Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive823

User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MilesMoney (talk · contribs) has re-added -twice- obviously contentious and potentially defamatory content to the BLP of Dana Rohrabacher, supported by a partisan source with a less-than sterling reputation. Diffs: [1] [2]

Miles has elected not to start a discussion, nor has he made any attempt to find a better source (which may well be available, if he were to bother looking). Instead, he prefers to try to force in his edit, even though it has been pointed out that it is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Roccodrift (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did start a discussion, but you went directly to WP:ANI, bypassing the talk page, WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. To repeat what I said:

Dana Rohrabacher said this at a congressional hearing, so it's on the public record and we have CSPAN videos confirming it. The citation is to http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/26/1928321/rohrabacher-boston-islam/, which includes both of these original sources while defending us from the appearance of WP:OR. There is no WP:BLP issue here as there is absolutely no question that he said these things and that it was notable.

I stand by this. If you disagree, however, let's take this to the appropriate forum, not this drama page. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No. No. No. MilesMoney filed this SPI against Roccodrift and Belchfire. But he also included me, NazariyKaminski, in his witch hunt. He has zero evidence that I am a sock of rocco or belch. He is not editing in good faith. I edited one article that MilesMoney edited and he did not like my editing and so he started an edit war. I backed off. I was right but I backed off. He then followed me to another article and started another edit war. I am not a sock of rocco or belch. I don't even know who these editors are and MM has no evidence to support his claim but that has not slowed him down. Also, I don't know Brangifer but he assumes, even before the results of the SPI are concluded, that MilesMoney's SPI is justified. Brangifer's comment above is completely bogus. Why are MM and Brangifer dragging me into this? Seriously, edit Wikipedia and stop the POV pushing.--NK (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a flurry of disruptive edits by User:MilesMoney, who really ought to know better. This could perhaps be better discussed at WP:EWN, but the user in question has been editing disruptively across a range of article - adding dubious categories unsupported by the article, and then reverting while refusing to discuss. User:Roccodrift is correct to remove the poorly sourced material on a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The best reason not to go to WP:ANI is that it gathers well-wishers such as StAnselm, who's unhappy with me for reverting a flurry of bad changes he recently made. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Two corrections. First, I'm always willing to discuss my edits. Second, I didn't add categories: I restored the ones you tried to remove because you were wrong to remove them. Hope that helps. MilesMoney (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding Miles' additional BLP violations from today: Pamela Geller [3]; Gary Bauer [4]; Robert Spencer (author) [5]. The common thread here is that I had performed an AGF revert on each one of them within the last hour. In fairness, it should be noted that Miles' didn't attempt to edit-war on these other articles. Roccodrift (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The common thread is that these BLP accusations are false. Rather, the two of you are guilty of whitewashing articles. MilesMoney (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. If you think I violated WP:BLP, go to WP:BLPN. This bit of forum-shopping appears to be retaliation for my earlier report. MilesMoney (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Right Wing Watch" is not a reliable source for anything, except maybe details about Right Wing Watch, and it is certainly not a reliable source for a BLP. Using it to label various living people as "far-right" is extremely inappropriate. It violates basic policies regarding categorization, and especially violates BLPCAT.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but this is the wrong venue to discuss such issues. I've opened a WP:BLPN report on the original complaint. You are free to open reports on any of the others that's been piled on. I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read where other editors are "guilty" and they are "whitewashing" articles. The truth is that Miles is too eager to add unwarranted spin to articles – MM is categorizing the people as "far-right" when a simple "right" is/might be supported by the sources. (The term "far right" is not used in the blog (rightwingwatch.org) for the Robert Spencer article.) Gary Bauer gets a "critics of Islam" category because the rightwingwatch.org blog mentions him in passing. Worst of all, MM posts the references in-line rather than using proper citation format (as in the Dana Rohrabacher edit). – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read that an article entitled Anti-Islamic Sentiment Cheered at Values Voter Summit depicts Bauer as anti-Islamic. But I already posted that on the appropriate talk page so why am I repeating myself here? No good reason, so let's end this. MilesMoney (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This report has been made obsolete by the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Murdering_children, where Rocco and I have agreed on two reliable sources to replace the original source. Now we're done. MilesMoney (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Bauer#Critic_of_Islam is where we came to an agreement on sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you are "always ready to discuss" and yet as a minimum you have banned people from your talk page as follows:

• 22 September Srich32977 (talk · contribs)
• 26 September Adjwilley (talk · contribs) - not sure if this is a ban: it says "go away"
• 3 October PrairieKid (talk · contribs)
• 8 October Yworo (talk · contribs)
• 16 October MrX (talk · contribs)
• 21 October Sitush (talk · contribs)
• 2 December Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
• 2 December 65.102.177.223 (talk · contribs)
• 5 December Roccodrift (talk · contribs)
• 7 December HectorMoffet (talk · contribs)

There was a bit of a hiatus part way through that sequence when you were involved in the discussions regarding your article ban/WP:AEGS. All the above were then unbanned on 7 December during a prior ANI thread involving you, when I was preparing the above diffs on-wiki. But then you started again on 10 December. I know that you are keen to see article-related discussions take place on article talk pages and that is fair enough but the pattern does not suggest one of co-operation. Put simply, if people object to your article edits then you ban them from your talk page. Sure, you're now saying that this thread is irrelevant because a discussion has now opened elsewhere but, again, that seems to be a common event: take it to the limit and then make a tactical withdrawal. Why not try avoiding taking it to the limit in the first instance? Or just drop out of it all, as I have done? - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly for joining in but you are entirely mistaken. As I stated on this very page quite recently, there is only one person banned from my talk page, and it's Rocco. Please get your facts straight instead of trying to meddle. MilesMoney (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken. Please read what I wrote. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It has always been my belief that the article talk page is the first place for any dispute to go. If it cannot be resolved there and is based on specific issues, such as RS or BLP, it should go to the related notification page, such as RSN or BLPN. User talk page notices, especially templates, are not always a good idea. In particular, when they make a false accusation, this gets in the way of discussion.

The issue with this report is that we have a reliable source for Dana's public statements, so there's no doubt whatsoever that he made them. The dispute is now being resolved on the article talk page and on BLPN, so this is the wrong venue.

What makes it particularly counterproductive is that some who are uninvolved in this dispute but hold prior grudges are taking this as an opportunity to pile on. That happens a lot on ANI, and it's very unfortunate. Please don't contribute to it. If you literally have nothing to add on the issue, please remain silent instead of raising unrelated issues. Thank you and goodbye. MilesMoney (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your conduct is being discussed, and this is one of the appropriate venues for that to take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My conduct isn't the issue, the content is. By ignoring this ANI, I've already been able to fix Dana's Gary's article to our mutual agreement. This ANI is useless or worse than useless. MilesMoney (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For another example of how this ANI is worse than useless, it's been used in an attempt to shut down the BLPN report intended to clear up the issue of whether thinkprogress.org is reliable for quoting Dana's public statements. MilesMoney (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, in slightly less than five months your talk page has seen a 3RR warning, two for AGF, 2 for AN3, six ANI notifications, one article ban per AEGS, two BLP warnings, four for disruptive editing, seven for edit warring, one for removal of maintenance templates, eight NPA notices and at least another six of various types revolving round disruption & talk page issues. They came from about 15 different people and they are only the tip of the iceberg - there are far more comments about your style on individual article talk pages/central forums etc. I know that you are doing a fair amount of stuff in contentious areas but so am I and, believe me, if I had that sort of record from ca. 2500 contributions then I'd be taking a pretty close look at my own behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have diffs for all this stuff, and more, obviously. I could post a table listing the warnings etc up to 7 December if anyone really wanted to see it. In fairness, I should have noted that MM has also received three barnstars, all from the same person. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Miles. Wrong on all counts. Your conduct IS the issue.

You reverted twice, without discussion, after you were told in edit summaries that there was a BLP problem with the source.[6][7]. You made no attempt at discussion [8] until you were informed in an edit summary that we were coming to ANI [9], then you reverted yet again [10] without correcting the problems with your material. You claim to have reliable sources, so where are they? Had you produced a better source, we wouldn't be here.

The idea that you think this is "being resolved" is laughable.[11] Your sole contributions to resolving the issue is to insist that you are right and to declare that your source (Thinkprogress) is "perfectly reliable" [12]. Roccodrift (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ceasefire. A number of people are eligible for disruption blocks at this point. If you are thinking of saying something abusive, don't. Parties are expected to be on best behavior for ANI discussions.

I also full protected the article for three days.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be able to respond after this comment, but, frankly, GWH, I disagree that anyone other than MM is being disruptive. This report does not exist in a vacuum, and the catalog of MM's misbehavior is quite lengthy, perhaps more suitable for an RfC/U than a report here, although I came very close to blocking MM based on his latest disruption, both in article space and here. The only thing that stopped me was I don't like to make potentially controversial blocks when I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Roccodrift's above was entering (or starting) mutual abusive conflict. While I don't disagree on root cause, the potential for either side to cross the line is evident to me, so I generalized. I encourage other admins to review for deeper action; I am trying to tamp down the disruption and that is easiest without taking sides. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I could have expounded those diffs with a more dispassionate tone. Roccodrift (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:, this is the third post involving you in the past week. Please try to discuss issues with other users, rather than reverting and insulting them as is described above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, my most recent visit here was to report Rocco for some terrible behavior that, unlike his 3RR violation, fell short of block-worthy. Quite likely, the reason he filed this report here instead of simply going to BLPN is to retaliate. But you knew that already, right? MilesMoney (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, there was an article that accurately quoted Dana's public statement about Islam.
• Rocco removed that section, claiming there was an obvious BLP violation.
• It wasn't obvious to me, so I checked the source and found that it backed up the deleted material. I put it back, explaining that the source is reliable.
• Rocco removed it again, claiming there was "potentially defamatory content".
• This didn't seem true, since nobody has ever doubted that Dana made this statement and Dana's not denying it, either. The truth is an absolute defense against claims of defamation. Suggesting that he take it to BLPN/RSN, I restored it.
• Apparently, the idea of taking this issue to a talk page of some sort appealed to Rocco, but he ignored the suggestion of an appropriate venue and instead threatened to take it to ANI while erasing the cited material again.
• Around this time, I took a moment to get back to the open window I had on the talk page to finally submit my new section. I then restored the deleted material one last time, commenting "(yes, please turn yourself in at WP:ANI)", which was an allusion to the fact that Rocco's own behavior was bad, in that he was edit-warring to remove cited material while refusing to discuss it on the talk page or a relevant notification page.
• Rocco removed it again. For those counting, he violated WP:3RR, while I did not. Of course, he can claim a BLP exception, but it's not legitimate because there is absolutely no question about the correctness of the quote.

This is probably why Georgewilliamherbert said that more than one editor could be blocked over this report. MilesMoney (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still edit warring and 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at the article's history it's quite clear that Roccodrift breached the WP:3RR while completely ignoring WP:BRD. If Rocco had an issue with the source AN/I is most definitely not the place to air them, WP:RSN is. That said, Rocco has accepted that the information can be reliably sourced so other than a warning as per WP:BOOMERANG I'd say this should be the end of this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is erroneous. I have not accepted that the information can be reliably sourced. Quite the opposite, I have stated that I searched for a source, and none could be found [13]. To reiterate, the reason we are here is not a content dispute; the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney has already been article-banned for previous BLP violations.[14] Perhaps we should consider a topic ban regarding all WP:BLP? To honest, I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia and I'd even support a site ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How very bloodthirsty and extreme of you, but did you notice that the material I restored is directly supported by a reliable source? Or that I'm banned from a single article that is not itself a BLP article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A BLP issue can arise in practically any article involving humans, not just ones about living people. I've always though that this edit probably was a fair reflection of your approach to Wikipedia, although you did make it at a particularly frustrating time for you. I think that you perhaps oftensee your participation as an exercise in how far you can go. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and yet there is no legitimate BLP issue on Dana. Rocco has yet to even explain his objection to the reliable source. Does he have one? With Gary, Rocco was mistaken and has retracted his objection.MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You cited an non-reliable source for contentious material regarding a living person. Even worse, you edit-warred to include to include the BLP violation.[15][16][17] What part of that do you not understand? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Much like Rocco, you seem unable to support your claim that the source is unreliable. But if it is, then WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss it. As for edit-warring, Rocco clearly violated WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Why is it that you do not hold him to the same standards? MilesMoney (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before. You cannot use non-reliable sources such as an advocacy organization as third-party sources for contentious material about living people. Why are you still doing this? Clearly, the previous BLP sanction wasn't enough. As for Rocco, removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you do me the courtesy of quoting the part of WP:BLP or WP:RS which says that an advocacy organization is not a reliable source here? MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources lists which sources are reliable. But in any case, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It is your job to explain why a source is reliable, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to answer this question but you haven't. There is nothing in either WP:BLP or WP:RSN which supports your claim. I think you need to retract it now, along with your attempt to kill me. MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been significant discussions of advocacy at RSN as aquick check at the archives would show. [18]The general discussion is that publications of advocacy orgs are not RS or are reliable only for their own opinions. That is they are (if used at all) treated like op-ed opinion pieces. It is up to the editor who adds the information to show that it is RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What you linked to is selective case law, not policy. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who said this should be decided at RSN? Yes, that was you: [19] Roccodrift (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a WP:BLPN report just waiting to be decided. However, policy does not say what you AQFK wants it to say, and the decision is a matter of discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins note No opinion on the topic. Per WP:INVOLVED, "advice about community norms...do not make an administrator 'involved'", I am addressing a matter of policy only. The policy that AQFK is referring to is WP:IRS: "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution."--v/r - TP 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions...

...were authorized by arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions.

Both accounts seem to meet the definition (at least of late) of WP:SPA on Tea Party issues, albeit in equal and opposite directions.

Any reason *not* to give both the discretionary sanctions warnings / notifications to both Roccodrift and MilesMoney?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either are SPAs, and I wouldn't think SPAing would play into discretionary sanctioning. The issue is, I submit, is more with POV and editor inaction problems. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is an objection (assuming that DS warnings are all you plan to do here)

1. . The article Dana Rohrabacher is not ostensibly related to the Tea Party topic.
2. . Neither account meets the criteria for SPA.
3. . The behavioral issues and issues concerning core content policies (WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, etc.) will remain unaddressed and are likely to continue in other topic areas.

