American history professor, because I do believe this qualifies me to speak on this subject. If I were speaking on an engineering matter, it helps if someone is an engineer. I am not saying this to disparage others. To the matter at hand, these sources have been presented and are even reflected in other wikipedia pages. There is always going to be disagreement with regard to history, but POV pushing minor ideas for almost three years is a problem. I'm about to bow out of this discussion, as I only edit occasionally. I returned to this page after a 2 year absence to find that Gwillhickers was continuing to POV push. That's why I'm here. I enjoy returning to occasionally contribute, but if I'm topiced banned, along with Gwillhickers then I will accept it. I think it's more important to topic ban this particularly disruptive editor than for me to contribute. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've mentioned that you are a history professor several times now and have arrogantly referred to the rest of us as "hobbyist historian"(s). In any case, after being away for two years you have evidently missed much. I am not the only one standing on this side of the fence, and many of the debates are warranted, so your obvious inference that they are not is not helping to resolve matters. You're only repeating points that have already been addressed and refuted. There is a wide body of differing opinion out there, as was pointed out to you several times now and you are again demonstrating how arguments are initiated and drag on with this repetitious account here. To be fair with my comments, I appreciate your willingness to participate in the topic ban. I am hoping that such measures aren't really necessary, at present it appears so, and that cooler minds will prevail for all of us concerned. -- Gwillhickers 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points.

1. The fact that you're choosing to continue this discussion here shows you're all engaged in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and can't let this go. Continue and you'll only convince the community I'm right and you all should be topic banned.

2. TFD I'm astounded that someone of your experience doesn't get it. No you haven't sourced a fact, you've sourced an opinion, which you're stating is a fact. You can definitely source several historical sources making that statement (and you failed to note I did make the point) but it will never make it a fact. Equally to make that statement in the authoritive wikipedia voice ignores those elements of the literature that disagree.

3. The lede is supposed to reflect the article and the actual core part of the article does explain it rather better. This is a classic example of WP:LEDE fixation.

4. I would suggest the editor referring to himself as a "history professor" ceases to argue from WP:Authority, it doesn't add to the discussion and seems more designed to close it down without a debate. BTW I am a rocket scientist, does that make my view more authorative?

5. All of you need to read and understand WP:CONSENSUS all over again, you don't have a consensus you have a group of editors agreeing with each other to ignore the views of others on a basis that isn't sustainable under wikipedia's policies.

On a final note, it is to my shame, that I came very close to not posting the above comment. And do you want to know why, its because I was concerned that in commenting I would also be labeled a racist. This is the chilling effect of allegations like this. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "And do you want to know why, its because I was concerned that in commenting I would also be labeled a racist." I felt the same way.--v/r - TP 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really not at all sure what Wee Curry Monster is arguing here. So "you all should be topic banned" How nonsensical is that? What does "you all" mean. "No you haven't sourced a fact, you've sourced an opinion, which you're stating is a fact." What exactly does that mean? The only way to show consensus of historians is to either read everything written and somehow tabulate it (which could be construed as OR) or to find authoritative voices who say 'there is a consensus'. Also the question of whether it is a historical fact that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children is quite separate from the question of whether there is a consensus of historians that who have the opinion that he did (though obviously we would hope that history and historians are consistent with one another). It remains unclear to me what "fact" and what "opinion" you are referring to. It must be remembered that this is a pretty recent turn-around of opinion, so older literature will obviously reflect the pre-DNA POV. And yes, its possible, if you really really want to, to say some other Jefferson relative might have fathered her children, because, well, we don't have 100% proof or video surveillance evidence. You say "you don't have a consensus you have a group of editors agreeing with each other to ignore the views of others on a basis that isn't sustainable under wikipedia's policies." But what "policies" are those? The views of some editors get "ignored" all the time in line with policies, and quite properly, when they try to push fringe sources or overstate the significance of a minority position. Paul B (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I presumed you're familiar with WP:FACT and WP:OPINION?  And this isn't a WP:FRINGE opinion, I am well aware of the difference.  There is plenty of dissenting opinion in the literature; its in the article and the lede doesn't reflect the article
 * The way things stand I would definitely suggest both sides of this polarised discussion are topic banned, they're both exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.  This  posting is described by you as a racist, it wasn't, the assertion is made that is was repeatedly and its used as a pretext for ignoring the subsequent comments.  Can I ask if you reviewed the talk page, or just the diffs above.  Once I had done the latter the initial impression I had proved to be misleading.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WCM: I cannot speak for the current article, but Wikipedia does make representations about "most historians" in our articles, see Academic consensus:


 * Smithsonian Museum
 * American President: A Reference Resource from the University of Virginia
 * United States National Park Service Jefferson Biography
 * Monticello
 * Britannica

But I am no longer involved there so you are welcome to deal with it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ASW, no one has said we shouldn't mention "most historians" only that other significant viewpoints get fair representation. Quote from WP policy and Jimbo:
 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.
 * This was done on the talk page a couple of weeks ago. Btw, the NPS article doesn't say anything about "most historians" regarding Hemings, but your point still stands. -- Gwillhickers 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WCM' you are right, the debate is getting out of hand. Unless someone makes another distorted accusation on my behalf I am willing to bow out at this point, but it's very difficult to sit still for some of the stuff being tossed around here. -- Gwillhickers 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously "most" does not mean "all". Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link on WP:RS, I was unaware of that aspect of policy. Yes I saw that list on the talk page but also those below.

Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, former research committee member at Thomas Jefferson Foundation Herbert Barger, Director Emeritus, Jefferson Family Historian at Norwich University Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society Dr. Harvey C. Mansfield, Harvard University Dr. David N. Mayer Professor of Law and History, Capital University Dr. Robert F. Turner (Chairman), Professor, University of Virginia Dr. Paul Rahe, Professor of History, University of Tulsa Dr. Forrest McDonald, Distinguished Research Professor of History, Emeritus, University of Alabama Dr. Alf J. Mapp, Jr., Eminent Scholar, Emeritus, Professor of History, Old Dominion University Dr. Robert H. Ferrell, Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus Indiana University Dr. Lance Banning, Professor of History, University of Kentucky Dr. Charles R. Kesler, Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College, author of American History Eliot Marshall, author/historian Dr. Walter E. Williams, George Mason University Dr. Jean Yarbrough, Professor of Political Science, Bowdoin College NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS: Scholars Challenge Jefferson-Hemings Allegations J. Patrick Mullins, Ph.D, University of Kerntucky Dr. Thomas Traut, University of North Carolina Dr. James Ceaser, University of Virginia Monticello Association, Url2 William G. Hyland, author of 'In Defense of Thomas Jefferson:The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal' and 'A Civil Action: Sally Hemings v. Thomas Jefferson' Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., author of The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, Section Head (Supervisor), DBPH, Library of Congress (1974-78) Dr. James P. Lucier, historian, journalist, foreign policy specialist, appointed as 'Scholar' in the Congressional Reading Room, Library of Congress, served on the U.S. Senate staff for 25 years. Cynthia H. Burton, author, Jefferson Vindicated - Fallacies, Omissions, and Contradictions in the Hemings Genealogical Search, 2005 Rebecca L. McMurry, James F., Jr. McMurry, authors of Anatomy of a Scandal: Thomas Jefferson & the Sally Story , 2002


 * These are simply dismissed in talk as "right wing", so the sources the editors find supports the position they want are OK but not others. Really that isn't how wikipedia works is it?  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem there is of course going through and evaluating those sources, but the prerequisite is do any of them directly -- expressly -- deny the RS statement "most historians." And Gwill has been repeatedly asked to identify any that expressly argue that.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're asking to prove a negative. "Prove to me that someone said that no one said this..."--v/r - TP 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No. We are trying to represent what the RS directly say, not what they do not say. (see WP:NOR)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're trying to say that some RS's claim a majority opinion which gives you leeway to ignore others. So essentially, the "trump card" is for any RS to claim majority opinion whether that is true or not.  Is that something we need to go ahead and add to WP:RS?  It seems to me that it would be a primary source on it's own opinion, to be honest.  "We believe this, and everyone else agrees because we said so" is essentially what you're saying the RS says and that we need to abide by it.--v/r - TP 22:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I plead guilty to trying to faithfully follow what the sources directly say. If there is a consensus to reject all those sources, just because we know everything better than they do based on our own reading of sources that don't directly address the RS, count me and NOR out.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If a source makes a claim about its own position, is that specific claim third party or primary?--v/r - TP 23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may observe some sources are followed but others that are contradictory are not. TParis makes a good point about sourcing claims of academic consensus.  Wee Curry Monster talk 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary state their own propositions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have sources that say A and sources that say B, and also have reliable sources that say that A is the majority view, then indeed that is what we report. No matter how many B sources we find ourselves (and in this case B sources are very limited in recent scholarship). In order to not report that A is the majority view, we would need to not just have B sources, but to have sources that claim that B is the majority, or at least that explicitly deny that A is the majority. This is exactly the difference between OR (we count A and B and do our own analysis) and following WP:RS, hopefully written by people that have a good overview of the literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note quite, here have sources that say A and opine theirs is the majority view and sources that say B. What we don't have is a peer review of academic literature that state A is the majority view based on a good overview of the literature.  Worse the opinion of A is used to ignore B.  Even if the ideal situation you describe had existed you would not suggest we do not include B, even if it were a WP:MINORITY opinion unless it could be accurately dismissed as a WP:FRINGE.  Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just linking policy and guidekline pages you've already linked does nothing to advance your POV or make it any more coherent. You have not even responded to the question. A "peer review of academic literature" is not required and is in fact a meaningless concept in this field. Such things really do not exist in historical studies. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Most historians" does not ignore that there are other historians. Moreover, the Smithsonian source was taken to the RS notice board a last year and considered RS for "most historians." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I only edit occasionally and yes this is my profession. I did not know it was inappropriate to mention this, as I have done a great amount of research in this field. I have come to this page to discuss what I have seen as pervasive POV pushing. Perhaps I am too invested in this, which is why I will remove myself from this debate after this post. And I have to disagree. There has been significant peer review and consensus on these topics. But before I bow out, I wanted to make a clarification that neither myself or other editors have called Gwillhickers right wing and we are not here because of his views, but because of his persistent and pervasive POV pushing. With regard to consensus, I will be glad to provide a plethora of sources that constitute a majority view if needed to bolster the point that Gwhillhickers is in fact pushing minor ideas and fringe sources. If anyone would like me to pull this together please see my talk page. I will no longer visit this page, as I am removing myself from this debate. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We need 3rd party independent sources that claim A is the majority. We do not allow A to claim itself as the majority. A is a primary source on itself.