I understand your reluctance to issue blocks and I think your restraint is commendable, but your proposal amounts to simply kicking the can down the road. Roccodrift (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a Tea Party issue, and it's not even a BLP issue (since there's been no argument made for why the source might be unreliable). The root cause is that Rocco went on a spree of whitewashing this morning, and I reacted to it. That's where it started, and that's what's unresolved to this very moment. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rohrbacher has been supported by Tea Party groups and spoken at their functions, but does not fit the traditional Tea Party mold (and was a congressman long before the phrase Tea Party had any modern political meaning). Question for UNINVOLVED ADMINS AND EDITORS - is that connection too tenuous to apply the Arbitration case discretionary sanctions, "broadly construed" as they were written? I agree this is not core to the Tea Party, but it seems related, and the editor behavior here is exactly the type of tedentious conflict this was intended for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see a connection to the Tea Party. It seems tenuous to me. I don't see it as Tea Party article unless all Republican articles are now Tea Party articles. That having been said, this editor seems to have real issues with BLP policy and Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content

Given that this editor has already been sanctioned for BLP violations in the past,[20] and the fact they they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[21][22][23] I propose that MilesMoney be topic-banned from all WP:BLP content, broadly construed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How does this differ from being banned from Wikipedia? MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, actually.--MONGO 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not a coincidence that each and every person voting to kill me is someone who's tried before to get me indeffed. This is a sham. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address this, first. MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I asked him to quote from WP:BLP or WP:RS to support a rule he apparently invented. He was unable to. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support due to demonstrated lack of comprehension of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and others. Roccodrift (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There was an issue raised on your talk page by someone else that seems relevant. Specifically, could you please confirm whether you are a sockpuppet of User:Belchfire or someone else? MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is extreme and punitive, especially given that I did not violate BLP with Dana or Gary. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per multiple tendentious edits and BLP violations. And looking at this thread, it's clear that he just doesn't get it. Something like this is necessary to prevent further disruptive editing. This edit is a clear example - it's re-adding information that had been challenged. And the edit doesn't even reflect the source - there is nothing there about "generating controversy". The fact that MilesMoney continued to re-revert here makes this a clear case of edit warring. He rightly started a talk page discussion, but then didn't wait for that discussion to be resolved. StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per StAnselm. I just want to point out that I was not even aware of this ANI, but MilesMoney made a nasty comment on my talk page last night and he made a bogus SPI claim against me. So I want to thank MilesMoney for making me aware of this highly appropriate process against him. He constantly engages in BLP violations and he badgers those who even dare to disagree with anything that he does.--NK (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Modified at listing of alternatives (from Support) – noting, of course, that MM and I have had less than a harmonious relationship. I do not think MM really wants to participate in a collaborative fashion. Even as this discussion is underway, MM presents confrontational talk page comments. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977, MilesMoney has recently told you on your talk page that he would oppose your Admin candidacy for which you are trying to develop support. [24] Under the circumstances, in order for you to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, may I suggest that you recuse yourself from this matter in which a site ban has been mooted for Miles. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I will reply on my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is clearly a problem with MM's behavior and I've advocated sanctions against him before, but this particular sanction is preposterously overbroad and clearly overkill in this particular case, not to mention no sanctions are proposed against the other party who was also guilty of at least editwarring. Is MM hotheaded and contentious and even obnoxious? Yes. But in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article and initiated discussions on the talk page and BLPN. Is the source insufficient for a BLP? Perhaps, but it isn't so obviously unreasonable that it merits sanctions, it means it is a matter of discussion in the very forums he was discussing the issue in. Was he edit warring? Sure, and we already have procedures in place to deal with that behavior. The article is currently locked so there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being. If MM is to become a reasonable editor here, we must not only discourage negative behavior but encourage positive behavior, and this proposed sanction will do little for either. If MM does not continue to engage in discussion in an appropriate manner regarding such articles, I would not be opposed to revisiting the issue of a similar, but more narrowly targeted sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You say there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being, but what about the BLP violations on all the other articles that this editor has made in the last few hours? [25][26] ? StAnselm (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No danger at all. With the first article, I reverted exactly once. With the second, I reverted, then was asked to add a source, so I did. No edit war there. You seem to have undermined your own claims. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria editors of that category have decided on to distinguish between 'far right' and 'ordinary right', but this does not appear to be a prima facie case of a BLP violation but a matter for talk page discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I do have sources referring to them as far right, such as http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/latest-news/1220-tommy-robinson-set-to-announce-a-new-far-right-organisation-with-geller-and-spence. MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And if you think that source is anything approaching a reliable source for a BLP, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue regarding your editing, and it is best if you stay away from BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC and ADL both say they run a hate group. I don't think that acknowledging them as right-wing is exactly a stretch. MilesMoney (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And even this is demonstrating your lack of understanding of BLP policy. To make your own jump from "right" to "far right" is completely unacceptable. The reason I am supporting this topic ban is that you don't seem able to appreciate that. StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Try again: The source I gave says far right. MilesMoney (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this source? The fact that you are even posting it here is indicative of BLP-incompetence. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the source appears to be a poor one, but it appears to be an accurate one as The Guardian concurs. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel. "in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article". If you are referring to the islam edit on Dana Rohrabacher, I will beg to disagree, as WP:BLPN seems to do. The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. Iselilja (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on WP:BLPN, we seem to have come to a consensus for a slightly modified phrasing. If only this issue had gone to BLPN as I first suggested, this circus could have been avoided. MilesMoney (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Having seen MilesMoney in action for several months now, I'd noticed a far better style of communication recently. The aggressive actions of Rocco seem to have prompted a reversion to Miles terse and contentious manner of expression, and here we are. Nevertheless, nothing in this thread warrants the broad sanction proposed here and at most these incidents might justify a 48 hour block for both MilesMoney and Roccodrift. However, as Gamaliel has said, with the article now protected, why not just close this thread and give a warning to both warriors. I suspect that some of Miles' claque of detractors will be disappointed, but what the hell? SPECIFICO talk 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't about edit-warring; it's about BLP violations. Here we have a situation with an editor who repeatedly violates BLP. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • This isn't about BLP violations, as Rocco accepted my source for Gary Bauer and nobody has yet explained what specific rule opposes my source for Dana. I asked you repeatedly and you keep ducking the question. Why? MilesMoney (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
        • That's not what might be called true. It's been asserted, but it's now clear that the claim you made is not in either WP:BLP or WP:RS, and is instead your own interpretation of how these issues have been handled in the past. In other words, it's only an opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Of course, it's been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. This is the very definition of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
            • What's the TLA for repeating a refuted argument and refusing to notice that it's refuted? Is it IDHT? I ask because you're very guilty of this. MilesMoney (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• <ec>Oppose for now If you are going to propose an editing restriction, you need to be extremely clear about what the person has done wrong, complete with diffs. Which exact edits are you claiming are so clearly bad that this restriction is needed? Could you provide a handful of diffs and explain why those diffs are so troubling? And yes, I did read most of the above discussion and chased down some of the diffs. None seemed beyond the pale, but I could have missed quite a bit as I'm not hugely familiar with the topcs/people involved. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Links given by "A Quest For Knowledge" are all to the same incident. And that incident is troubling. First of all the source is a highly-biased one. Secondly, reading the transcript I think one could say he was criticizing radical Islam rather than Islam on the whole (a rather large difference). I'd like to hear MilesMoney acknowledge they were wrong to add the material due to sourcing problems and doubly wrong to edit war over it. I'm not in favor of topic banning people over one thing (and yes, other things were listed above, but none I found overly troubling among those I looked at), but if he can't understand and acknowledge the problem he can't be editing BLPs. Mainstream reliable sources are needed for claims like this. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  I freely admit that I should not have edit-warred against him, regardless of the merits of the version I supported. Instead, I should have done what I did with Gary Bauer, which was to find a source that could not be criticized. With the Dana issue, I suggested early on that it should be resolved at BLPN, and it looks like it now is. MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Do you understand A) that the source wasn't one we should be adding a controversial claim with and B) that in the original document he cites "radical Islam" rather than Islam in that quote? Hobit (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agreed on BLPN that the "radical" must be mentioned, in order to quote fairly. As for the source, there is a consensus that it's ok to use a reliable but partisan secondary source so long as we also directly include the primary. I'm likewise ok with that. Ultimately, I'm willing to go along with BLPN on this matter. MilesMoney (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Extreme punishment, spearheaded by users who have a vendetta against Miles. People can rightly chide Miles for his past remarks to other users (though he has dramatically improved in this regard). But his substantive contributions to articles have generally been rooted in arguable interpretations of policy. Even if you think he is engaged in TE (which I don't), the burden of proof for such a draconian measure is massive, and is not met by OP (who doesn't even provide diffs). Steeletrap (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Steeletrap. Where are the diffs? We don't ban people without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, these last two editors claiming there are no diffs haven't read the original report. Roccodrift (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Here are the diffs. Here's where they were previously banned[27] and here's where they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[28][29][30] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I lean against this solution, but this editor's actions at this ANI show either distressing lack of competence, lack of understanding of RS, and/or a bad case of IDONTHEARYOU. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, per Gamaliel. This seems to be a case of retaliation, failure to AGF, and escalation=disruption, especially when a more collaborative approach could have solved the whole problem very peacefully. According to Roccodrift: "the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)" The edit in question was the same (ergo identical) content, with the citation in quotes. By failing to AGF, Roccodrift was essentially saying that MilesMoney was fabricating the quote. An AGF and collaborative approach would have stated: "Per BRD, let's discuss while you find a better source, preferably the original." That should have settled the matter. I haven't examined the diffs, but BRD would usually be sufficient to force the discussion to the talk page while the question of the reliability of the source could be discussed. Since ThinkProgress was being used as a secondary source of an actual quote, not just their opinion, its use would usually be justified if it was accompanied with the primary source. Whatever the case, this demand is total overkill.
  Roccodrift, try to AGF next time and not escalate this to a battlefield by bringing it here, when the talk page should have sufficed. That's disruptive and wasting all our time. You should to be on trial here for disruptive misuse of this noticeboard. Let's call it even and hope you both learn a lesson.
  MilesMoney, it's really not a good idea to delete comments on your own talk page (until you archive it later, after the dust has settled), or to stop discussion there, unless you clearly leave a message (undeleted) that the discussion is to be continued on the article's talk page. Deletion of comments is really an uncollaborative slap in the face and doesn't create goodwill. (In fact, the worse the comments, the more grounds to keep them visible... ) We should try to get along with adversaries, not offend them even more. I hope that helps to defuse things in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I concede that deleting comments from my talk page is usually a bad idea. That's why I recently switched to archiving. The last comment I deleted was from Rocco, a few days ago, and there were a couple of reasons why I did it. First, he has been asked not to post on my talk page. Second, as I explained in my pre-deletion response, his template was illegitimate. If he wants to discuss articles with me, he can use the article talk pages. MilesMoney (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, although I'm not sure I would necessarily support a site ban at this point. There really isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said, but WP:IDHT is an understatement when it comes to Miles' behavior.

Actually, on second thought, support a site ban. I just realized that Miles was topic-banned for this very same thing barely a month ago, and now s/he's back to his same old routine, so it's clear that s/he just doesn't get it and that s/he is not here for the good of Wikipedia. (Maybe his/her theories would work better on his/her own wiki or something.)

Side note: @Steeletrap, I don't really see this proposal as being spearheaded by users with a vendetta against Miles; in fact, the person who proposed this is A Quest For Knowledge, and s/he appears to be an uninvolved party. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A few quick things:

1) "Miles" is a typically male name, so you should use male pronouns.

2) AQFK is not involved in this particular incident, but they've bumped heads with me before and are nowhere near neutral. I wouldn't use the word "vendetta", if only because of WP:AGF, but they're on the short list of editors who can be counted on reliably to support any attempt to get me blocked, banned or otherwise harmed.

3) If there were an actual BLP issue, it could have been resolved on the article talk page, BLPN or RSN. It was brought here because ANI is where you make a report that others can pile onto and turn into a lynching.

4) Did you notice that you endorsed a site ban when "only" a BLP ban was requested. Think about what that means. MilesMoney (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you opened the can of worms yourself about a possible site ban. And after all this, you still don't seem to think that you did anything wrong (btw, I didn't assume you were male because your userpage doesn't state your gender). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I simply pointed out that such a punitive, overbroad topic ban would be tantamount to a site ban. You're the one who cheered that one. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, based on a wider concern for MilesMoney’s behavior at Wikipedia.

• The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading based on my reading of sources and indicated at WP:BLPN; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. MilesMoney still alleges he had the right to include this edit despite BLP worries without waiting for talk page consensus. This is in line with the problematic thinking I have also previously [seen] (Temporary removal of BLP material) by MM.
• Regarding the general Roccodrift/MilesMoney conflict, I can’t help but feel that those two editors to a certain degree deserve each other. I am most familiar with MilesMoney, and I think the underlying problem with that user is the utter contempt they have for other Wikipedians and for Wikipedia as a whole. This is clearly laid out in their so-called post-mortem note of 28 October 2013, in which we are informed that

• They came to Wikipedia having heard that Wikipedia now mostly consisted of “crazed and inbreds”, so they wanted to see with his own eyes
• What they found was that Wikipedia is “a hostile environment controlled by incompetents and sociopaths”
• Furthermore “There is a War on Vandalism here that's as artificial and endless as the War on Drugs or War on Terrorism, and which has likewise become a way to channel paranoia and bigotry”
• And further ”Wikipedia is not merely as corrupt as a banana republic, it is a failed state akin to Somalia. It is not in decline; it has fallen.”
• They conclude “Try as I might, I can only muster up pity and disgust for the otakus trapped in this web”

• At their time at Wikipedia, they have practically only involved themselves in contentious articles and debates. Less than 20% of their edits are to articles (of which several are reverts/controversial edits; he has been at 4RR at least twice, 1,2); the rest is mostly discussion at various talk pages, ANI etc. The first article, they heavily invested themselves in, Ayn Rand, came under discretionary sanctions; they then dedicated themselves more to the Ludvig von der Mises institute, resulting in them being topic banned from the article.
• There is also other kind of erratic behavior, for instance when MilesMoney was investigated as a possible sockuppet of Still Standing, they responded by filing frivolous SPIs against Srich and Orlady.3
• The combination of hyperbole language (as demonstrated above), contempt for other users and strong preferences for conflict stuff including sensitive BLPs, makes MilesMoney a very problematic user to have at Wikipedia. Even their userpage cries of a massive battleground mentality.
• I am surprised that MilesMoney hasn’t already been sitebanned based on a NotHere and Massive Battleground mentality. The “post mortem” note seems to indicate that they are quite surprised as well "that's 104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate"
• Iselilja (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, it's impossible to libel someone by quoting their public statements, so that's a red herring. Likewise, we all know that the sock accusations are false, so bringing them up now is just an attempt to smear me. Anyhow, you've repeatedly supported getting rid of me, so this is to be expected. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Iselilja for doing that interesting summary. He hasn't annoyed me as much as some other editors because he's so obviously got a crash and burn psychology that's almost amusing. I wasn't aware of the frivolous SPIs and that, on top of everything else, really is problematic. It's obvious a good RfC/U is needed to just lay out all these behaviors. I'll keep my eyes open, but see reply on my question on canvassing below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A 1RR restriction or sanction that is he is reverted he needs to gain consensus before he can revert the same content again would be fairer. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly per Gamaliel --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• oppose sorry, but this looks like a case of revenge against MM by editors who don't want to deal with him. He already has shown signs of improvement in discussion versus in the past. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support It appears that MM needs a temporary cooling off period, not a prolonged ban. BLP concerns are very important. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum. I think MilesMoney should be indeffed now...it's pretty obvious were dealing with prior banned editor anyway.--MONGO 14:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me for my own behavior, that's unfortunate but allowed. Lying about me is not; I've been cleared of all sock accusations. MilesMoney (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.--MONGO 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• oppose at lest on the basis of the Rohrabacher dispute. A quick look at the Wash. Post profile on him shows he has a tendency to make quotable and outrage-generating statements. As far as the Islam quote is concerned, there's no real basis for disputing that he said it, and he has something of a record of similar comments. The response to the insertion has not been anything remotely resembling consensus-building; instead, it quickly turned into a campaign to chuck MM out of access to the article. MM needs to work more collaboratively himself, but his opponents look to me to taking an WP:OWNERSHIP approach to the articles in question; the questioning of the reliability of the quote is patently not in good faith. I have more issues with MM's application of categories, but I must also say that some of the categories in question invite abuse. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Should have happened long ago and his ban on Libertarian articles should not have been limited to LVM only. Arzel (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, sanction is too far-reaching for the evidence given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support When he isn't putting negative and biased and sometimes inaccurate content with poor sourcing into BLP articles, he's supporting keeping in equally bad content from other biased editors. Topic ban on libertarianism also would be warranted. (See WP:RSN discussions where he's defended blog entries and other poor sourcing, after talk page discussions did not convince him and others of that poor sourcing: Gene Callahn blog; Callahan again; Matt Bruenig.) And I would not fight a site ban. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Several postes in the above discussion sugest that biased or advocavy sources should not be used, and that MM should be sanctioned for inserting them. Please note that [[WP:RS}} says (in part): "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Also this is too broad a santion on too little evidence, in my view. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was no BLP violation. FYI, here is my proposal for the article: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[31] Newsmax is a WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly suspect that the right wing editors participating in this ownership witchhunt wouldn't object to using Newsmax, even though it is on a par with Fox News as a right wing partisan source, yet they have objected to using ThinkProgress. Both are partisan sources, and if backed up with the primary source, would be appropriate. A polite BRD request for the primary source could have prevented all this waste of time. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: is the issue specifically BLPs or political BLPs/articles? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Broadly construed," specially used this way, ir more damaging than problem-solving. I'd recommend a more narrower sanction that actually touches the issue from the inside, not from the outside. I recognize that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but this is not the way. Maybe another proposal? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Hahc21: What would you suggest? A 1RR restriction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Whether general 1RR or some other sanction for Miles would be helpful or not, I don't think proposing it here will be of much value. The better venue would be WP:RFC/U, where editors could bring forth evidence and proposals in a calm and orderly way, not the quick-reaction approach of ANI. The urgency to do something now now now isn't clear enough to gain consensus here, nor is this a productive venue for slow deliberation and weighing of numerous options. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• @A Quest For Knowledge: RL0919's proposal is good. I think that opening an RfC/U and working this issue there is way better than doing it at ANI. If the problem still persists, and the RfC/U solves nothing, well, we still have Arbitration as our last resort. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree about this being the wrong venue, but not entirely the subject, although some type of warning would be appropriate.
  Considering the growing appropriateness of a "snowball clause" closure in favor of MilesMoney, possibly an indef for Roccodrift (see the current SPI), and warnings for AQFK (for raising this disruptive farce in an inappropriate venue) and right wing editors like Arzel (who pretty much owns Koch brother/Tea Party related articles to the degree that many dare not edit them), I think we need to reconsider this whole matter in light of these findings. MilesMoney does indeed have issues, but they are not as serious as pictured above, and can be dealt with without using noticeboards. The accusers have far greater issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have stricken the part about AQFK, as he only started this proposal, not the whole mess. My apologies. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• RL0919's proposed 1RR restriction is a better idea than a BLP topic ban, for a number of reasons. For one thing, it leaves no room at all for misinterpretation or game-playing. Roccodrift (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I'm not the one who proposed that; I referred to it in response to someone else's proposal. I proposed taking the concerns about his editing to WP:RFC/U for a more comprehensive and less time-pressured discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And I assume it's OK to notify everyone who participated in this one or the last one? I've generally been unclear on that issue for future reference. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The general rule at WP:CANVASS is that it is OK to notify editors who participated in previous discussions, as long as the notification itself is appropriate (neutrally worded, etc.) and you notify fairly (notify everyone who participated in, say, the last two ANIs, not just those who supported a specific position). --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gamaliel. The contentious material about a politician making certain statements was poorly supported by a reference to Think Progress, but there was no question whether the politician actually said these things; he is clearly seen on C-SPAN 3 (US Government TV) making these statements. MilesMoney likes to revert, bully and argue but this case is not the one which will prove he must be sanctioned. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. So we have one or two uninvolved editors who support a ban, and then we have about 10 editors who support a ban and who are all involved in fighting MilesMoney on various political articles. I don't think that this is the way that the process is supposed to work. I suggest that the closing admin disregard the !votes of the editors who are currently involved in an editing dispute with MilesMoney. — goethean 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Good faith content disputes and interpretations of gray areas of policies should never result in editors being banned from such a large class of articles. We should remember that reasonable editors can disagree on how policies are applied, especially WP:BLP. In this case, the direct quotes by Rohrabacher were easily verifiable. The categories kerfuffle has bad actors on both sides of the dispute and in no way justifies a BLP ban. - MrX 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support This discussion was introduced poorly. ThinkProgress is a reliable source and the fact that it is partisan does not detract from that. Furthermore, it backs up its story with reliable primary stories. However, MilesMoney misrepresents that source by saying the subject " generated controversy."[32] The source merely repeats by he said and does not report the effect his words had.[33] This is part of a wider problem, a persistent insertion of negative information in articles about right-wing U.S. politicians, regardless of the notice they have received in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The original allegation is that ThinkProgress was not a reliable source for the quote so I was committing a BLP violation, or even defamation (somehow). You seem to be disagreeing strongly with that and instead arguing something much milder; that we shouldn't have said it "generated controversy". We can discuss this, of course, but it seems to me that you're effectively admitting that Rocco did not have any excuse for edit-warring, much less violating 3RR. Yet you seem to be endorsing a broad, permanent ban on the basis of a minor disagreement over the precise balance between positive and negative material, which is something reasonable people can differ on. So, all in all, I'm kind of confused by the contrast between your moderate view of the issue and your support for draconian measures. Am I misunderstanding? MilesMoney (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• MrX, The Four Deuces and other editors who have defended the reliability of Thinkprogress might want to look in on the discussion currently ongoing at BLPN [34], where it has emerged that Thinkprogress did, in fact, misrepresent Rohrabacher's remarks. Roccodrift (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please look, because what Rocco said is unambiguously false. TP had the quote in context. The editor who wrote that section of the article did not include enough of that context, so we all agreed to add it back, particularly with the inclusion of the modifier "radical" in front of "Islam". It concerns me that Rocco is making a statement that is so obviously false and so easily disproved. Perhaps he expects everyone to take him at his word without checking. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles is right; I stand corrected. Without allowing anything new about the reliability of TP, in this instance it was actually a previous editor who misrepresented the quote. That said, it should be noted that Miles reverted the content back into the article (more than once) after it was challenged, without verifying its integrity. Thus, there was in fact a BLP problem, and Miles owns it by adoption. Oh, and by the way... obviously I expected everybody to take me at my word without checking, which is why I provided a link. (Sheesh.) OK, back to your usually scheduled drama. Roccodrift (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:I believe that you are a bit confused. The BLP/N discussion states that this was "a very clear BLP violation. I don't think anyone who's commented here about Rohrabacher believes it's okay to distort what he says. The best way to avoid this sort of thing is to avoid partisan or unreliable sources like Think Progress, Redstate, Daily Kos, Instapundit, et cetera"[35] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your summary of BLPN is not correct. One editor did think that omitting the "radical" was a BLP violation, but that was the same editor who incorrectly claimed that partisan sources are automatically unreliable (directly contradicting WP:RS), so I think we should accept that as an exaggeration. There was no consensus in support of this view, and we didn't dote on it because it didn't matter.

I never objected to including "radical" and that was never the issue when Rocco edit-warred to keep the whole quote out: he claimed that any use of TP as a secondary source was an obvious (to him alone) BLP violation. Rocco, like that other editor on BLPN, was wrong about policy. Keep in mind that, while it's probably true that Dana meant radical Islam, not Islam in general, that's not obvious because he was inconsistent about using that adjective. We're adding the adjective because we want to be particularly careful not to misquote him. MilesMoney (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, I think you should stop now. You have made your WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:Aside from yourself, in the BPL/N discussion, I count 4 editors who say that it was a BLP violation[36][37][38][39] and zero who say it wasn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

AQFK, you are making false statements. Please stop. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney: Which part is false? I provided diffs so anyone can easily verify everything for themselves.[40][41][42][43] So which part is false? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

These diffs do not say what you would like them to.

• MONGO's shows him saying, "Beware of any editor that argues in favor of adding minor but highly negative information to any BLP no matter how well sourced it is." It's unclear how you translated that into an accusation of BLP violation.
• TFD's shows him disagreeing with the need for "radical" and instead concerned about "controversy", but he doesn't say there's a BLP violation.
• AYW, as mentioned above, actually did claim that it was a BLP violation to omit "radical", but this argument never came up during Rocco's edit war (remember: he argued that TP was unreliable) and TFD disagrees with it.
• Rocco probably thinks there's a BLP violation, but what he said was confused. First, he falsely accuses QG of admitting that there was a BLP violation. Then, he retracts his original complaint about TP as a source and agrees with AYW that it's ok so long as we mention "radical".

So that's one, maybe two, out of the four claimed. In contrast, as far as I can tell, TFD, QG, Mangoe, and MONGO (no relation) all commented on the BLPN without claiming there was a BLP violation, as did I. In other words, 2 out of 7 claim it's a BLP violation. I'm going to have to say that this does not represent a consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ThinkProgress accurately reported what the congressman said. His statement is reported by them in full and supported by a C-span tape. It could be of course that he did not mean what he said and was not referring to the religion of Islam, but to radical Islam, which btw is not a religion. If there had been a "controversy" about his remarks then of course we would be able provide various views on what he meant.

The problem is not with the source but with the edit. It claims that the statement has raised controversy when in fact it has been ignored. And until it raises controversy, it does not belong in the article.

TFD (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not that it ever came up until now, but I'd be fine removing "raised controversy" and keeping it purely as an accurate quote showing his views on (radical) Islam. MilesMoney (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not true that this hasn't come up until now. Look, it's great that you're willing to discuss these things, but it would have saved all of us a lot of trouble if we could have had this discussion on the article talk page. I appreciate that you started the thread there, but your edit warring put a dampener on the conversation. StAnselm (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see that complaint on either the article talk page or BLPN. Regardless, I have no problem removing the "controversy" stuff. Now onto the meat:

While I didn't violate 3RR like Rocco did, I freely admit that I should not have allowed him to bait me into edit-warring back. In my defense, I also brought the issue up on the talk page and on BLPN (twice!), while suggesting RSN as another possible venue. I did not want it to come here and should never have been taken here.

There have been two concrete complaints brought up since the page was frozen (the other being "radical") and I was fine with both of them. Rocco's original complaint about the source being unreliable because it's partisan has been rejected and he's backed off on it, especially after the suggestion of the compromise of including the primary source.

The fact that this has been escalated into yet another attempt to (effectively or explicitly) site-ban me says more about the social dynamics of ANI that it does about a simple dispute that, if not for this escalation, would have been resolved on BLPN hours ago. The fact that you support this makes me wonder why you're out for blood. MilesMoney (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, honestly this is a ridiculous proposal. If anything, Roccodrift should be sanctioned for breaching WP:3RR. Gaba ^(talk) 00:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I'm following these comments, it looks like editors are supporting or opposing the BLP ban. But there are alternatives that are getting lost in the thread. So my dirty dozen listing of suggestions includes:

1. Give MilesMoney a job at the WikiPedia foundation, corner office next to Jimbo's.
2. Elect MilesMoney as an administrator or other high level guardian.
3. Bestow Barnstar(s).
4. Bestow WikiLove.
5. Do nothing/drop the whole matter.
6. Take to WP:RFC/U.
7. Issue an official admin notice or admonition.
8. Issue an official admin warning or reprimand. Y
9. Block for a certain period of time, say 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month, or 104 days.
10. Issue a topic ban(s), say, for any biography, or BLP, or topic area, or particular articles.
11. Block indef.
12. Block indef and release MilesMoney's IP address, email address, home address, etc.
13. Block indef, release data, and post the whole story in various WikiProject newsletters, DYKs, and as part of WP's fundraising campaign.

Of course those at the top and bottom of the list are included for humor, but those in the middle have viability. I'm marking my favorite with {{aye}} Y. – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 - For what is it that you wish to admonish @MilesMoney:? Do you also wish to admonish any of the other editors whose behavior has been discussed here? If you are changing your view, from the one you earlier expressed above, please strike the previous statement now revised. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have a problem with MM's editing/style generally. I see no point to a topic ban with respect to BLP articles in particular, and based on the recent issues with the BLPs, I wouldn't support such a ban, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note I find it ironic that during the discussion about being banned from BLP articles Miles would return one of the more inflammatory BLP rants I have seen in some time (read the last paragraph). I suppose he could be forgiven for obviously not even reading what he added back into the article, but that he would do that is quite distressing. Arzel (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the material MM added. Upon reading I posted the following on Talk:Fox News Channel#Removal of criticism: "Actually, the material added is appalling. I looked at just one citation – Sylvester Brown, Jr.'s blog – full of SPS & BLP problems." MM's edit summary, in adding the improper material, said "bold edit to encourage discussion". Sorry, MM, it purely a WP:POINTy edit. In fact, one of the worst I've seen. I'm moving my {{aye}} as a result. – S. Rich (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just chatting with AdjWilley about the value of sticking to 1RR, and this demonstrates it. I reverted precisely once on the Fox article. As a result, I got to hear three mutually incompatible theories for why the criticism must never be restored. When I reverted Scott Rasmussen precisely once, it led to the rescue of an entire section, although it's still a work in progress. BRD works!

I'm kind of wondering why the two of you are dredging this up, though. Are you looking for some basis upon which to demand a site ban? Or are you trying to do something productive? If it's the latter, I would suggest that you might want to try the talk pages of these two articles. MilesMoney (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I brought it up because it is PAINFULLY clear that you did not read what you put back into the article. I suggest you go back and look at the article in your version. You will see that there are two controversy sections, where 75% of the material is exactly the same. If you would have looked at it you would have seen your error immediately. The fact that you did not simply shows you were out to make a WP:POINT and continue your habit of WP:TE. Why so many would defend a clear trouble maker like you...I have no idea. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

:I just thought of something...is this entire thread just a continuation of this thread? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is exactly the kind of content dispute that should not spill over into ANI, especially when brought here by involved users. Also, Fox News Channel is not a BLP. - MrX 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere. Calling Bill O'Reilly a Whitesupremacist qualifies as a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be a BLP violation if anyone had actually called O'Reilly a white supremacist or if the claim were unattributed. What was actually written is "The Anti-Defamation League has named Bill O'Reilly as one of the "parrotters" of white supremacist and domestic terrorist viewpoints, and of helping to bring these hateful ideologies into the mainstream white American culture." The ADL has been deemed a reliable source, at least for their views. According to experienced users like Collect "Websites of known organizations can certainly be used as cites for official positions and opinions of the organizations.". Affirmed by Jayjg who adds "The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism, and has been one for almost a hundred years,...". While I vehemently disagree with the edit on the basis of quality and WP:DUE weight, I don't see it as an "inflammatory BLP rant[s]". - MrX 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with dragging content disputes here is that they tend to be distorted into false accusations, such as the one that Arzel just made. Knowingly making false accusations on ANI is serious business. I'm not going to ask for a block right now, but I'm taking note of the incident. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a note of your WP:TE and I will simply note that you stated that you made the edits to make a [[[WP:POINT]]. Stop using WP to be disruptive and you won't find yourself in these situations. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it's time to close this report as WP:SNOW against sanctions. Otherwise, editors will simply drag their unrelated disputes here or otherwise pile on. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As it is not "snowing", and there appears to be considerable material for you to glean about your behavioural problems here, I rather think asking for a section about yourself to be "closed" may indicate a touch of Hubris. I would commend to carefully consider the criticisms lest they be repeated on more noticeboards in the future. WRT the ADL position, a lot depends on whether it is the opinion of an individual, or of the organisation per se, and should be carefully described as an opinion in any event. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I proposed a "snowball clause" closure in favor of MilesMoney some time ago. Since we agree that this is the wrong venue, and that the discussions here are degenerating and unconstructive, we really should close this. There's nothing more to do here. This just creates more heat than light.

Let the closing admin decide what type of warning or reprimand to give MilesMoney and Roccodrift, as they both need it. In Roccodrift's case, it may be a last warning before the boot at the indef door hits them if the Belchfire SPI goes against them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Going to ArbCom. While this is going on, MilesMoney has recently in Wikipedipa's voice accused almost all public figures at Fox News of racism, anti-Semitism and hate speech; writing among other things: "While the ADL focuses on B 's hate speech, nearly every Fox News commentator has been recorded forwarding these and other racially inflammatory ideologies, including but not limited to: M, A, B, H, M, I, G, S, I, F, P, C, G, and B." This is out of control and I am going to file an ArbCom case specifically against MilesMoney (not Austrian Economy) which will take a few days, and maybe longer since it's Christmas. Iselilja (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an entire article in Wikipedia's voice on Fox News Channel controversies. The main article can have a WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It does. MM's edit bizarrely replicated most of the section that was already there, and added a long rant-like section at the end accusing Fox of racism. To be fair, I see no reference to accusations of anti-Semitism, only to comments by some Jewish figures calling for tolerance. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru Can you give me one or more sentences where Fox journalists are referred to as promoting racism or similar in Wikipedia's voice? Give the whole sentences, so I can evalutate them. (Barlow: Struck the anti-Semitism). Iselilja (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Iselilja, ArbCom is total overkill. It would be disruptive to bypass other processes, like the article's talk page, where things are being dealt with. MM seems to have simply restored content which had just been deleted. A dumb move to not notice that most of it was a duplication? Indeed, but we don't take people to ArbCom for that. Even if there was a clear BLP issue (maybe), we still don't do it for that. We deal directly at the talk page, not even at noticeboards. The content just needs tweaking, since accusations against Fox for racism and racebaiting are nothing new, especially with Megyn Kelly's recent claim that Jesus was a white man. Keep in mind some of the wealthy backers of Fox are members and/or sympathizers of the John Birch Society and Ku Klux Klan, so such accusations shouldn't surprise you. Calm down og drik lidt varm glogg. Det er fandens koldt derude! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote on User:Iselilja’s talk page [Later note: before this section was reopened], RfC/User would be more appropriate. But just a reminder, perhaps editors don’t realize that MilesMoney was banned from this [following} article after this WP:ANI: WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute. It was also a matter of broad charges of racism, etc. in an institutional article that negatively tarnished individuals. Of course, he wasn’t the only person engaging in the behavior he was banned for, but the admin saw it as a compromise with so many people asking for much more major bans. Obviously he does rub more people the wrong way which is what gets him in trouble. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Iselilja, I could not find the specific information in the controversy article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Its not clear to me that thats a BLP. If anything, we should make clearer what constitutes a BLP on the policy page Pass a Method talk 21:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The policy is clear -- any claim in any article or on any page referring to a living person is subject to the policy WP:BLP. I.e. any such claim must require strong sourcing if it is contentious at all. Calling a person a "racist" is, in fact, contentious. In all spaces, and including all talk pages etc. as well. If the sentence refers to a living person, it must abide by that policy. From what has been written above, it is abundantly clear that the policy applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