--v/r - TP 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are sources which tell us what is the majority view about whether Jefferson had a child by Hemings. I put one of those into the TJ talk page: Kenneth Morgan's Slavery in America: A Reader and Guide, University of Georgia Press, 2005, ISBN 0820327921. Morgan is a British historian at Brunel University in London. His book is "designed specially for undergraduate course work" so it is a general survey. Morgan writes, "Scientific evidence, based on DNA studies done in 1998, has shown that rumours about the intimate connections of Jefferson and Hemings were true beyond reasonable doubt (see Document 3)." At Document 3 Morgan cites three studies. French historian François Weil writes in his book Family Trees that the 1998 DNA tests were challenged by some, but a "majority of observers... accepted the very high probability that Jefferson was the father of several of Sally Heming's children." The fact that objective British and French historians have recently assessed the literature and come up with "beyond reasonable doubt" about the paternity link between Jefferson and Hemings tells me that this is the mainstream view. Gwillhickers would have us believe that his list of authors who question the connection have a strong position; they do not. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is completely nonsensical, and is not in line with any policy. Anyone expert enough to express an opinion about the consensus of scholars in a field will, almost by definition, be themselves an expert, and almost certain to have a view. We do not demand a third party of non-climate scientists to say that Global Warming is the consensus view, since the "third party", by your defintion would be a non-expert, and thus not a reliable source. We do not need a non-expert on Shakespeare to say that the view that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare is fringe. We need experts on Shakespeare, by definition. Your demand is impossible to reconcile with policy, since it would mean that we would value the view of, say, a journalist with no expertise, over experts in the field because he/she would be a "third party". Paul B (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is completely in line with policy. It's called WP:PRIMARY.  Just because the burden of evidence is high doesn't make it wrong.  Any single person claiming academic consensus should be a high burden.  Else, as I've said, you create an academic "trump card" where the first academic to claim they have majority view wins.--v/r - TP 12:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your view is wholly inconsistent with policy for the reasons I have stated. WP:PRIMARY is utterly irrelevant. It says nothing whatever about this issue; WP:RS/AC is the relevant policy, which makes no such fantastical and impossible demands. There can never be no "independent" third-party in such cases for reasons I explained and which, unsurprisingly, you have not responded to other than by the tired expedient of sticking in a "WP:xyz" link hich says nothingh whatever about the issue at hand. Your last sentence is amusing. Claiming one is in the majority is not an argument. I'm surprised that you seem to think that academics think they can "win" a debate by saying they are in a majority! They may very well wish to claim to be in a minority, if they want to assert precedence for innovation. Or perhaps you think they are trying to "win" the right to have their views identified as mainstream on Wikipedia. You seem to be trying to apply ideas used to assess medical and other scientific literature to the humanities, but there is no such thing as systematic "reviews of previous studies" in history. Ideas enter the mainstream in a less systematic way. Paul B (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." When it comes to discussing their own viewpoint, they are directly involved.  They can talk from a disconnected viewpoint on the subject, but when speaking about their own conclusions they are primary.  I've lost patience with your brick wall so I'm just going to ignore your comments from here on out.--v/r - TP 14:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yours is the brick wall, since you seem to unaware of how nonsensical this view is. As has been pointed out by others all sources are "primary sources", in your (mis)interpretation of the concept, for any conclusions they reach, including the assertion that there is a consensus, or a majority view. Inevitably, it will be their own viewpoint that there is a consensus. Almost inevitably the source, if it is reliable, will be from an expert who is therefore likely to share that consensus. The consensus of experts on Shakespeare is that he wrote Hamlet. The experts who assert this, and who are quoted on the Shakespeare authorship question page, also believe that he did. According to you, that makes them "primary sources", and, apparently, makes their view inadmissible. This would mean that virtually every page that quotes high quality academic sources on the topic of academic consensus unacceptable. This is Alice in Wonderland logic. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm confused. We have several reliable sources that report explicitly on the overall state of the academic discussion. These are tertiary sources with respect to the underlying issue (TJ and SJ and their offspring). They are secondary with respect to the academic debate (who says what about TJ and SJ and their offspring, and is there a consensus). If you declare them as "primary", because (of course) they make statements, and hence are primary with respect to their own content, then all sources are primary, and the whole hierarchy of sources collapses. This is not and never has been a useful interpretation, not even on Wikipedia, where there are some idiosyncrasies with respect to the terms. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I've said Stephan. Sources secondary to the viewpoints themselves are exactly what I am saying we need to determine a majority viewpoint.--v/r - TP 14:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The University of Virginia, the Smithsonian, and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation are all well known independent academic publishers, expert in Jefferson and History. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

TP, I disagree. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. If I say the evidence shows that Jefferson was the father, that is an opinion. If I say most historians agree, that is a statement of fact. Academic articles undergo a peer review process which checks whether or not the facts presented are correct. If someone writes for example that most historians believe the moon landing was faked, 9/11 was an inside job, etc., that is a factual inaccuracy, regardless of what the writer believes or what the truth happens to be. If someone who believed that Jefferson was not the father wrote an article that said most historians thought he was not the father, peer-review would not allow it because it is false. Of course no academic articles or books have been published that claim Jefferson was not the father because it is not possible to make a case based on available evidence that he was not. In summary, while it may not be a proved fact that Jefferson was the father, it is a proved fact that most historians believe he was. And Gwillickers has argued against that for years, yet has failed to provide a single peer-reviewed source that says otherwise. Instead he provides a link to pictures of dark-skinned historians and says, look at them, how can they be unbiased. Smeat75, no. This appears to be his only issue in Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the case, he made a comment you and others presumed was based on the race of the individuals, which he later clarified was based on opinions they expressed. You all then poked him for a month trying to get something intemperate out of him, then posted here shouting he was a racist, ban him.  ANI doesn't exist to help you win a content dispute by topic banning an editor whose opinions you don't like. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillickers wrote, "If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond, President of the NAACP and Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American and "special programs" at TJF." If you "look at" the links, both appear to be African American.  