A thirteenth alternative course of action for this situation has been added above. Editors are welcome to add their Y ({{aye}}) to the choice they think is best as a means of totalizing surveying the views. – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 - This is not a vote. Please. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is not. Most editors on this page know this full well. And the closer of this thread will certainly be aware of this guideline. I do not want to suggest that the decision be made by counting noses. (So I've modified my statement.) Rather, I think we have more alternatives available than that one suggested in the subsection heading. So the listing is a means of laying them out. It remains to be seen who casts their !vote. – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see your correction, Srich. Would you now also answer the question I asked when you originally posted that list: What action would you take with respect to any of the other editors whose behavior has been discussed here in this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 10:17 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I'll reply on my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gamaliel. Far too punitive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• The biggest problem is the tendency to revert edits removing material on BLP grounds, rather than seeking consensus first. This is contrary to the BLP policy: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." If MilesMoney were to undertake not do to that in future, it would go a long way to addressing the concerns, and I ask him whether he would be prepared to give such an undertaking. Neljack (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent analysis and proposal. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be a content battle on one front disguised as a personal battle on many fronts disguised as an AN/I on one front. As there will clearly be no consensus in support of such a draconian ban, I would suggest that AQFN withdraw the suggestion and find a new path forward. Frizzmaz (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a what? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • A content battle about the relative merit or lack of same of the Austrian School that has turned into a nasty, bitter, personal bun fight, which has then turned into this AN/I notice. There are people on both sides who would do themselves an enormous favor by voluntarily stepping away from the topic for a month or so, rather than using every opportunity to ratchet up the WP:DRAMA. Frizzmaz (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I see where you're coming from, but IMO, if anyone shouldn't be involved, it should be MilesMoney (and to a lesser extent, Roccodrift). Everyone on both sides aren't trying to cause drama with respect to the subject; I, for instance, not only have no connection to any of the subjects in question, but I never even heard of any of them before this thread. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it started out nasty and personal with new editors soapboxing about what a bunch of frauds certain Austrian economists and libertarians were and statingcurrent Wiki editors who disliked their edits were like cultish followers. Per Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing they engage in tendentious editing of an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. MilesMoney joined the crew in a couple months on. It's these behaviors that have angered editors, not so much that it has become personal. They keep yelling it is personal to muddy the waters of what remains primarily a content dispute. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in getting entangled in the WP:DRAMA, other than to note that it this point it is ridiculously out of proportion, and driven by those who should know better. Frizzmaz (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering our whole system is politicians trying to deflect from the issues by bringing up emotional side issues and often highly subjective and even trumped up personal foibles and misspeaks (while often downplaying real crimes, including of violence), it seems Wikipedians should be allowed to think about whether an issue really is more content or personality-oriented. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not interested in WP:SOAP either, except maybe as a first-class demonstration of why this issue has circled and circled and circled and circled without resolution. Frizzmaz (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@Frizzmaz:I agree with you that "Austrian economics that has turned into a nasty, bitter, personal bun fight" and that these editors voluntarily stepping away from the topic for a month would be a good idea. The problem is, I don't think any of them are going to do that. Or if they do, they will simply cause problems in other topic spaces. I don't follow this topic-space too closely, but MilesMoney appears to be the worst offender. Honestly, I would prefer a complete site ban per WP:NOTHERE. Everyone seems to agree that there's a problem here but nobody seems to want to do anything substantive about it. Personally, I'm tired of seeing MilesMoney's name in my watchlist, but they don't edit any of the articles I work on, so it's no skin off my back to allow the problem to fester. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support either a topic ban or a full-on site ban. MilesMoney has shown a tremendous lack of WP:COMPETENCE throughout the many debacles they've been involved in, and has made anything they have been involved in a cesspit. WP:NOTHERE probably applies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - User needs to be site banned rather than topic banned. --Malerooster (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Um...doesn't that mean you support it then? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This has come to ANI prematurely. I don't see any attempt on the talk page to engage a wider community of editors, or for that matter to go to the reliable sources notice board. The discussion at the BLP forum is brief and has only been running for a couple of weeks. Personally I think editors who run to ANI this early should be banned for a period to encourage them to use other approaches.----Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The discussion had been going on for a few weeks in one forum before it came here and you think that's premature? And sorry, but all editors being banned for coming to ANI sounds ridiculous (besides, many of the editors are probably doing so in good faith). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I checked all the previous discussions before posting and there is little exploration of non ANI routes. I can remember far worse disputes on political issues where the editors from both sides had the maturity to use normal dispute resolution processes over weeks and months as needed without running to ANI trying to resolve content issues by getting other editors banned. It is happened far too often these days and it can easily be a form of mob rule if you don't watch it. Oh and try and read what I said rather than just reacting. I said coming to ANI without using other processes first and I hold to that. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • There are actually numerous discussion threads if you search for the editor in the NPOVN and other noticeboards. You can read the discussion on the Pamela Geller talk page to see a continuing pattern. The editor clams sources say she is "far right." This appears to be trolling to get a reaction out of people who defend her. TFD (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm working from what was cited here, but having looked at the Geller article I see an editor asserting a position and on the edges of WP:CIVIL but I don't see anything that can't be handled with other than normal process and I don't see it as justifying an ANI ban. In part that is a more general observation that ANI seems too be increasingly used as an attempt to silence bothersome rather than problematic editors. Arbcom the same in some cases seems to be trying to use sanctions indiscriminately. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about Geller, I had a look, and guess what? The sources say she's right wing. Did you read the sources? I'm stumped. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Snowded: I'm confused by your statement that MilesMoney's conduct was brought up to ANI prematurely. MilesMoney's conduct has been previously brought up numerous times. In fact, this entire topic space has been authorized by ANI for general sanctions and MilesMoney has already been sanctioned. This doesn't even include the numerous non-AN noticeboards this user has been involved in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Brought up yes but my point was not that, but that ANI was overkill ----Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support and consider stronger sanctions. Earlier tonight, I removed content from the Scott Rasmussen BLP which asserted that Rasmussen was on the losing side of a discrimination case while citing a reference placing him on the winning side. MilesMoney promptly reinserted it. Aside from the accuracy issues, commenters on both the article talk page and at BLPN have by substantial margins opposed including the content per WP:UNDUE. MilesMoney continues to add the content back, denies that BLP issues are involved, and purposefully inflame the dispute. In light of their deliberate disregard of basic BLP policy and practice, I believe a BLP topic ban is appropriate, until the subject demonstrates understanding of and willingness to conform to BLP policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Wolfowitz misread the sources and was factually mistaken: Rasmussen did lose the discrimination case. I explained this to Wolfowitz, so now he's angry and is retaliating by adding his name to a dead-in-the-water ANI report. This is petty. MilesMoney (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

support per hullabaloo. I've only seen MM on the Ramassuen and Geller articles, and Wolf describes MM's outrageous behavior quite accurately. "Purposely inflame" is exactly what MM doesTwo kinds of pork (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean the article that you keep whitewashing despite a dozen reliable sources? Your support for draconian punishments are a transparent attempt to silence someone who objects to your WP:TE. Petty. MilesMoney (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Besides the comments we see here (above) from MilesMoney, here are some more from WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Scott Rasmussen:
  • "I'm sorry, Collect, but that's not an accurate description of how Wikipedia works."
  • "Except the policies you speak of don't say what you seem to think they do. Please read them again."
  • "In short, you really messed up when you whitewashed the article. Merry Christmas and read WP:COMPETENT."
  • "Wolfowitz, I'm not trying to be cruel, but you haven't shown any understanding of the sources, and you've edit-warred to the point of being at 3RR."
  • "The only thing undue is the viciousness of the opposition to this brief, reasonable mention of Scott's brush with fame. Between the edit-warring and the calls for topic bans, it's completely over the top!"
    – S. Rich (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Gamaliel. Storm in a teacup. And the report has a whiff of retaliation (I'm using the beta OlfactoChrome browser) that may be what attracted the more virulent of MM's detractors and disputants to come baying for blood. Few here are squeaky-clean. Best just slap everyone on the wrist, bring the curtain down on the drama, and move on. No need for the naughty step, let alone the stocks or the ducking-stool. Writegeist (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support following the discussion (well--that's still ongoing, which is another good reason to remove this editor from this area) at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Rasmussen. I note that apparently I (and other editors) am part of some "Conservative Cloud". This kind of battleground mentality (in which everything is a matter of politics, and not those of Wikipedia's guidelines) becomes insufferable after a while, and I think we've reached that point. I love seeing a glass that's half-full (certainly if it contains Founders Backwoods Bastard, for instance), but I don't see the positives outweighing the negatives of the incessant lawyering against consensus and better judgment. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

New proposal: 1RR

After reading the section above I am struck by the lack of consensus and the longevity of the thread (probably a causal relationship there). I see a fair group of editors who would see Miles topic banned or worse, side by side with people who oppose any sanction at all. Personally I think that Miles' editing is problematic enough to merit some sort of administrative response, but would like to see an outcome that would still allow him to edit the articles he cares about. After a fair amount of observation, I think perhaps the main problem is Miles' tendency to pile on in edit wars (a form of WP:Battleground behavior). The BLP violations that led to this thread being opened were not written by Miles himself: he just reverted, multiple times, to the bad revision of another user in kind of a knee jerk reaction to User:Roccodrift's reverts. I therefore propose the following:

User:MilesMoney must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Violations of this may attract blocks of at least 24 hours, and this restriction will apply for a period of 3 months, after which MilesMoney may return to normal editing. The usual exemptions listed at WP:NOT3RR apply, though MilesMoney is encouraged to exercise caution in these cases.

Let me be clear that I don't think MilesMoney is the entire problem here, or that the 1RR restriction will be the whole solution. I do, however, think it is a step in the right direction, and probably better than Arbcom. (Incidentally, I believe the OP (Roccodrift) needs sanctions as well, but that is probably best addressed elsewhere.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think it's pretty clear from the above discussion that there is general consensus that Mile's editing has been problematic. The question is what to do about it. Personally, I'd prefer a site-ban per WP:NOTHERE, but a 1RR restriction might help least minimize the disruptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support because the proposal, while a good one overall, is fatally flawed. Inclusion of the language "The usual exemptions listed at WP:NOT3RR apply..." will doom this to failure, because he will claim that everything is a NOT3RR exception. If we're going to impose a 1RR restriction, then make it 1RR with no exceptions. Roccodrift (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support The initial extremely wide BLP-ban proposal lost support because it was so draconian and alternatives were not picked up or endorsed. Such is the nature of these discussions that get sidetracked by remarks dealing with article edits, other editors, etc. While there is consensus that something ought to be done, no particular viable alternatives were set forth. (Except, of course, for my dirty dozen.) Two points of clarification for Adjwilley: 1. is the 1RR to apply WP-wide, or is it simply for BLPs? (Personally, I favor WP-wide.) 2. How about reverting vandalism? (On this I feel an exception is not necessary as MM can post edit requests and/or wait for 24 hours to elapse to revert vandalism.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@SRich, Good questions: 1. It would be article space, Wikipedia wide, as the edit warring has not been limited to BLPs. 2. Reverting obvious vandalism falls under WP:NOT3RR and would be exempt from the 1RR limit. (If it weren't obvious vandalism or were open to interpretation, that would be where the suggestion to exercise caution comes in.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this incredibly one-sided solution. Half the people in this matter should be trouted or sanctioned in some manner. It is a relatively mild sanction, but it should be applied to other edit warriors he's feuding with as well, or else this sanction against MM is basically an endorsement of their behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - prefer a BLP-only restriction (see the above discussion regarding BLP-competence), but happy with a site-wide restriction. StAnselm (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Gamaliel nailed it; this is one-sided. As it stands, I've (quietly) chosen to keep myself to 2RR, and usually to 1RR, but making it mandatory is an endorsement of the ongoing WP:TE on such articles as Pamela Geller and Scott Rasmussen‎. A 1RR ban would be handing these editors an excuse to steamroll over me and ignore whatever I say; it would have the effect of forcing me to stop editing Wikipedia, which makes it no better than the previous excessive, one-sided punishment. I would add that anyone who Supported a wide ban should be trouted for draconian excess, so their vote here should be seen as indicative of the same excess. Given that I have never even been blocked for 3RR violation, this is excessive. MilesMoney (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gamaliel. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If this proposal is "one-sided", that's because one side here is repeatedly and deliberately violating BLP while the other is trying to comply with it and enforce it. And the proposal doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As this proposal is under discussion, User:MilesMoney has posted the following edits:
  • reverting a "moved to" notice that a BLPN discussion on Scott Rasmussen (SR) was underway (the "move" template was actually removed twice by MM)
  • adding a question on the SR BLPN thread
  • adding a comment on the SR BLPN thread
  • adding a comment on the SR BLPN thread
  • adding a comment on the SR article talk page
  • adding a comment on the SR article talk page
  • adding a comment to the Gameliel talk page about SR
  • adding a comment on the SR BLPN thread
  • adding a comment to the SR article talk page
• And on this page the following diffs involve SR:
  • per text
  • editing another SR related edit
• Part of my gripe is that MilesMoney thwarted an/my attempt to focus a BLP discussion onto one page – the BLPN. But MM's edits bounce from this ANI, to the BLPN, to the article talk page, and even onto Gamaliel's talk page. (These are from MM's last 50 edits.) This goes beyond WP:OTHERPARENT. – S. Rich (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's called a WP:FILIBUSTER, and I don't see it ending until either it is stopped by administrator intervention, or until Miles gets his way. Roccodrift (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Rich, there you go again with your out-of-context diffs. I was perfectly content to discuss the issue on the article talk page, but you tried to move it all to BLPN, which is a waste of time because there's no BLP issue here. User:MilesMoney (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn proposal: 1RR restriction for revert warring editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I examined the articles MM has been most active on recently and complied a list of every editor who has engaged in multiple reverts. I may have missed some or added someone unjustly, so we may have to adjust this list accordingly. This is not intended to be an endorsement of or a statement of opposition to the relevant reverts. Individually they may be quite justified, but collectively they add up to a pattern of edit warring. I propose a 1RR restriction for the articles Scott Rasmussen and Pamela Geller for, say, one month for the following editors. The usual exemptions listed at WP:NOT3RR apply, though restricted editors are encouraged to exercise caution in these cases. Gamaliel (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 has convinced me that this proposal is not the way to go and instead we should go the route suggested by User:MilesMoney and User:Jason from nyc, ask that the article be protected for a longer period and discuss a possible 1RR restriction for all editors on those articles. Gamaliel (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

When I made this proposal, I conceived it to be like the WP:3RR: it stops you from reverting, regardless of the quality of your edits. I intended this proposal to stop reverting from all parties and was not intended to pass judgment on those reverts. I thought this suggestion would be an innocuous one and be viewed like the 3RR, but instead some editors viewed it as a criticism of the quality of their editing. Instead of treating all parties equally and neutrally, what it did was lump good editing and editors in with bad, something I am strongly opposed to. I do think that some things are clear: the problem is not just one user and multiple editors approach these articles with a battleground mentality. It is also clear that this proposal is not the solution to those problems. Gamaliel (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:MilesMoney
• User:Roccodrift
• User:Collect
• User:StAnselm
• User:Jason from nyc
• User:QuackGuru
• User:Arzel
• User:Two kinds of pork
• User:Fat&Happy
• User:MONGO
• User:Safehaven86
• User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