Gwillickers later said that he meant the NAACP is a "leftist liberal" "pressure group" that "dictates policy" for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the organization that manages Monticello.  What are we supposed to be looking at on the link to Swann-Wright, which does not say she is a member of the NAACP?  TFD (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you assume he must mean to look at the pictures and he must intend for us to notice that, indeed, they aren't Caucasian. And based on your assumption, which seems to be all that is required here, we are meant to call this person a racist?--v/r - TP 14:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, look past that then. On what basis is it appropriate to impugn Dianne Swann-Wright with ad hominem on a Wikipedia talk page.  It is an embarrassment for Wikipedia to have such a thing occur, as well as being against Wikipedia policy.  It can only dismay anyone who cares if Wikipedia is taken with respect, it does not give.  We do not want to treat Swann-Wright who has done nothing wrong, who could herself be excellent knowledgeable Wikipedian, with such baseless disregard as to her reputation.  Even if she never would contribute, it is still reprehensible. I, for one, cannot be any part of it, and I am guessing there are others like me. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That also makes no sense. You want to ban someone because they might have offended the subject of an article?  I guarantee that I've made my opinion of Sue Gardner obvious and she both has an article about her and edits here.  By your reasoning, I should be banned?  We arn't a project of 'everyone believes the same thing'.  I can get on board with banning someone over racism, or even in the case of Dianne sexism as well if it exists, but absolutely not just because we might offend someone.--v/r - TP 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about you, so whatever you have done is irrelevant. I said nothing about offense. Baseless denigration of living people is against policy.  And no, that is not the only reason for the topic ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to correct you Alan, in this case the guy just didn't out of the blue decide to criticise those people, he did so in response to having a bunch of his sources criticised and discarded for being written by people who were "right wing". It was therefore done in response to similar criticism.   That doesn't make it right but I don't hear you criticising those who were the catalyst for the response.  You do no one any favours for criticising this response but not what prompted it.  BOTH comments were inappropriate, there is bad behaviour on both sides. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this were about others, then it would appropriate to comment about that. Making it even more perplexing is Gwillhickers has used the Thomas Jefferson Foundation as a source. Julian Bond, for example, was never proposed as a source by anyone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you prove my point in a way I could never have demonstrated, classic WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM. You assert the poking that caused the comment can't be discussed, 'cos this ain't about them.  Really, did you just say that?   Wee Curry Monster talk 11:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say that. Did you read what I wrote? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alan - this thread, like all threads, are about the entire issue. The scope is not limited to what the OP chooses for us.  Give BOOMERANG a read.  Specifically: "A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."--v/r - TP 12:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say 'this isn't about me', although no one has said that it is. But, yes something like it is done all the time -- it is also often judged to be deflection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You said "If this were about others, then it would appropriate to comment about that." This is about everyone involved.  It always is.  And it has only ever been called deflection by those who receive the microscope on their edits.  ANI as a body has never considered it deflection.--v/r - TP 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What ANI body? Individual Users post here. And they make their own judgements. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. A community is made up of individuals.  Not once has a thread ignored all components of an issue because of 'deflection'.  And even if you could prove it happening in a single instance, I can show you thousands where a thread reviews everyone's actions.--v/r - TP 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be what? It is impossible for every comment and every thread within a large discussion to do what you claim. Also, your continued vague reference to "everyone involved" is unhelpful, unfocused and unfair.  It is unfair to demand anyone to comment on unnamed "others."  Especially, if they do not feel comfortable to do so.  Are you asking me to comment on me?  About what, exactly? Were you asking me above (in yours of 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)) to comment on your actions?  I won't do so.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to play magic circus act with you, Alan. You want to talk about deflection, you've clearly just demonstrated that.  You want to talk about WP:ANI and "off-topic", well you're in the extreme minority on your view ("If this were about others, then it would appropriate to comment about that").  That's all I've got to say on the matter.--v/r - TP 19:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your invective is unappreciated. You misconstrued what I was referring to with "this," and why I did not want to comment on unnamed "others," apparently. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not miscontrue it, Alanscottwalker. I could tell you, "you got to eat what's on your plate", but I think that the game rather was: what you put in front of it shows, what you think it's worth. That's why Gwillhicker was entitled to thinking, "what's the bad manners" whatever you might think of what's been going on . -- Askedonty (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of Gwill telling me in our prior interactions that I treated him with bad manners, and I don't think I have intended to do so (or if I have, at least without apology but I don't recall any specific instance), he has indicated the opposite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not mean "thinking of you" - miscontruations regenerate with any other new ambiguous declaration obviously; I'm happy if this is bringing you back to more positive considerations. --Askedonty (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gwillickers contributions

 * Question. I gather Jefferson is a hero for Gwillhickers. Does Gwillhickers contribute usefully to the Jefferson article on aspects other than the "did he have children with one of his slaves" matter? If so, it seems a pity to topic ban him from Jefferson altogether.Smeat75 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, Gwhillickers has made contributions on the Jefferson page in a collegial way as has been attested by adversaries above, and they have persisted over many subsequent edits relative to DNA, slavery, illustrations, bibliography, profession, captions, marriage, citations and formatting, Monticello, Louisiana Purchase, University of Virginia and others. These are apart from Talk Page answering personal attacks on his sources by making personal attacks on other's sources, which I believe is not productive on anyone's part.
 * Binksternet pointed out above, "Gwillhickers was recently Editor of the Week at the Editor Retention Project. He does a lot of work on 18th and 19th century naval battles." Slaves were rented for sailors in the US Navy both in the Revolution and in the War of 1812, GWs time period. In Black Jacks: African American Seamen in the Age of Sail, W. Jeffrey Bolster at U. of New Hampshire notes no American slave accepted the offer to be a free British seaman in the prisoner of war camps. The proposed GW ban on the subject of slavery would also inappropriately interfere with his possible contributions in naval history at Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers has made useful and constructive edits to the article, certainly. One of them was a slight trim from May 2013 in response to a talk page request. What we have to decide here is whether his disruptive talk page behavior and revert warring in the article overbalance his positive contributions. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the topic ban proposal above, the edit warring charge was not held to apply to Gwhillickers. I have no information to overturn the previous holding, and that is not the focus of this proposal. Rather Gwhillickers now finds his sources personally attacked and he replies in kind on the Talk Page, and some then some object to the same inappropriate tactics they use being turned on their own sources by Gwhillickers. Now Gwhillickers is accused as a racist for pointing out variations in Virginia's mid-1700s and early-1800s slavery regimes on different plantations and comparatively internationally.


 * As his fundamental positions are supported for a quarter century of scholarship on the subject of slavery and the South and Virginia from Morgan (1975) to Berlin (2000), taking things personally is not good for Wikipedia collegiality, it seems to me. Rather modern scholars or WP editors need to consult the literature on a given topic first, with the seriousness as though they were pursuing a thesis or dissertation. Gwhillickers is acknowledged as being well read in the historiographic literature, and contrarian to the most recent modern scholars. That alone is not reason enough for banning on the topics of Thomas Jefferson and slavery as proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers' contributions to this thread
Gwillhickers, you may want to ration your responses in this discussion. By my count, you have posted 30 times, about half of them after you said you were conditionally "willing to bow out at this point". I'm sorry the conditions have apparently not been fulfilled, and that you find it necessary to keep up such a barrage (barrage, sense 2, 3, and 4). I don't think it's doing the impression of you or your cause any good. And the thread is becoming so bloated there's probably a rapidly diminishing chance that uninvolved editors will be able to face reading it. Less is more. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Insert : Not nearly half. This noticeboard affair is about me, per my talk page activities, so it's kinda difficult to sit by and not address any unfair new comments when they are made. There are several editors who have made repetitive statements about myself and have added quite a bit of text to the page to that effect. I have enough dumped on my shoulders without someone sitting there counting my edits and then trying to make an issue about it, while complaining about the section becoming "bloated" at the same time. -- Gwillhickers 18:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just open up an RFC/U if you want a streamlined discussion. I don't see why this was brought to ANI anyways.  Konveyor   Belt  00:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2011 RFCU accomplished nothing which is why I did not open up another one. Here at ANI some solution can be found, one that sticks. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should never have been brought to ANI. And this is good advice to Gwillhickers, whilst I realise it is difficult to sit on your hands while people are criticising you, responding to everyone leads to the conclusion you have a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.  Trust me, been there and learned the lesson the hard way. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WeeCM', your advice is well taken, I will certainly try harder. This whole affair is very disappointing. If I should make any new comments they will be brief and directed at any new editors who make unfair comments that need to be addressed and clarified. -- Gwillhickers 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My advice is don't, simply ignore them. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Julian Bond
For the record, although Gwillhickers states above that Julian Bond is the "head" of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (in his 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC) comment) and elsewhere has said he is on the board. Those claims appear to be false:. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record the link provided seems to indicate that Bond is associated with the TJF and is a member of its "community." I found several sources for a "Monticello Getting Word Board" on which Bond appears to have served.  Anyone know what that board is/was?  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seek/Find . Comments from Barger. The implication is that the TJS named the members of that group. which means that "false" appears to ne less correct than "overstatement" here -- "false" implies zero direct connection, which might not be the case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "[A]ppears to be false" does not imply that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Julian Bond Bond is on the Board of Selectors of Jefferson Awards for Public Service.
 * Ever thought it might be just a simple mistake? Elsewhere he stated correctly he was president of the NAACP. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no speculation on why it happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What was your point here? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To correct the representation about a living person and an organization. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which does serve to illustrate how easily a posting in text can be misconstrued, as I (and it would appear Collect) took it to imply you were indicating dishonesty by Gwillhickers. Thank you for clearing that up.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan Jordan is the defacto head of TJF. Bond was or is the Chairman of the Monticello Study and the Getting Word project, so I am indeed in error in as much as he is not 'the' top guy at TJF. My concern was only about his involvement there and his past history of racially divisive comments as he is heavily involved in partisan politics, equating republicans (of which I am not) to the Nazi's etc, calling them “the white people’s party” and “a crazed swarm of right-wing locusts.” He has referred to America overall as a racist nation, which is sort of ridiculous as Obama won the election because most of his votes came from white voters. On the Jefferson talk page I linked to TJF simply to show that Bond was involved there. That is hardly a "racist" action. Just for the record, I think most Republicans and Democrats should be put in orange jump suits and doing community service. -- Gwillhickers 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Daniel P. Jordan appears to be President Emeritus of the TJF, the current President is Leslie Greene Bowman, according to, and the Foundation's board is also listed there and Bond is not on it. Under WP:BLP, be well-sourced, precise and careful in making biographical representations, anywhere on Wikipedia including its talk pages. It should, of course, also be relevant. BLP policy takes a dim view of mistake ('get it right'), or poor sourcing (eg., magazine comments are not RS for representations about other people, see WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS).  It also does not appear to be well sourced or accurate that, "Julian Bond was or is Chairman of the Monticello Study and the Getting Word project". The link above to a magazine comment (which is not RS, for this) does not even state that, it suggests someone else (who is unnamed) was Chairman, although Bond is also mentioned in that comment. While these are biographical details, the representations having been made need to be correct (or corrected) and well sourced. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposals
This section is rapidly descending into a festering boil of allegation and counter allegation. After reviewing the original comments and the talk page discussion it is far from clear the subject of this report made a racist comment as alleged. I've also noted this was done in response to some equally inappropriate comments by the OP denouncing sources on the basis of their origin. Both sides have behaved inappropriately I would suggest. The behaviour on both sides is unlikely to promote consensus building. I have two proposals to lance this boil. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Find a diff or two where I'm "denouncing sources on the basis of their origin" and this pair of proposals should be considered. Otherwise not. You will find I have never denounced a source on the Jefferson talk page, let alone because of its origin, whatever that means. I reserve the right to denounce a poor quality source but I have not yet done so. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Proposal 1 is for a community topic ban for a period of 3 months for User:Alanscottwalker, User:Binksternet, User:The Four Deuces, User:Joe bob attacks and User:Gwillhickers on all subjects related to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings broadly construed. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose As proposer I have to note this is not my favoured option as all are valued contributors.  I could support this if they don't agree to mediation on this.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Option 2 --v/r - TP 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Diff's for banning me from anything? Any Policy basis?  Or is this not a serious proposal, since it's opposed by its proposer? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ASW, though you have not given me support here, you have not been given to spiteful and malicious allegations and your activity on the Jefferson pages has been minimal. Though you may have had your moments, none that I can remember, you have been a voice of mediation in the past. If anyone should be given a cooling down period it should be Binksternet, Joe Bob' and myself. -- Gwillhickers 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hesitated to include you Alan, but this comment above tipped the balance for reasons of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM. It appears to be asserting we should not be considering the comments that elicited the response that is alleged to be racist, which are equally inappropriate.  Personally I would prefer this to go down the WP:DR route.  I don't think anyone needs to be topic banned but the nature of the discussion on the talk page is currently unhealthy.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly capable and within policy of saying what I will and will not comment and upon, and where I will or will not do so. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Race is not the issue. Gwillickers has argued against other editors about the phrasing of the reference to Jefferson's illegitimate children for four years.  He has never been able to obtain support for his views despite a turnover of editors, and it makes no sense to ban him and four of the editors who oppose his view.  Why he believes what he believes is irrelevant, he is flogging a dead horse.  Incidentally, you are the last person I thought saw Jefferson as a plaster saint.  What next, freedom for the Malvinas?  TFD (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there should be no issue of racism in regards to Gwhillickers. No one needs to be banned from the page. This thread should be closed, minority scholarship in the DNA controversy can be admitted to the narrative, and we can all get along, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging racism isn't an issue, why then pray is that allegation the central theme of the case for this topic ban proposal. Oh and I don't see Jefferson as a plaster saint by the way but that ain't the issue.  09:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This 'proposal 1' is for a group of contributing editors to be banned from the TJ page. I am not agreed to banning any of them. I am for stating a majority view on the DNA scholarship along with a minority view in the narrative, as provided for in WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2
All parties agree to participate in a RFC or take the dispute to WP:DRN to request community input on the best means to described the Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings controvery and agree to abide by the outcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support As proposer, I favour WP:DR over community sanctions. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Option 1 There are problems in this topic area that span much greater than Gwillhickers.  Aside from a couple particularly heated comments from some individuals, it seems to me that everyone is acting in good faith. When parties are acting in good faith, that is a perfect opportunity for WP:DRN to work.--v/r - TP 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per TParis. Since everyone has been assuming good faith at the moment, I think I would take this case to WP:DRN. However, I have been uninvolved in the Thomas Jefferson dispute at the moment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The last RfC on this user solved some of the problems. Maybe dispute resolution would help before starting another. It's worth a try, now that everyone's calmed down a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose He has already had an RfC, see Requests for comment/Gwillhickers, and there is no reason to take an issue to DRN when only one person opposes the view of almost every editor who has visited the talk page in the last four years. TFD (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposal is for a binding RFC not an RFC/U, there has been no attempt at WP:DR and that is why this has not been resolved. Proceeding to advocate a topic ban for one editor to shut them up isn't the answer.  Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * DRN is never binding. And there is no reason for any editor to go to DRN because one editor disagrees with the overwhelming majority.  The fact that the one dissenter has failed to use DRN is another reason for a topic ban.  TFD (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now a reason to ban is that an editor has not used DRs to complainants satisfaction? Why did not more experienced editors bring a DR? Should majority scholarship blank minority scholarship in a controversy? They would have to demonstrate WP:FRINGE --- and they cannot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Gwhillickers fundamental positions are supported for a quarter century of scholarship on the subject of slavery and the South and Virginia from Morgan (1975) to Berlin (2000). He is acknowledged as being well read in the historiographic literature, and contrarian to the most recent modern scholars. That alone is not reason enough for banning on the topics of Thomas Jefferson and slavery as proposed. WP policy admits the expression of both sides in a scholarly controversy, the majority need not mask the minority entirely in the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3