• Support I've already held myself voluntarily to 2RR on these articles, so 1RR would be fine if they did the same. Unlike a one-sided 1RR, this is intended to encourage discussion rather than penalize a single party, so it's fair. MilesMoney (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as patent nonsense. Obviously, Gamaliel hasn't troubled himself to actually look at the details of what's going on with the articles and hasn't seen the flagrant BLP violations, false claims of consensus, abuse of sources, tendentious misapplications of policy, etc., etc. We have WP:NOT3RR for a very good reason: it helps protect the project from certain kinds of behavior. Even Adjwilley's proposal preserves the use of NOT3RR for MilesMoney. Now Gamaliel wants to suspend it retroactively and without any examination of the evidence. I think his motives are pure, but this knee-jerk idea is ill-conceived. Roccodrift (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• A good point about NOT3RR, I have amended my proposal to include it. I thought it was pretty clear from my proposal that it wasn't intended to be a value judgment of the quality of each revert. If the problem with MM is reverting, then the restriction should apply to all reverting editors. If the problem with MM is something else entirely, then any proposed remedy should actually address those problems instead of an unrelated blanket 1RR restriction. Gamaliel (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're still not recognizing the foundational problem with your proposal. I suggest you go back and re-examine how many of the users on your list have been making reverts that are exempt under WP:NOT3RR (your list of editors will get a lot shorter), then reconsider if this proposal of yours still makes any sense. You are essentially proposing that we sanction editors for following policies that protect Wikipedia. Are you sure that's a good idea? Roccodrift (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You actually have half a point there, though only half. The BLP exception to 3RR has been abused extensively to whitewash articles. I would be even more supportive of this path if the BLP exception were explicitly limited. If it's really a BLP violation, someone else can jump in and fix it. MilesMoney (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as an EXTREMELY positive outcome to knee-jerk reverts without a valid explanation on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like Gamaliel to provide diffs of problematic edits for the various editors he wants to restrict. That's afaik. common practice at ANI. (There are multiple diffs for MilesMoney above.) One thing I for one would like to look into is whether some of these users have only or primarily reverted due to BLP concerns. One of the problem with MM is that he has had little respect for the principle that BLP contested material is to stay out of an article until consensus for inclusion is reached. Reverts by others editors may in such cases be needed. Other than that, I agree with the underlying sentiment that there are several problematic pov-pushers involved in these articles. Iselilja (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked through the recent contributions of StAnselm to the two articles in question. I couldn’t see him involved in the Scott Rasmussen article. In the Pamela Geller article, he has one revert where he cited talkpage; the four other edits I noticed appeared to be helpful, non-controversial copy-editing etc. Iselilja (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Completely agree with Iselilja. This is a very broad restriction and we need diffs to examine the circumstance of the reverts. Some of the reverts may be justifiable (such as over BLP concerns) so we would need to judge each revert on a case-by-case basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a very narrow restriction, in that it affects only two articles, is limited to a month, and is 1RR as opposed to a ban. Rather than collect diffs and argue over who should be included, I say we broaden this to a month-long 1RR for all editors to both articles. This way, nobody feels singled out unfairly and we don't get steamrolled by an outside editor. MilesMoney (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd go further and ask that the protection that Mark Arsten has imposed on the Geller be extended for a month. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is my diff: [44] StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• I made one revert on Scott Rasmussen [45] to enforce BLP and User:Gamaliel is proposing I be given a 1 RR restriction??? I have only made one edit to the article ever it appears and NONE to the Pamela Geller article...oh, what about the notification from Gamaliel that he was proposing a sanction against me on a public noticeboard...I haven't gotten any notification. Real classy, Gamaliel.--MONGO 03:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It is no surprise that Gamaliel would throw me into the mix. He has been trying to find some way to kick me off WP for years. For the record I have made 3 edits to Pamela Geller in the past 3 months, all involving contentious BLP issues. All of them had clear edit comments, plus I have been engaged on the talk page. I have had 2 edits to Scott Rasmussen over the same time period, both also dealing with BLP issues where Media Matters for America is the primary source. Ironically an extremely partisan source which Gamaliel often defends as perfectly fine. Furthermore, considering how few edits I have made, I find it insulting for Gamaliel to include me in a 1RR restriction on those two articles, especially when my primary goal in both cases was to uphold BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Step one: 1 RR restriction. Step two... Step three: Kick Arzel off Wikipedia! This may be the most paranoid comment I've ever read on Wikipedia, and I've spent years editing articles on the JFK assassination. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, and trout Gamaliel for borderline failure to meet the minimum standards for WP:COMPETENCE demanded by the community for administrators. My involvement in this matter is quite simple. Last night, while reviewing a report at BLPN regarding Scott Rasmussen, I noted a gross error in the article -- a case that Rasmussen's "side" (an organization he was an executive of) had won was cited, and quoted, to support the assertion that his side had lost. That's a clear BLP violation, and I removed it, per BLP policy, on sight.[46] I noted at BLPN that "It's therefore an outright BLP violation and I'm going to remove it as such. Apparently there is more than one case, or more than one ruling involved, and however it turned out, the content at issue is either incorrect or improperly referenced, and certainly shouldn't be included in a BLP in the current form." Ten minutes later, MilesMoney restored the content without any change (aside from making it a discrete paragraph), leaving an uncivil and inaccurate, at best, comment at BLPN [47]. I again removed the BLP-violating content.[48] A short while later, a different editor added back a truncated version of the disputed content with different BLP violations -- it misrepresented a source, presenting the allegations made in a complaint as established fact, and omitting any mention of the previous cited case, which concluded that Rasmussen's side had prevailed. As I commented (again) at BLPN when reverting it[49], "Until all this can be straightened out, an accurate account of events written, and consensus is achieved that Rasmussen's role in the events justifies its inclusion in the article, it should not be included. This is basic application of BLP policy." Gamaliel, it is therefore your responsibility to remove my username from your proposed sanctions list, as no editor should be sanctioned for complying with or enforcing BLP policy. I further suggest quite strongly that you withdraw your irresponsible proposal entirely. If you are unwilling, as you state, to determine which editors have complied with BLP, and which editors have violated BLP, but call for sanctioning both groups equally, you are in defiance of both en-wiki policy and the WMF's mandates concerning biographies of living persons. It is also grossly inappropriate for Gamaliel to initiate a proposal to sanction editors without notifying them of the proposal, aomething I can't recall seeing an experienced administrator do so blithely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I made sure everyone's name was Wikilinked so they were all notified. The preposterous hyperbole of your comment exceeds that of Arzel's, and that's saying something. The hysterical reaction that you and he and Mongo have had to this modest proposal convinces me that you're all approaching this article with a battleground mentality and the problems with MM are only the tip of the iceberg here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Like hell. A pro forma notification that one's name has been dropped in this cesspool is hardly equivalent to an alert that an administrator has proposed sanctions against you. And I am goddam sick and tired of being abused by "administrators" who would rather enforce their own social norms that important policies such as BLP. If you're sufficiently thin-skinned that criticism of your action makes you unwilling to actually examine what's going on, then you should resign the tools or let the community take them away. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, you're absolutely right, next time I will send everyone a talk page message. That said, you should take the rest of your complaint to those administrators who've "abused" you instead of bringing unrelated personal issues into this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (and hat this subsection). This is an example of how unfocused these discussions become – and thereby let MM fly under the radar. A dozen editors should have restrictions placed on them for two articles? Why? The edits and comments we see from MM have been placed many, many articles, not just these two most recent. When there is edit warring or other problems, the normal procedure is to get page protection and/or give admin warnings. Including 12 editors serves what end? Do we simply want to feel that everyone is treated equally, or what? This proposal is bad precedence – edit warring and battlefield behavior should not result in restrictions on those who seek to protect articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment, and not just because it is the most sensible reaction in a sea of hysteria. The hysteria has convinced me that some action is needed and that the problem clearly not MM. My thought was that a 1RR restriction on two articles would be a harmless and narrowly applied sanction, since no one, even the best editors should not be revert warring. But neither should they be inhibited from acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. I think something similar should be done, but you've convinced me this proposal I've floated is not it. User:Mark Arsten already has locked both articles until the new year, otherwise I'd try that instead. But since they are locked for now I will use that time to ponder possible solutions, and perhaps we can discuss them away from this hysteria. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and trout User:Gamaliel. Evident failure to understand WP:BLP policy. StAnselm (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enough being enough

I have just told several editors involved in this ongoing fracas that henceforth I intend to police the topic area, we have community imposed sanctions available and I will file an AE should the disruption continue. I would hope the community will back me on this, as quite simply, this has gone on too fucking long. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What sanctions are available? Link? Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Outsider observation from Mangoe

MilesMoney has been treated badly to some degree, most conspicuously in a bad-faith sockpuppet investigation instigated by User:Collect. That said, his battlefield mentality is obvious.

But as far as a connection to Austrian economics is concerned, the one linkage I could find right off-hand is in edits to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is described in the lead as an economist of that school. Back on November 29th we had the follow series of edits:

• [50] DarknessShines removed a claim
• [51] MM restored this and added additional material
• [52] DS reverted those edits
• [53] MM reverted to his version
• [54] DS reverted again

I have no opinion about the merit of either version but the mutual edit-warring is obvious. More recently we have over the past three days a round-robin revert fight in the same article between MM, User:Steeletrap, and User:Binksternet, claiming BLP as a rationale for ignoring the 1RR limit. Other areas may not strictly covered by sanctions, but the same behavior is seen everywhere, with much the same set of actors.

Personally I think the lot of them need to back off from these topics. Every time I go to look at this material, it's the same cloud of conservative defenders. MilesMoney needs to tone it down, way down, but his opponents are using his problematic behavior as an excuse to color way outside the behavioral lines themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)

I don't believe that HHH is under 1RR, but I also don't remember ever going so far as 2RR, even in the midst of the BLP violations, so there's no excuse to sanction.

As for the rest, I agree that things are getting to be a bit much. This "cloud of conservative defenders" has been distracting me from the task of properly sourcing the Rasmussen and Geller articles. I'd really appreciate it if they stopped trying to get me blocked/banned/killed and let me edit in peace. MilesMoney (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The SPI was not "bad faith" and the conclusion was that there was a possibility that the accounts are meatpuppets (In the worst case scenario, this is meatpuppetry, which can be handled outside SPI). Accusing me of "bad faith" where significant evidence was presented is contrary to WP:AGF and I suggest that it is not helpful to the project to make such an accusation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Who did you accuse of violating the 3RR rule when there was no violation? QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence was presented, unconvincing evidence for which the investigation did not go forward. OK, perhaps "bad faith" is too strong. "With malice intended" is not. Mangoe (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Did not go forward"? No, it did go forward. Steeletrap and Miles were cleared by CU, but it's false to say that it "did not go forward" when the case was advanced to the CheckUser. My bad, on further review I see that Newyorkbrad is not a CU, he is merely an admin posting in the CU section. That said, I find the assertion of a "bad faith SPI" to be ridiculous, as I myself suspect that something was amiss before Collect initiated the case. Roccodrift (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, it was first declined; then User:NewYorkBrad stepped in and marked it "unrelated" without comment. I do not interpret his closure as implying that any of the normal technical checks were performed. The charges seemed to me ridiculous from the start, and the circus that followed did nothing to dissuade me of that opinion. In any case nobody is stepping up to the root problem that all of this articles have become battlefields that are vigorously defended against anyone who is the least bit persistent in pressing changes of a particular political color. MM is here because he was too persistent (and I and other have warned him about that); but the rest of you seem to only avoid battlefield charges against yourselves because more commonly the opposition backs down more quickly. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your summary. MilesMoney (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rocco: NYB does in fact have CU permission.[55]. I don't know why he bothered. There was no proper evidence from the OP, no diffs, just rubbish smoke-and-mirrors "statistics" which were effectively demolished); and another admin posted, in reference to the two editors falsely accused, whose contribs the admin had watched for two months, that they were clearly not one and the same person. Writegeist (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This needs to go to ArbCom

Clearly the community is incapable of resolving these constant disputes. Someone needs to file a request for arbitration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If "resolving these constant disputes" equates to site-banning me once and for all, then apparently not. But how would Arbcom actually fix the underlying problem, which is that I'm just a particularly persistent editor who runs into opposition from a "cloud of conservative defenders". Is it going to site-ban the Conservative Cloud? If not, then the next persistent editor who runs into the Cloud will have the same issues. It's not like I'm the first. MilesMoney (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I will support an ArbCom filing. There are many BLPs involved here, and I think it would be beneficial to get a ruling on to which extent material that are contested on BLP grounds shall stay out of articles until discussion is settled. There appears to be disagreement about this; also among administrators. And the behaviour of MilesMoney definitely merits ArbCom's attention; allthough I personally think his behaviour is so out of line that the community should have been able to handle it on its own. Just the last two days, three articles have been protected due to edit warring that heavily involved MilesMoney (Gun control, Pamela Geller and Scott Rasmussen). And that of course is only the latest of a long line of disruption related to MM. The underlying issue here is that MilesMoney thrives on conflicts and disruption and has shown no intention of engaging in normal constructive editing. (Has he ever written two full paragraphs to any artice that has stuck?) He is not the only problematic editor; one of the others involved in these articles clearly resemblances MilesMoney in purely disruptive behaviour (not giving name, since I don't have sufficient diffs); while others may be pov-pushers of various degree but not stirring up trouble for trouble's own sake. (The Gun Control article has some issues of its own, and might need to be handled separately; aside from the recent edit warring, MilesMoney isn't the central player there. Then there is the Austrian economics, which features some of the same users as in rightwing politics (notably MM) , but also has its own set of issues and participants). Iselilja (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

General 1RR restriction

The following articles are placed on a 24-hour one-revert restriction for the next three months:

• Gun control
• Scott Rasmussen
• Dana Rohrabacher
• Pamela Geller
• Gary Bauer

Additionally, any articles relating to right-wing politics in the United States, broadly construed, may be placed under a one-revert restriction by any uninvolved admin in the event of persistent edit-warring. Such a restriction may only last for up to three months. This authorization will expire within a year, unless re-authorized by the community.

• Support as proposer. Rather than playing some game of whack-a-mole here at ANI/AN with these articles or imposing any general restriction on a very large and highly-trafficked topic area, I feel allowing admin's the ability to limit all parties at a specific article to one revert at their own discretion when there is edit-warring is desirable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A 1RR limit would lead to games of chicken as editors flaunt their ability to safely go to 3RR and use it to block me everywhere. I'd simply be ignored, since they know they can edit-war successfully against me without ever risking a WP:3RRN report. It would make the stonewalling even more effective. Besides, I already hold myself to 1RR most of the time, rarely even going to 2RR, so this won't help. Finally, singling me out is unfair and will not address the systemic problem of the Conservative Cloud. MilesMoney (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is not to put 1RR on you, but on the article, so it is not in fact singling you out? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I misread. But I do oppose on another basis. MilesMoney (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Weak support - Four out of five of these articles is either under full protection now or has been recently. Switching to 1RR won't improve matters. If my experience with Ayn Rand is any indication, it leads to article stagnation, as everyone is afraid of using up their 1RR. MilesMoney (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a good move, but it's worth trying on a few articles. I'd like to be proven wrong. MilesMoney (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• support either people will get banned and go away, or they will learn to develop consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as this will curtail edit-warring, promote discussion, and clarify bona fide consensus. Roccodrift (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal does nothing to address the real issue, which is that political partisan editing has deeply poisoned the atmosphere at Wikipedia. I would support stronger enforcement of existing policies against tendentious editing, enforcement which currently does not exist. — goethean 00:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Neither that problem nor world hunger is likely to be resolved by anything that happens at ANI. Roccodrift (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let's just get rid of the block-evading socks. — goethean 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see what gun control has to do with the other articles, which are all BLPs. If the commonality is MilesMoney, that would suggest we need sanctions concerning that editor. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, the list of articles is revealing. But note that other articles can be added, and the threshold to add them isn't particularly high. Roccodrift (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The problem isn't the articles, it's the editors. In any case, 1RR at best will only slow down the edit-warring and does not address other issues such as WP:TE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support support support. This is exactly what these articles need, to slow down the edit warring. This would let tempers cool, discourage tendentious editing, and encourage discussion and the participation of new editors. Gamaliel (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support. This issue is disruptive editors, and this only changes some rules, which they will work around as has already been seen. Miles Money is one one side while a flank of opposers are on another. This measure might help but setting up specific editor restrictions is also worth considering. As tag-teaming is also occurring this looks to only subdue the side that has the fewest reverters. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much the problem: it doesn't fix the underlying issue, which appears to be the Conservative Cloud. MilesMoney (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If conservatives are the problem then why are there not a bunch of left-wing articles with the same problems? Probably because WP is dominated by a certain ideology. The reason why these articles have problems is because of left-wing hate, pure and simple. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