No action required. Can't we all get along? Close this thread. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as an involved editor. Gwillhickers needs some mentoring/monitoring on avoiding a battleground mentality. Yopienso (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This editor has argued a position no one else supports for four years. A ban would allow him to consider why he was unable to work with other editors, during which time you could try to help him.  TFD (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Gwhillickers has made contributions on the Jefferson page in a collegial way as has been attested by adversaries above, and they have persisted over many subsequent edits relative to DNA, slavery, illustrations, bibliography, profession, captions, marriage, citations and formatting, Monticello, Louisiana Purchase, University of Virginia and others. These are apart from Talk Page answering personal attacks on his sources by making personal attacks on other's sources, which I believe is not productive on anyone's part. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is the solution that is best for Wikipedia. Occasional monitoring of the pages by an admin is a good idea.  But let's not bias the monitoring - it should be of the pages, not just of one editor's contributions to them.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This admin has been monitoring the page. Eventually, I bought some books, learned about the issues, and became WP:INVOLVED. I have a quite strong aversion to ban or block good-faith editors. But the situation is not symmetrical, neither with respect to sources, to understanding, to flexibility, or even to numbers (of people - I'm a lot less sure about number and volume of edits in the discussion). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral Comment Whilst I don't disagree this shouldn't be at ANI, unless there is some attempt at WP:DR the situation in talk won't improve. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a silly idea. Why should we let a very clearly disruptive editor get away scot-free? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense rationale: Pick an offense, any accusation, past and present, pick a penalty, "Off with her head!", said the Queen of Hearts. --- also, one may object to the racist slur on the Scots above, or is that mere carelessness or is it clever sarcasm? I propose we let it go with a warning, lacking a sustained history of clearly intended offense by Lukeno94. No apology required. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you here to do anything other than troll and waste people's time? I'm doubting it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clever sarcasm it is. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support -- Re TFD's claim: "...no one else supports for four years"?? This is an unfair statement. I've gotten support on numerous points, past and present. Most of my edits were made with consensus and/or compromise, all well sourced. This completely one-sided and less than truthful statement has been typical and only serves to demonstrate just how objective some of the 'analysis' has been. TFD (and anyone else so inclined), please don't try to dress us challenges to arguments (which others have initiated) as "disruptive behavior". That's a cop out. I don't ignore arguments when presented as a couple of others have done, repeatedly. I have acknowledged and compromised on "most historians", special commentary in the lede, etc, time and again. Binksternet's accusations are simply an attempt to put an emotional block in front of any of the arguments I have presented. -- Regarding Julian Bond, et al, on retrospect I certainly could have chosen my words more carefully when I was calling attention to their involvements, but I was certainly not saying, "Look, they're African American, booooo!". I was trying to establish their social and political involvements by linking to the given pages at the TJF, which was warranted imo. The idea that I harbor hatred for anyone simply because of their race is a vile and baseless accusation and is a cheap stunt to duck issues that can't be challenged otherwise. In any case, I have made numerous compromises on the Jefferson pages. The OP has made none. -- Gwillhickers 19:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand TFD to refer to your reluctance to accept the current academic consensus wrt Sally Hemings or to allow TJ's flaws to be noted. Certainly you have made compromises and edit from good, if misguided, faith. You do tend to rant on the talk page, though. I would like to see you receive some coaching in NPOV and BATTLEGROUND. Yopienso (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Some form of dispute resolution might help the editors move forward and achieve a real, good-faith consensus.  At the very least, Gwillhickers ought to get some mentoring, so that he might learn why he keeps finding himself in these situations and learn more constructive ways to deal with editors who disagree with him.  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution is the key. I have no problem admitting that the debates get testy, or "batlleground" like if you prefer, but I think in any case where someone tries to make a case for that it can be seen that there is always another party involved. The OP is responsible for multiple WP:IDHTs, so it would help matters immensely if you would acknowledge that there are reasons for these disputes and stop assuming I am just some editor who simply likes to howl at the moon. Dispute resolution. -- Gwillhickers 01:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Carrite apparently has little to no experience of Gwillhickers' disruptive battleground style on talk pages, and his aggressive reverts in article space. I do have that experience, and I would like to see some closure on this matter, one that has more teeth than the strongly censuring but ultimately ignored 2011 RFCU. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP speaks with an acute conflict of interest. The "aggressive reverts" involve his edits, the likes of which involve unsourced statements that didn't reflect one shred of compromise with the others in the discussions. This editor has also made some vile battleground claims in his opening statement here, e.g. "modern day stigma" against slavery, making it seem as if he would be happy to see it re-instituted." He has resorted to the same sort rhetoric on the Jefferson talk page several times right in the middle of discussions, typically after points are presented that he can't challenge. This editor has no platform to be preaching to anyone about "battleground" behavior and has committed one WP:IDHT after the other. I am open to suggestions about dispute resolution from other editors. There are still issues on the Jefferson page that need to be addressed -- like commentary for one subject only in the lede. -- Gwillhickers 01:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to explain what you meant by "modern day stigma against slavery" which you employed twice without clarification at Talk:United_States/Archive_53. Cmguy777 said he was not sure there was such a thing, but you did not explain yourself. Without any explanation, I assumed you meant that slavery was not so bad as people today say it is, that there should not be such a mark of disgrace about it. That argument is a lost cause: scholars such as Loretta J. Ross write about how slavery was so horrible that many slave women killed their own newborn infants, to prevent another soul subjugated, and to prevent their masters from seeing financial gain. Some slave women had access to the African folk knowledge of abortion, so much so that in 1856 a white doctor reported that a number of slave owners were upset that their slaves appeared to hold a "secret by which they destroy the foetus at an early age of gestation". Can you imagine thousands of mothers smothering their own newborn children, killing their own fetuses so the little soul could escape slavery? Just awful. The general state of scholarship on slavery tells us that slavery was a terrible condition for those who labored under it. Stigma refers to a mark of disgrace, reproach or infamy, so I have to assume from your word choice that you think the institution of slavery should be considered today in a manner free of reproach, free of its negative connotations. I have to assume you think slavery is okay. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The modern day stigma is the tendency to assume that slaves in the U.S. were kept in irons, wore rags, fed slop and worked to an early death. Ross is typically sniping at exceptions and ignoring the overwhelming rule. In your mind the idea of 'stigma' translates to my wanting slavery "re-instituted"?? Nice try, Bink. You have made some gross assumptions on my behalf. Given your complete lack of compromise on the talk page and your repeated WP:IDHTs and use of acute battleground behavior there, and now here, you have knocked the bottom out of any moral standing in this ANI. At this point it seems you would do well to direct your efforts at dispute resolution and try to develop a capacity for compromise. Most of us have done so. -- Gwillhickers 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If Gwillhickers is willing to go to dispute resolution then perhaps that's the solution. But no action is not the answer. Gwillhickers has been to ANI before and will be back again. His comment above indicates that he's anxious to get back to editing the lede to his liking, "there are still issues on the Jefferson page that need to be addressed -- like commentary for one subject only in the lede." On the talk page he indicated that consensus for the lede had been reached and that I was the one bringing it up again. Apparently not. I don't want to be disruptive or beat a dead horse so at this point I'm going to bow out gracefully. I'll check on the TJ page next year. I'm sure the next round of editors will have their hands full. It's only been going on since February 2011. Thanks. Over and out. Joe bob attacks (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The ANI to which you are referring resulted in the ANI page being flooded with the very same sort of ad'hom you and the OP have dumped into this page, just as you are doing now, and resulted in no action taken. This ANI here was filed by an OP who repeatedly resorted to WP:IDHT, refused to compromise on any points and has resorted to the basest form of battleground behavior I have ever seen. He is responsible for the disruption. In 2012 many of us debated points in Jefferson/talk and naturally there were heated moments, but we assigned a couple of editors to work on drafts and we got through it, which resulted in a page that remained stable for many months until you and the OP came along with no regard for the time spent and efforts made by other editors and with zero capacity for compromise. -- Gwillhickers 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, these most recent replies of yours to Binksternet and Joe bob attacks are typical of what, AFAIK, all or most (Virginia Historian is an exception) of the currently involved editors at the TJ article object to. Just because the article was stable doesn't mean most of us were happy with it. For my part, it meant it wasn't worth trying to discuss it with you. I find many of your attempts to discuss to be argumentative, bombastic, hyperbolic, repetitive, uncollegial. Ex.: Nice try, Bink. ... gross assumptions ... complete lack of compromise ... acute battleground behavior ... refused to compromise ... basest form of battleground behavior ... with no regard ... zero capacity for compromise. I do not agree with those accusations. You say we want to show that slaves in the U.S. were kept in irons, wore rags, fed slop and worked to an early death. In fact, we want to show that slaves in the U.S. were kept in involuntary bondage. We realize quality of food and clothing varied greatly from master to master, as did the amount of work exacted and the kindness or cruelty meted out. I believe your finger-pointing (He is responsible for the disruption.) is 180 degrees off. This is why I think you need mentoring, because you truly do not see how rude and disruptive your talk page behavior is. Your fixation on upholding a sterling image of TJ conflicts with the desire of other editors to be historically accurate. Best wishes, as always, Yopienso (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All the things you strung together, out of context, happen to be true, and I can't think of anyone who is 100% happy with the compromise we struck in 2012, that's why it's called a compromise. Jefferson's sterling image? This is your impression. The page has a long history where because Jefferson owned slaves some editors assumed they had a blank check to say what they wanted and to make the given sections as bloated as they wished. Trying to keep that under control and adding a little historical perspective is not portraying Jefferson as "sterling". Careful. My comments to Bink. They have been wholly defensive and I didn't file this ANI, so I don't quite appreciate you trying to write it all off in the manner you have just now. While you make issue with battleground comments, in the same breath you use a phrase this: "argumentative,  bombastic, hyperbolic, repetitive, uncollegial." To your credit you have shown the capacity to employ compromise but now you would do well to stop shooting yourself in the foot and begin making attempts at dispute resolution, as should the OP, who has yet to even acknowledge such an approach. Had the OP made such attempts in the first place much of this calamity would have been averted. You are now only prolonging matters. I have made several attempts at compromise. The OP has not. I respond to arguments. The OP overall has ignored them. I have not resorted to vile accusations, repeatedly. The OP has indeed done so. How you could overlook such a glaring distinction only serves to put your present remarks in a not so credible light. -- Gwillhickers 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support reasonable end to this ANI thread that was silly from beginning.--Staberinde (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * --- Before ANI, Editors with a dispute should go to dispute resolution. Gwhillickers has demonstrated that a scholarly debate currently exists as to the extent and specificity of DNA results: it is not WP:FRINGE. Complainants assert GW will not bend to the will of the majority reporting majority scholarship. But WP policy provides for minority scholarship to be reported in the narrative alongside the majority scholarship.


 * An administrator should be able to craft the language at a Dispute Resolution. I am not persuaded getting into the weeds of scholarly debates belongs in the article introduction, although Jefferson's domestic relations with Martha (wife) and widower Jefferson with Sally deserve note there. The DNA controversy merits discussion in the article body. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The dispute started with issues in the lede. I reluctantly went along with commentary in the lede for Hemings. It is the only topic given commentary. None of the other landmark issues relating to Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase, Declaration of Independence, etc) are given commentary. There was also debate about some of the language, whether it should read, opposed slavery all his life..., compared to politically opposed slavery..., compared to morally opposed.... This brought us to concerns about Jefferson's lack of action during his presidency in regards to slavery. I addressed this argument also, pointing out that during this time the country was involved with and was facing various wars and that the political division over the slavery issue was such that if Jefferson began pushing abolition at this time it would have very well brought on an early civil war -- while Britain was waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces. This is when the OP didn't reply, once again, abandoned the discussion and came running here crying wolf/"racism", the main theme in his opening statement, btw, as a way to get around such arguments. Anyone who reviews the Jefferson/talk discussion during the few days before this ANI was filed will see this. It would seem that any dispute resolution be aimed at these things. Calling opposing arguments "disruptive" or POV pushing, etc was only a tactic to divert from any further resolution. -- Gwillhickers 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)