On a gust of foul wind, the Conservative Cloud settles above my head and rains hatred upon me. Glory to the newborn king! MilesMoney (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As several comments here illustrate, the problem is deliberate disruption and incivility by a small claque of editors, who have been adept at provoking edit wars and simply entrench disputes, editing without good faith and making nasty, often dishonest personal attacks, aimed particularly at deterring uninvolved editors from intervening. Two or three lengthy or indef blocks would settle things down effectively. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's brave of you to volunteer to be indeffed, but I don't think that's the answer. MilesMoney (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the 'gun control' article, it needs to be noted that this article isn't supposed to be about U.S. politics (left or right-wing) at all. It is supposed to be giving an international overview of the topic - including this article amongst a list of articles on 'U.S. politics' is questionable, in that it reinforces the tendency to see everything in the article from U.S. terms - something that has consistently blighted the article, and which may well have been a significant factor in turning up the heat in the debate even more. There may well be legitimate grounds for sanctions regarding this article, and it may well end up at arbcom (I am currently considering raising a specific issue concerning the article at arbcom myself), but it shouldn't be lumped in with the rest. Some of the players may be the same, but the background is very different, the issues are very different, and a considerable number of those newly involved with the article appear to be entirely uninvolved with the remainder of the articles named above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If the articles are going to be placed under a restriction, notices of the proposed 1RR should be placed on the article talk pages and pertinent project pages. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As time goes on, there is more and more evidence that the issue is with MilesMoney himself. Not the articles, and not the other editors. Here is a rather rude reply to an uninvolved admin (User:John) in which Miles says "The Daily News and Daily Mail are both reliable sources, and the SPLC and the Guardian also support this material. There is absolutely no doubt about this and absolutely no BLP issue." The issue, as I have said a number of times now, is BLP-competence. Miles may be competent in a number of other ways, but not where BLP issues are concerned. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, Wikipedia:POV railroad is possibly germane to this conversation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That is quite a recent essay, and (like any essay) I can see its potential to get misused. StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per StAnselm. Also, the ability of responsible editor to contribute and edit a large class of articles of a certain type should not be impaired because of the inability of one editor to reach a consensus. The vast majority of editors are able to reach consensus despite major differences in political opinions. Indeed, these differences are helpful to avoid blind spots each of us have. I've learned much from editors who brought forth literature I normally wouldn't access. We've read and discussed it in detail, and found we've able to reach a consensus. Let's not impair our ability to grow Wikipedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is caused by one editor. In my experience 1RR stops the development of articles. TFD (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Asian pornographic actors

And now, apparently, the fighting has now extended into List of Asian pornographic actors.[56][57][58][59][60] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. At least Wolfowitz has done a lot of work on the listing. But Miles' re-addition of a single redlink was WP:POINTy. (Editors are advised that they need not consult the article – I've taken on the onerous task of removing the redlinks.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, Wolf removed a single red-linked entry. If he'd removed them all or offered the slightest explanation, that might be helpful. As it stands, there's no guessing at his reasons. I reverted exactly once, so anyone looking to blame me is getting desperate. If you want to see some real edit-warring, check out what he's doing to The Ayn Rand Cult. MilesMoney (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record. A recent edit to the article popped up on my watchlist yesterday. I reviewed the edits for the last day or two, reverted the inappropriate one (the only redlink in the relevant section of the article) and moved on. (There's a long-standing consensus to remove redlinks from such lists, and I'm among several users who watch them. Usually redlinks are caught quickly, but since there were several, I'd guess most of the regular watchers are busy ober the holidays.) MM added the redlink back today, without grounds, presumably to provoke me. I take this as just another bit of evidence that he's more interested in annoying editors who disagree with him than in making positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Two other articles where there have been much activity and disputes today is far-right politics where MilesMoney and Roccodrift are at 2RR; MilesMoney has subsequently managed to write 26 comments to the talk page during just one day; while talk page discussions are encouraged, this kind of hyperactive argumentation can almost be disruptive. MM has also been involved in a conflict with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (MM at 2RR, HW at 3RR) and Roccodrift about the The Ayn Rand Cult, plus category Cult-related books. MM has given his version of the story here. This is a lot of conflict in just one day. Iselilja (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How does that relate to the this thread, Iselilja? What point are you trying to make? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought it pretty obvious, ie: WP:DE. honestly, SPECIFICO, you've seen me try to settle things a little on MM's talk page but they're seemingly insistent on getting involved in scraps. - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, would you say Wolf's edits on the Rand cult thing are disruptive? MilesMoney (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Sitush. While Miles opened a discussion at Category talk:Cult-related books, it looks like s/he is more interested in saying that Wolfowitz is causing damage rather than bringing in other editors to discuss possible improvement to the parameters of Category:Cult-related books. Iselilja's point is quite clear. And now Miles seeks to justify pointy edits by blaming another editor. Specifico, are you defending MilesMoney's behavior? If so, please say so. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Rich, you seem really interested in blaming me for what others do. I asked Sitush whether Wolf was disruptively editing, so now I'll ask you. Is Wolf's repeated violation of BRD disruptive? Is removing my comments while calling me a troll disruptive? Was removing a single red-link for no apparent reason disruptive? Was his refusal to discuss his edits disruptive? Please don't pretend to be neutral in this or even slightly fair: you are holding me to a standard that is much higher than policy demands, and much, much higher than what Wolf is following. MilesMoney (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

TWO WEEKS

This ANI report has been open for just short of two weeks, and while it's demonstrated how the WP:POV railroad works, it hasn't gotten us anywhere and isn't likely to. Not a single proposal has gained any traction, and this stinking pile of dead proposals is gathering flies. It's clear now that the report should never have been opened, so let's just close it and move on to better things. MilesMoney (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nickst keep depopulating Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain and Category:International winter sports competitions hosted in Spain outside of process and doesn't stop it, even after it was pointed out to him that it's inappropriate. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clear renaming per C2C, from "hosted in Spain" (wrong) to "hosted by Spain" (right). All such categories use "hosted by X" format, see Category:International association football competitions in Europe by host and subcategories for example. Armbrust stopped the trivial renaming without any reasonable arguments, I don't understand why. NickSt (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The requirement for speedy rename is that the category is listed at WP:CFDS and remains there unopposed for 48 hours. You already listed them there and were opposed, meaning they can't be speedily renamed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Armbrust wrote, There is no clear convention for the use of "by" insteady of "in". But there is a clear convention because only two (!) from thousands categories in Wikipedia's sports cattree use "hosted in X" format now. All others use "hosted by X" format. No reasonable arguments why only this two categories must be different from anothers. Per WP:BOLD I can do the trivial renaming by myself to help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Because Ambrust using this "arguments" ("no clear convention", 2=1000, "outside of process") can prevent any categories renaming. NickSt (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not exactly what I wrote, at end of it you missed "at Category:Sports festivals in Spain." Also that only prevents the category from being speedily renamed, and you should listed it at full discussion instead of moving the category out of process (repeatedly). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Not way. C2C is applicable here. Why does Armbrust only decide that "no clear convention" and "outside of process"? And trivial renamings opposed by Armbrust stay after many months at WP:CFD without any results (1, 2). It will be two votes in CFD, I am for, Armbrust always against (without reasonable arguments) (3), and what to do? NickSt (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Content dispute, should go on talk page, not drama noticeboards. And Armbrust, you've passed 3RR already. Dark Sun (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
            • @NickSt Speedy renaming is for uncontroversial cases, and anybody can oppose them. It doesn't matter, who was it. Your recent attempt to conventionalise Category:Sports competitions by sport was opposed by two editors, but you will renamed it nonetheless if it's removed from the page right? Also they remained on that page, because you or anybody else has moved them to full CFD.
            • @Dark Sun It's not a content dispute. It's a procedural matter, which NickSt doesn't want to follow. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
              • They are opposed for golf tournaments mainly. No reasons why Category:Floorball Championships cannot be renamed to Category:Floorball competitions per C2C are shown. It is a pity, but wrong categories remain due to some unargumented opposed opinion. Interesting moment now, I can create a new sporttree category easy, but I cannot rename that category without Armbrust "oppose" or CfD two month waiting. NickSt (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                • No, they are opposed generally, because they would not follow the common terms in these sports. Also, that they are wrong is just your opinion. If you want to renamed them, than you need to initiate a full discussion at CFD, which is that way. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                  • Category:Floorball Championships is not common terms in floorball also, but it is need wait two months to rename it (trivially!) to Category:Floorball competitions. Why are you in oppose to all sports category moves always? NickSt (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                    • That's not true, I don't oppose all sports category moves. Only if I think they shouldn't be made. (In this case for example I only opposed speedy renaming of the categories.) Waiting "two months to rename it" isn't a problem, because there is no deadline. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                      • The deadline is now but you stopped the usefull renamings. No rule that I cannot rename the small category (trivially) without CfD. Show any reasonable arguments against renaming instead of opposing per "outside of process" only. NickSt (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                        • "Usefull" isn't one of the speedy renaming criteria. The CFDS page clearly says: "Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD", and you failed to do that in the last 30 days. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
            • Not convinced that 3RR applies here. The bottom line is that the categories need to be repopulated and a full discussion started if someone wants to move content. This is not a content dispute, it is a naming convention issue! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• One question to administrators. Can the usual user rename the categories (non-controversial) without CfD discussion? I don't see the direct rule about it. If somebody create category with mistake/wrong name, is it normal to put articles into another category and speedy delete the first one per {{db-catempty}}? Or any category moving must be discussed with Armbrust? NickSt (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No for which question? Show link to rule about it please. NickSt (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • For "Can the usual user rename the categories (non-controversial) without CfD discussion?". It is not supported in the software. You know very well where the instructions are for moving content so that does not need to be pointed out to you. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @Vegaswikian:. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if someone could undo these out of process moves. Or should I do it? @Vegaswikian: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you would be considered involved at this point. Do you have a list? That way someone else can resolve it. Or for a more final decision, it can go to a full CfD for a fuller discussion if that would be the better way to deal with it and get closure. If it is the issue of 'of v in' in those two categories, I'd recommend the full CfD route. Note that I have not looked at the categories in question. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: I don't see, how WP:INVOLVED is relevant in undoing an out-of-process category renaming. IMO these need to go to full CFD, and therefore the categories should be repopulated before that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - These two guys have been on here, fighting over this for a whole week now, and not one admin can step up and resolve this? Double-you-tee-eff-to-that. - ^theWOLFchild 11:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) There're more than two users talking about this, Wolf. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Talking", yes. But not "fighting", like I had said, Erpert. - ^theWOLFchild 02:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pushing and disruptive editing w/ personal issue by user:Mouh2jijel

Hello,

I would like to report an unconstructive behavior along with what seems to be a personal issue by user:Mouh2jijel on the article Languages of Morocco:

This user, even if I asked him many times to use the talk page, refuses and persists on replacing a map of the article by another one without any justification or discussion. I even explained on the talk page that we should simply avoid putting any political map on an article about linguistics, a way imho to avoid POV and OR problematics as I explained on the discussion, but user:Mouh2jijel doesn't seem to be ready to discuss anything, he simply continues to edit the article imposing his own POV.

Note that the second map was made by himself and that he falsely putted user:Tachfin as the author on its description (that's another problem, it will be discussed on Commons), which is highly misleading, and all that after having been engaged in an editwar to impose his own version on the first one.

By the way, note that this user has had a personal issue with me on both en.Wiki [61] and Commons (as he randomely reverts my edits) and the current issue seems to be of the same behavior. For this purpose, I would like to ask admins to explain to this user that WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV should be respected even if it doesn't math his own opinions about Western Sahara and Morocco.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad idea to report it when you've made 7 reverts each. BRD doesn't contain 6 more 'R's after the 'D', but Mouh2jijel has been more disruptive. Take it to WP:ANEW next time. Dark Sun (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Given your previous blocks for edit warring you really ought to know better Omar-toons. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I made many reverts (even if I don't simply revert his edits, I mainly tried to be Bold, if first I tried to keep the previous map after that I simply made an edit on which no map was used). Note also that this article was modified through a discussion to which I participated and that everything was fine until user:Mouh2jijel intervened and started to edit without discussing, more that that, he simply refuses to discuss his edits.

I apologize for my 3RR edits. But I also hope that the personal issue and the disruptive behavior of this user against me would be sanctionned. --Omar-toons (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) That is still a violation of WP:3RR, because they still count as reverts under 3RR. You will probably be blocked, regardless. Epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't justify blocking one user for violating 3RR without blocking the other. I will leave a message with User:Mouh2jijel to insist that he participate in discussion before he reverts again and continue to monitor the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Just block both and close the thread. Dark Sun (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that would solve. The same problem would just reoccur after the blocks expired. Encouraging discussion and solving the underlying problem should be our goal here, not just block and forget. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - Ugh. Why is everybody so bloodthirsty block-happy on this board? Here is a perfect example of why some users should be admins and why some should not. Good call Gamaliel. - ^theWOLFchild 04:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I would lile to inform the Board that, even if I invited Mouh2jihel three times [62] to discuss that issue, this user didn't respond and it seems that he won't WP:DISCUSS.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And it goes on, again.

I reiterate my request against user:Mouh2jijel for disruptive behavior since he persists on editing the article the way he wants without discussing anything and without giving any explaination on diff's commentaries!

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Request: Is there a French speaking administrator about? Apparently this conflict has spilled over from the French Wikipedia and there may be a language barrier with one of the editors involved here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - Or an admin willing to use Google Translate? - ^theWOLFchild 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/vandalism done by Alexisfan07

I reported Alexisfan07 for vandalism due to their long standing history of adding ill-sourced and unreliable sources to List of General Hospital cast members for years, as well as other members. They've continued to disregard any warnings issued to them, especially after being continuously explained to what is acceptable and not acceptable. They continue to use a show's credits and Twitter as a source. We explained Twitter fails as a source since it is a first-party source, and not a third-party one and when it comes to soap operas, especially cast lists, third-party is much more reliable. Especially since it usually takes claim of a third party (aka their series and fellow cast mates/crew members). This user has shown a consistent disregard of the rules and policies of both Wikipedia and the Soap Opera Project concerning this. While I do believe their intentions are meant to be well, their edits are not improving Wikipedia in any sort of way. How many times must something be described and explained to an editor, especially one that has been a member (according to their edits) since late 2007/early 2008. Surely this is unacceptable of their behavior to continue to happen. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Have you tried bringing this up at WP:RSN? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I was told to bring it here, so that's where I came to. Because it's been a long, on-going almost vandalistic actions by this user. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - Why not try WP:ANV? - ^theWOLFchild 02:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I did go there first. And was told it wasn't considered vandalism, and that it should be brought here. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, How about WP:RFC/U? - ^theWOLFchild 21:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

I suppose, but I'd also like to see the outcome of this discussion, as well. Since it is long-standing editing of this behavior and it's clear the editor is not even willing to come to their own defense. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban enforcement needed:Tokerdesigner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• original topic ban discussion in which there was a unanimous consensus for a topic ban as a bare minimum response and he was not to edit articles related to cannabis and the smoking of it
• Torkerdesigner informed of result

• I'm off to inform Tokerdesigner of this discussion, diffs of ban violations forthcoming in a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Cannabis smoking:[63][64]

Edit to Smoking, [65] which may not be under the topic ban as an article, but at least one of the images added is of in implement used for smoking cannabis, and Tokerdesigner's actions in the topic area of smoking devices were a large part of the reason for the ban

Edit to Cannabis (drug): [66]

Torkerdesigner informed of this discussion.

• The community decided that their edits in this topic area caused more problems than they solved and they were no longer to edit there. No time frame was specified, and there is no evidence the ban was ever appealed, let alone lifted. I was previously involved in a content dispute with this user and therefore may be considered too involved to take any further action, looking for an uninvolved admin to look into this and take whatever action they find appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear-cut violation. I've blocked him for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editing at Cannabis smoking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per the above, could an admin please have a look at Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and various 184 ips. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Barek. (3 days) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highly Unsourced POV article needs Speedy Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Article is now at AfD, where it should have gone in the first place. Its creator has received an official AA2 sanctions warning. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Aghdaban genocide article was recently created by a user who is seemingly entrenched in severe POV conduct. Let alone the fact that the user calls it a genocide, the article refers to the event as follows:

• "one of the most iniquitous felonies perpetrated against mankind"
• "putting inhumane torture to hundreds of the non- combatant, driving out them."
• It refers to Armenians as "marauders" and calls the massacre "Atrocious".
• The sources are nothing more than advocacy websites as sources.
• There is not one source that calls this event genocide [67]

The creator of the article, Azwhead (talk · contribs) seems to be a new user (registered Dec 3). He also already received numerous warnings for this conduct (User_talk:Azwhead) I think he needs to be blocked or receive a serious sanction. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, nor is it a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that the article should be speedily deleted for the sake of a better and more neutral Wikipedia. Articles like this make the encyclopedia look like a WP:FORUM or some sort of joke. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Um... the article is an extremely poorly-written POV mess, but your own user name doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your ability to be neutral about the subject matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

...and that's why I am here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And your remark is of bad faith. Just because I have a certain username doesn't mean I cannot be neutral. In fact, I am one of the most neutral editors when it comes to the Armenian-Azeri/Turkish topic area. I have yet to have received a block, let alone a formal warning. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not just asking for the article to be deleted, you're asking for the editor involved to be sanctioned. That may well be the right course of action, but by making such a request your own potential prejudices come into play as well. You are hardly a neutral party, which is what I was pointing out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I am seeking mediation from uninvolved editors such as yourself and others here. I have done nothing but express my opinion in an appropriate noticeboard which, as it turns out, is a very legitimate concern. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral sounding user ID's are often a red flag. As regards the article (which is very poorly written, I might even say "atrociously" written), I especially like where the editor spelled "of" with a zero. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I don't know anything about this subject, but I do agree that Azwhead might need a block because it appears that most (if not all) of his/her contributions were copyvios, s/he was warned and blocked before, yet s/he just doesn't seem to care. (BTW, Bugs, even saying the article is atrociously written is an understatement.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The content looks pretty similar to this. I reduced the article to a stub. I haven't looked at the sources cited, so it could still qualify for deletion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources provided are reliable, all are POV. Two dates are given for the same event, separated by almost a year. No wikilinks except to the same POV sources. This needs to be nuked, but I don't see a speedy deletion criteria that applies. Prod, maybe? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any independent evidence that the alleged massacre even occurred? If not, maybe it could be deleted on the grounds that it's a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find independent confirmation from a reliable source for anything by that name, or related variations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Alternate idea: What if we move it into the new Draft: userspace while we discuss it. We can AfD/MfD it from there if it cannot be fixed while there.--v/r - TP 18:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that if I could find any confirmation that this event actually took place. There's nothing in the NY Times under the names of any of the villages or regions involved, and nothing in this book, unless it's under another name entirely. Given that this subject area is, I believe, under discretionary sanctions, I don't think even letting it sit in the Draft space is a particularly good idea. (Is the Draft space searchable via Google?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes it is, unless you add the __NOINDEX__ template. So we can move it there and add the template (in theory talk pages don't show up but in practice sometimes they do). Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, missed the word 'new' and didn't realise it had been created. Don't know the answer then. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I do now. Wikipedia:Drafts "Drafts are not indexed by most search engines including Google,[2] meaning most readers will not find them." The word 'most' repeated twice is a bit worrying. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
          • What that means is that it has a robots.txt exclusion, just as any NOINDEXed page does. All the major search engines (and most or all of the minor ones) respect robots.txt at this time, but it is voluntary. No search engine or other crawler HAS to respect it. We can't control when a new non-compliant site might be created, or an exiosting one might change its policies and stop respecting robots.txt. That is why the "most" is there. DES ^(talk) 15:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like this is alleged event, might be related to: [68]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• It's polemical, I suggest deletion. Epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Theoneiammassivelyjealousof - new account for indef-blocked sockpuppeteer -block requested

>Yet another sock of User:Stiarts erid, replacing one blocked less than 24 hours ago at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TheoneIlookupto_--_block_requested. If the overwhelming quacking doesn't pass the duck test, there appear to be multiple 3RR violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, blocked while I was posting this report. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafkasmurat

Kafkasmurat (talk · contribs) has been leaving ridiculous and offensive comments on talk pages on Armenia-related articles, namely

• Armenian Highlands - "Armenians stop manipluating Wikipedia"
• Armenian Genocide - "Just because of politics and capitalist opressers, people are now divided. There is no differences between Turks or Armenians." "The killings are real but not 1.5 million." " are you accusing us about it. There were no Turkey or Turks.", etc. - I removed it per WP:NOTFORUM
• Soghomon Tehlirian (an Armenian who killed Talaat Pasha, one of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide and was found not guilty by the German court) - "When did terrorists become assasins? This man killed people on street. At daylight and never felt guilty. How can you make a hero from a psychopath ? There aren't any mentions of this"

Interestingly enough, this user hasn't been editing since 2008 and made a sudden comeback this January. [69]

His edits back in 2007 include blanking of Armenian Genocide three times [70][71][72] and replacing it with

“ Agitators have a tale:"armenian genocide" anybody can understand that is an aspersion(as tey can't prove it.)Turks and Armenians are fellows forever ”

--Երևանցի ^talk 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Calm down, talking shouldn't disturb you. I am a historian i read these articles and blanking was a mistake. Also, what is your purpose? You just can't stand freedom of expression?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Kafkasmurat, your feelings of brotherhood are greatly appreciated. However, Wikipedia is not the best place to express those. Also, this is not the place for comments such as "Armenians stop manipluating Wikipedia". Seriously, that kind of commentary is blockable, and I say this as a total non-Armenian. As far as I know, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all admins reading this that editing in the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions described at WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks BMK. More paperwork. Kafka has been warned and logged. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The arbitration committee clearly stated "Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.". This is in addition to the notices on those articles advising that the talkpages are "not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I can't see that there is any justification for this edit, for instance. "Freedom of expression" does not necessarily exist on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:NOTFREESPEECH). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

His comments are pretty self-explanatory. He just opened a section on me claiming "Any matter offenses to Turks ( even terrorism) gets support by the user" simply because I've edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict article. I suggest admins take some actions. Users like him are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• User is now warned. I don't see a reason to pile it on right now; future disruption can be dealt with by blocking, for instance. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. Thank you for issuing a warning. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you working so hard on it. I only wrote something at talk pages. If i'm wrong, you should tell it to me. Why is this rivalry? Nobody told me anything about my ideas. You just reverted the talking. I'm not your enemy. I'm against all blockades. You block someone and he'll come with another name. Instead of blocking, you can be advisory.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kafkasmurat: And I don't understand why you are editing English Wikipedia articles when your command of the language doesn't seem quite up to it. I'd suggest you'd be more helpful editing the Wikipedia of your native language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just talking. I don't talk on articles. You're so intolerant and i'm not sure this is a voluntary encyclopedia. Since you're excluding the newcomers.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "just talking": more than half of your edits (46/82) are to articles. Besides, you're no "newcomer", you've been editing here since 2007.

And, yes, I am quite intolerant of people who edit English Wikipedia who do not have sufficient command of the language to do so. I would never think of doing an edit on another language's Wikipedia which involved the expression of ideas when I couldn't properly convey because of my own deficiency in that language. That would be a disservice to their efforts to build a quality encyclopedia. It so happens that English Wikipedia, because of its dominance and the world-wide influence of the language, is a magnet for people to come here and fight their ethnic and nationalistic quarrels. It's a total pain in the patoot and causes no end of troubles, clogging up our noticeboards and taking up the time of our Arbitration Committee. That's bad enough, but when a significant portion of those POV warriors edit with poor English-language skills, it makes things even worse.

So, either learn to communicate better in English or stop editing articles here in a way that requires other editors to fix your languager-related errors, or, preferably, edit the Wikipedia(s) in the language(s) you have better competency in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Signed up at 2007, but didn't have time contribute. It seems you're looking for trouble. I don't mean to harm anyone. Why don't you chill? It's a bad habit. And language matter: I use approriate languge while editing. There is no problem in articles. People can make mistakes at talk pages. You don't need to give grammar lecture for this.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have looked at some of your article edits, a random sample, and there are language problems with them that have to be corrected by other editors. That's not acceptable, so get better at writing in English or stop doing article edits.

As for my "looking for trouble", it's your behavior which is the subject of this report, including your early POV-vandalism edits, when you blanked entire articles you disagreed with, and not excepting the retaliatory report you filed below, which Drmies rightfully closed as being WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, why do you write falsehoods that are so easily disproven? "Signed up at [sic] 2007, but didn't have time [sic] contribute," you wrote. Well, that's bullshit. You made 26 edits in 2007, which is 31% of your current total, and 17 of those were edits to articles, which is 37% of your article edits. So were were quite active in 2007, by your standards, and it remains true that you're not a "newbie" I'm driving away by pointing out the problems with your editing. You are, clearly, a POV-warrior deficient in English who shouldn't be editing here, and certainly shouldn't be editing in the manner you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• I no longer object to an indef block for Kafkasmurat. I just warned them for soapboxing and I made this revert. In addition, I'm wondering about their connection to 212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an address I just blocked for the same kind of anti-Armenian attitude--that is, the attitude that Armenians are holding out and Wikipedia editors are enabling it. I see that Kafkasmurat just posted on my talk page again; I can't wait to see what the news is now. At any rate, since I warned them and made a revert of their edits, I don't think I should be pulling the trigger on a block of any length right now, though I see no reason why I shouldn't if this continues. I hope this thread hasn't gone cold. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (Comment from uninvolved editor) When in doubt, WP:CHECKUSER. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately (and I really mean that; it is, I think, a very unfortunate and damaging policy choice) CheckUsers will not connect an account with an IP, which, of course, allows editors with accounts to sock fairly freely by hiding behind IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Really? The second sentence on WP:CHECKUSER says the opposite. Or am I reading something incorrectly? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not very clearly written. As I understand it, CheckUsers do access IP data, and will use that to connect two or more named accounts, but what they will not do (at least anymore - I swear I remember them doing it when I first became aware of CheckUsers and sockpuppetry investigations 6 or 7 years ago) is publicly connect a named account to an IP address, because (I guess) by doing so they would provide location information for that named account, which would be WP:OUTING and violate WMF privacy rules. If I am correct about this, it means that there's no point in listing suspected IP socks with a single named account when filing an SPI, unless you expect a block on behaviorial grounds alone, because even if the CheckUser finds a connection between between the named account and a suspected IP sock, they won't block the IP sock, since that would be a de facto public admission of a connection.

          If I'm wrong about this, I hope that a CheckUser, or someone who has been a CheckUser in the past, will correct me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

          • Personally, I feel that vandals and vandalizing socks give up their privacy rights by abusing the site's terms of service, and that we shouldn't bend over backwards to preserve their privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
          • BMK, you are correct: CU does not link to IPs (at least not for us). As far as I know. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hi fellows. Firstly i'm not vandal. I don't harm any article. I don't edit without reference. Vandalism means being "only harmful" i guess. Secondly, i don't intend to upset anyone. That's a harsh conversation you're making. I just said something at "talk page". Is this enough to make someone "vandal"?? Finally, i have references, a base for talk pages i think; I have internet information, I can use proxies or different usernames but it's not my philosophy; "Anything you do, comes back, nothing is out of reason" i don't hide. Also, I contribute to other Wiki projects, i like giving away, never involved in such this judgement.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No one has said, or implied, that you are a vandal - the discussion simply drifted into another area when it was questioned whether your account was related to a blocked IP account. No, the issues concerning you here are two: primarily that your talk page comments are seen as "ridiculous and offensive", which, given their extremely pointed POV nature doesn't seem like an unreasonable assessment; and, secondarily, that you should not contribute to English Wikipedia articles given your level of English competency, as amply demonstrated by your comment above this one. Those are separate complaints, please don't conflate them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • This, for instance, is not sufficiently correctly-written to be acceptable on English Wikipedia:

      11th century book Divânu Lügati't-Türk mentions archetypes of Mehtaran, Turkish military band tradition. It was an essential part of the military. Formed by soldiers. Ottomans obtained this tradition from Seljuks. 17th century traveler Evliya Çelebi noted that the Ottoman Empire had 40 guilds of musicians in 1670's.

      I understand that your command of English is more than sufficient for colloquial use, but your addition of material such as this to an encyclopedia is problematic, as it makes us looks foolish and requires other editors to fix your words. Please do not contribute to Wikipedia articles until your command of English is sufficient to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Threats at Ashley Spurlin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ashley Spurlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for deletion at this time but there are some troubling edit summaries from two or three IPs in the history that should probably be revdel'ed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kevin Bacon/Kevin Costner/Hollow Man (etc.) vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Various IPs (or one user across multiple IPs) has been persistently vandalizing several groups of articles:

• Bicentennial Man (film), List of Columbia Pictures films, List of Touchstone Pictures films, List of Universal Pictures films: changing Bicentennial Man's studio
• Kevin Bacon filmography, Kevin Costner filmography, and Hollow Man: changing Bacon's Hollow Man credit to Costner
• The Nutty Professor (1996 film) and Nutty Professor II: The Klumps: changing "Universal Pictures" to "Columbia Pictures"
• King-Size_Homer: changing "Fox" to "CBS" and "20th Century Fox" to "Columbia TriStar"

The IPs:

• 50.171.232.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.30.197.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 205.215.222.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (currently blocked already)
• 205.215.222.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Trivialist (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice... 1, 2, and 4 are now blocked for 1 year. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If they come back please re-notify and we will partial protect the lot of the articles they're screwing with. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uninvolved admin needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd appreciate it if someone would come along and check Talk:Washington Court House, Ohio and the history of its article, together with the non-mainspace contributions of the people recently involved therein. Several days ago, one of the participants in the recent events asked me to intervene, along with asking another admin, who (perhaps more wisely than I) hasn't intervened. As I see it, we've got several people (apparently WP:MEAT, but I'm not yet thoroughly convinced) attempting to add one online publication to the article on this city, all the while demonising ThomasSchroeder, the only other participant who seems to be participating in good faith. This isn't new, as it's been going on at least since October; since that and a few related edits have been partly oversighted, I'm going to ask an oversighter's assistance. I've gotten the impression from some comments (and from one of the usernames, "Leavewikifactsalone") that the yes-let's-add people are working together with the online publication, since the publication tends to come up with its own pages (example) on points of this issue's arguments within hours of the arguments being made on-wiki. I've just fully protected the article on WP:SOCK and WP:SPAM grounds, and I'd especially appreciate it if someone would either confirm that this is the right thing, or revoke the protection on you-went-too-far grounds, or block some of the participants on you-didn't-go-far-enough grounds. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've looked at the page and the pages requested and I am getting the same kind of feeling that I did when being confronted with members of a specific fandom who were trying to establish a walled gardeden of articles. I could see the EEML canvasing/off-wiki-coordination remedies, but that's a bit of a stretch. Perhaps a EditNotice letting all editors know that the page is being watched for attempts to subvert on wiki consensus might do the trick... Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's about right. That doesn't look like a reliable news source at all; practically all the stories are posted by one person and it doesn't look very neutral at all to me. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Leavewikifactsalone (talk · contribs) with a {{usernamehardblock}}. Might as well have called him/herself getthefuckoffmyarticle (talk · contribs). There are a ton of ATT IP addresses in Columbus OH that seem to be the same individual adding the same info. Toddst1 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I left an opinion, Nyttend. It's opposite of yours, but I took a different approach to my analysis than you did.--v/r - TP 15:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the input and the block. I wanted to block the account several days ago (without even checking the comments), purely because of the username, but I thought I might as well engage on WP:AGF grounds. Your opinion isn't exactly opposite of mine; my position was that it's being treated as media by other media sources, so we might as well include it as local media — after all, counting it as local media doesn't mean we count it as WP:RS. Final question: is the protection too much, too little, or just right? Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi would probably work just fine unless there is a sock farm.--v/r - TP 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Downgraded per your suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's just one article, can't that particular URL be added to the Wikipedia external link blacklist? Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to blacklist it. It's not that it can't be used ever, it's that it can only be used in an appropriate context. As a WP:SPS, it shouldn't ever be used to write in Wikipedia voice, for example. And it certainly shouldn't be used to cite itself as a municipal city council servicing media.--v/r - TP 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antidiskriminator

Can I get opinions on Antidiskriminator's conduct at the talkpage of the recently created Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo article? I had opened an informal move suggestion section only to hear him tell me that I must file a formal WP:RM after a lengthy discussion and a third opinion was voiced agreeing on the suggestion. I could have been bold and moved it from the start as one can't speak of a formal RM discussion for the initial poorly worded title either, but I figured the right and proper thing to do was to hear his opinion and that of other interested editors on the matter first. I voiced my arguments and offered a compromise title to which a third user had stated it was a improvement over the one that Antidiskriminator preferred. By that time Antidiskriminator effectively suggested we pretend the informal move discussion did not occur and have us simply reiterate our prior arguments in a formal one. I pointed out that he had only done so only when a resemblance of consensus had come about and that it was simple stonewalling on his part. I specifically pointed out that WP:RM states that "it is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." I and other editors have had previous frustrations with his conduct in the past and as result I have limited patience given I know where the discussions may carry. My prior significant interaction with him was being involved in discussions that carried months on end thanks to his extraordinary effort to force his POV while I and a co-editor were attempting to promote a article to featured status. [73][74] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The article itself seems to have very carefully cherrypicked content, but I suppose we have to accept that as normal in the Balkans.

Back on topic, reliable sources tend to prefer language like "demonstrations" and "rioting" so it's rather frustrating that this article has been transformed into a "pogrom"; a pogrom is a massacre, and in reality, the events were not a massacre. Of course with the article's creator stonewalling, and an ally on hand who provides Antidiskriminator with unwavering support in each RM, it's unlikely that any requested move towards a more neutral name would succeed. bobrayner (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, PRODUCER, the informal move discussion is really you and 1 other editor. An RM doesn't always attract more attention than that, but it's tough to argue that one isn't required here when there are only 3 participants. Some advertising on the RM by making a formal RM would actually help. Although now with Bobrayner commenting here, my comments might already be out of date.--v/r - TP 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved on this article, and I have little intention of getting involved, because I'm tired of spending hours trying to bring other Balkan history articles in line with sources only to see the edits automatically reverted by the same old editors. I wish PRODUCER the best of luck. bobrayner (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User Bobrainer is a usual participant in Serb-related subjects who´s open purpose is to fight Serb nationalist fantasy, so it is not a surprise his comment here which involves a historical article where Serbs were victims. It is already usual to see the same group of editors diminishing events that happend to Serbs, but in a similar reverse event pushing for a "Massacre" title. Regarding the issue here, the RM would have been appropriate just as TParis said. FkpCascais (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I have stalkers, it goes with the territory and it was inevitable that somebody would turn up sooner or later and misrepresent one of my edits. I stand by that diff (I stand by what I actually said; it's true; I don't stand by what you just said here because that's not true), and if you want to raise the issue here, I can provide a dozen examples. Several of the recent ones involve you proxying for sanctioned editors, or just directly contradicting what sources say. However, I'd rather we stuck to the topic in this particular thread: Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo. What do you think, FkpCascais?

Good folk of AN/I, I apologise; discussions in this area tend to get out of hand. bobrayner (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I already said, a proper RM would seem correct, as there were only a few participants in that discussion, and a RM would certainly bring more partcipants thus making it possible for a consensus to be reached. (P.S.: I didn´t stalked you, by chance I noteced this thread even before anyone commented it, but once I saw you kind of winning clearly taking sides in this specific dispute, I needed to say that you are far from uninvolved in these matters as you presented yourself to be. Just that.) FkpCascais (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Not helpful--v/r - TP 14:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also think that bringing this here seems more of an bad faith attempt to eliminate an opponent from a discussion, rather that creating consensus. But that has become kind of usual by now... Asking at ANI for a user conduct? Hmm... seems a polite way of saying "I want this user to be blocked but I don´t have diffs for it..." FkpCascais (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC) And here we go with his buddies coming out of the woodwork. Where did I request any sort of block to "eliminate an opponent"? I'm sorry Fkp, but other editors don't share your incredibly simplified view of Wikipedia as a "battlefield" where people are to be "eliminated". Who is "diminishing events that happend to Serbs"? Is 23 editor, the third editor and a Serbian one might I add, complicit with me in this insidious anti-Serb plot? I mean really, your are in no position to lecture other editors. [75][76] Only when the discussion shifted against the absurd status quo did Antidiskriminator say there must be a "formal" RM. There's a reason for that, he pulls out whatever stop he can possibly get his hand on, be it a policy or procedural grounds, and tries to enforce a selective sentence of it. That's just how he operates. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note - tagging move discussions with WP:RM will trigger bots to advertize the discussion on the Article alerts pages of all tagged WikiProjects. So, assuming all the relevant WPs are tagged, this would bring attention to the issue from members of the community much better than AN/I. It's probably annoying to have to say "please read [[#title discussion]] above", but it's not actually useless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Joy, we are both aware of how requested moves typically go down here. Editors belonging to a particular ethnic/national "voting bloc" usually "stumble" (Fkp's little "notice by chance" above is a case in point) into the discussion and loyally vote their title regardless of what evidence or arguments are at hand. Antidiskriminator's insistence that there must be a formal RM came only after some headway was made. His "contesting" through an article move revert is supported by no one but himself though he is quick to claim my move is consensus deficient. Amusing really. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to claim a WP:TAGTEAM or WP:ALLSOCKS (although a better term would be all meat in this case) doesn't exactly encourage helpful discussion from Antidiskriminator or anyone else. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. PRODUCER, I think the best approach right now is a full RM. Not because Antidiskriminator asked for one, but because there was really only 3 editors involved and a wider consensus would be helpful.--v/r - TP 17:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my observation given my time here, but I'll file the RM at your insistence. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I know what you're saying but the process can't really be optimized further. At the end of the day we depend on RM closing admins not to be clueless and ignore votes in favor of arguments. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

An IP address causing problems at a talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article, me and other users have repeatedly warned this IP address that talk pages aren't forums but he doesn't seem to understand. Due to his/her edit-warring ([77][78][79][80]), the talk page has already went through article protection. Something needs to be done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I warned the user on his/her talk page. Actually, I issued two warnings because the comments s/he was making sounded rather bigoted. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And now s/he's complaining about me. Guess I walked into that one (I can handle it though). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I can't handle it. Can someone block this person, please? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs) has been treating the talk page like a forum the past week or so. S/he has been edit-warring over libel remarks which is not helpful in building an encyclopedia. The user has already been warned on his/her talk page a few hours ago. This is the second time I am here at ANI in the past 24 hours. The talk page has already gone through page protection due to the problems caused by the user. Numerous users have done everything they could to tell him or her to stop treating wikipedia like a forum and to please talk about how to build a better encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that hasnt been done yet. Proper action against the user is required asap. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked already; hadn't seen this thread yet. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed for SIU seal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

File:Siuseal.gif was edited, replacing the SIU seal with the new SIU Edwardsville seal, which is NOT appropriate for the SIU system or for SIU Carbondale. Other editors and I have tried to revert it to the actual SIU seal, but it retains the new SIUE seal: File:Siuseal.gif

Needed: 1) Reversion of File:Siuseal.gif to actual SIU seal; 2) Creation of new file for the new SIUE seal. GWFrog (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done - new upload is at File:Southern Illinois University Edwardsville seal.jpg -- Diannaa (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page-move dispute on Die Freiheitlichen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since its creation, the title of the article was rejected. "Die Freiheitlichen" is a political party representing a german minority in northern Italy, for which no english or italian translation exists. A single user insists on translating that name, suggesting and trying different translations ("The Libertarians", "The Freedomites", ... all original research with no occurence in valid sources), but gains no consensus. The extensive discussion is summarised here. In short: most editors (except one) support to leave the german proper name as title for this article. But moving the article to the "agreed" title "Die Freiheitlichen" results in this one editor reverting the move. In HIS opinion, consensus means, that HE has to agree, not the majority.--Sajoch (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It would really help if you specified which "single user" you're speaking of (I think I have an idea, but...), and after you do that, you have to notify him/her about this discussion. At any rate, this sounds like a job for WP:RPP, which I'll do right now. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Mallexikon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mallexikon edited against WP:CON at the German acupuncture trials article

Mallexikon did not have consensus to keep the coat rack material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. Editors commented at the AFD that there were problems with the article, including the problems with the WP:COATHOOK text. See WP:LOCALCON. Mallexikon did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that We found consensus to limit the information about the results. But Mallexikon restored the outdated information about the results of the trials along with the low level details that do not benefit the reader. There was consensus to limit the information about the results, but Mallexikon continued to restore the disputed unimportant details that are not WP:MEDRS compliant.

Mallexikon edited against WP:CON at the Traditional Chinese medicine article

Mallexikon do not have consensus to continue to restore the original research and medrs violations. After I explained the text failed verification and the sources were not MEDRS complaint, Mallexikon did not provide verification for the original research and did not show the sources were MEDRS complaint but decided to go ahead and removed the tags when the sources and text still had problems at that time.

I tried discussing the serious problems with both of the articles on the editor's talk page. But Mallexikon continues to argue for including the MEDRS violations at the German acupuncture trials article and continues to argue for including the original research and MEDRS violations at the Traditional Chinese medicine article. I'm not trying to be cruel here, but WP:COMPETENCE is required. Mallexikon should not be allowed to continue to violate the rules on Wikipedia. There has been too much of WP:IDHT as well as WP:TE editing by Mallexikon. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@QuackGuru - If someone edited without consensus, that person is clearly you. -A1candidate (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Myself and another editor over at Edward Makuka Nkoloso are having a disagreement and the interpretations of policy are so fundamentally different that I think we need a few more opinions on the matter. Thanks! Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm "other editor". Agreed requiring arbitration/unbiased opinion. Open to suggestions on best and least intrusive method. Roguetech (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you post this at WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That was next on my list, and I have since done so. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the dispute on whether the orphan tag belongs on the page? Or is it something to do with the sources—I'm a bit confused, but you seem to be altering both. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The source saying that Nkosolo was going to be a Martian missionary is the main one. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"The source saying that Nkosolo was going [to send] a Martian missionary is the main one." Whether he wishes to dispute the others issues of orphan, notability, etc.... I would suggest (on his behalf) that the other issue is the source at http://ed5015.tripod.com/PaZambiaSpaceFlight2.htm Roguetech (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2002 Gujarat violence

There is a bit of a BLP issue going on here, new editor calling various academics muslim extremists (they are not BTW). He has added the content three times now, I have posted to his talk page twice and the article talk page also, can an admin give him a poke please? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Further to this, there are source misrepresentation, "Many newspapers and inquiry commission pointed this as targeted attack on Hindu Pilgrims returning from Aayodha" is entirely wrong, only one commission has said the attack on the train was pre planned. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone is trying to remove the properly cited content to make the text one sided. Every sentence added is cited and there are court verdicts which are important issue for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprabin (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the points above. This edit:"the 2002 Gujarat violence, also termed as the Gujarat pogrom by the muslim extremists<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ppFuAAAAMAAJ Gujarat Pogrom-2002, Krishna Gopal, Jaunpuri Shiksha Mission, 2006]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p5s8hooZfekC Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India, Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi, Princeton University Press, 2012]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M0ZuAAAAMAAJ The Gujarat pogrom: compilation of various reports, Indian Social Institute, 2002]</ref> " - where precisely do you get "muslim extremists" from? Who actually calls them that? Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:CDTPP abuse to my userpage and usertalk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have previously reported User:CDTPP as an obvious sockpuppet of User:Richard Daft, but decided to take no further action on my report as I decided to give this user a chance to redeem himself and become a positive contributor to the project. However, he has made abusive comments on both my usertalk and userpage and it's about time his uncivil editing was dealt with. I edit this site and expect both my userpage to be left alone and to be able to use this site without being the subject of abuse from someone who is still the subject of a community ban, which can be seen here. The latest abuse from today can be seen here, with vandalism to my userpage carried out here and a personal attack back in August here which took a number of months to notice. Now considering this user is banned by the community, I think I've been rather generous in allowing this troll to stay about and prove himself as being mature and to show competence, however clearly civility is beyond this individual. The majority of his edits seem to be some creepy stalking of pages I have created (though not against the rules it is nonetheless weird). Going further back he user has made personal attacks [81] against User:Dweller. I'm asking that this disruptive editor be dealt with by an admin as quite frankly he's had his chance, is flouting a community ban and is close to driving a long term user away from this site (in the same way he drove away long-term WP:CRIC editor User:BlackJack. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Although what he said in your first diff seemed rather rude, the sockpuppet investigation didn't confirm that that account is actually his after all. Normally I would suggest you go to WP:RPP, but since you are otherwise retired, I'm not sure you'll feel like doing that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My userpage is already protected, as this user previously operated under a number of IPs and so the page was protected so just registered users only could edit it. This was also the case with User:BlackJack and such was the disruption caused by this individual to the WP:CRIC project that the project talk page was protected. What would you suggest in getting this disruptive user dealt with? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I warned him/her. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know about Richard Daft, but it looks like a different sockpuppet is afoot (I didn't open an SPI because this new account hasn't actually made any bad edits, but I'll watch him/her). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have opened an SPI here and shall add that new sockpuppet to it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to NAC this, but I decided not to because I'm still not convinced (yet) that either new user is a sockpuppet of Mr. Daft. Thus, the SPI and the incivil statements are two different issues. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Think this can be NAC now, the user in question has been banned and CU found multiple sockpuppets and a probable link to Richard Daft. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:JujitsuJohn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has done nothing but create a string of frivolous article deletion requests, which would suggest that he is WP:NOTHERE. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that nominating Language and Human skull for deletion are disruptive nominations, those are two nominations in two months. I strikes me as premature to characterize this as a "string of ... requests" unless there are deleted contributions that are invisible to non-admin editors. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Two points are sufficient to define a line, especially in the absence of any oher points. But if people want to wait for him to put up a third one before acting, that's OK with me. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For a new editor to jump into Wikipedia with two patently ludicrous AFD nomination can only mean a deliberate troll. Assuming good faith would be a little naive in this case, surely? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll note that I non-admin closed the "Human skull" AFD. Chris857 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Although I generally try to assume good faith, I always get suspicious when a user's very first edit (or one of his/her first edits) is an AfD). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Debate at Talk:Santa Claus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the past two weeks or so a debate has been going on at Talk:Santa Claus over what position the article should take in stating whether or not Santa Claus is a palpable entity, most of which can be seen here. While the discussion initially started over which adjective best fit the introductory sentence (the debate primarily focused on using "fictitious", "fantasy", "mythical", or some combination of these), it has since evolved into dispute about the entire article's focus on the reality of Santa Claus of which the editors involved seem to be almost equally divided for and against. Two sources currently used in the article confirm Santa Claus as non-existent (although the credibility of the about.com source could be questionable).

Ultimately, I would like to know how to advance in this situation as well as receive the opinions of non-involved editors. felt_friend 01:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The reality of Santa is an ongoing contentious issue. Some believe he's real, some believe he's fake. "Mythical" is usually acceptable to both. You appear to want the article to be "Santa-denying" which is a non-neutral POV. I hope you had a merry Christmas, or whichever winter (northern) holiday(s) you celebrate. htom (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that explicitly stating that Santa Claus is a fictitious character does not violate NPOV as per the citations provided. That being said, thank you and I hope you have also had an enjoyable holiday season. felt_friend 02:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't believe in Santa, you're not going to get any gifts for Christmas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Big Ol' Guy is based on the historical St Nikolaos and is a figure central to traditional seasonal festivities. So mythical rather than fictional. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm on vacation with limited access to the Net but since I was notified and was the editor involved at the start of the discussion on the talk page I have to ask: This is at ANI? Seriously? This is a content dispute. Look at WP:DRN for the steps you can take. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. There is no action needed here from the administrators. only (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Santa Claus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

On Pantheism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Pantheism, a user User:NaturaNaturans is reverting the years old content for almost no described reason, except "advertising", once tells me to bring to talks, and then reverts without even discussing, saying "stop edit warring." I find it obvious Wikipedia:I just don't like it issue. Because every single removed sentence is sourced, and doesn't claim any dubious. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have problems with both editors on this one. I find at least some of the sources used by Bladesmulti to be highly questionable, as for example this page from the World Pantheist Movement which isn't really suitable material anyway (it's an apologia for constructing a supposedly Christian form of pantheism), but even then it is being used to justify a statement which it implicitly disputes (it admits in the first sentences that Christianity is in general panentheistic rather than pantheistic). That said, NaturaNaturans's sense of ownership of the article is extreme. It takes two to edit-war, and here we have those two. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry User:Mangoe, I haven't posted "http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/gospel.htm", it's some other editor who did. I only added the sources to single section. Not any other. Look properly. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it appears that I am claiming 'ownership' of the page, I apologize. That is not my intention. Bladesmulti is attempting to add obscure information about Hinduism and even put up a Hindu plant as the lead picture of the page about pantheism. It's silly. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh, i only sourced the years old information, because it was removed by you. Other than that if the plant has polytheistic values, how it cannot be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This issue seems more suitable for WP:3. (Incidentally, I give third opinions quite often, but this is such a touchy subject that I'm going to let someone else try and sort it out.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Listed at WP:3. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Pantheism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Pantheism, a user User:NaturaNaturans is reverting the years old content for almost no described reason, except "advertising", once tells me to bring to talks, and then reverts without even discussing, saying "stop edit warring." I find it obvious Wikipedia:I just don't like it issue. Because every single removed sentence is sourced, and doesn't claim any dubious. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have problems with both editors on this one. I find at least some of the sources used by Bladesmulti to be highly questionable, as for example this page from the World Pantheist Movement which isn't really suitable material anyway (it's an apologia for constructing a supposedly Christian form of pantheism), but even then it is being used to justify a statement which it implicitly disputes (it admits in the first sentences that Christianity is in general panentheistic rather than pantheistic). That said, NaturaNaturans's sense of ownership of the article is extreme. It takes two to edit-war, and here we have those two. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry User:Mangoe, I haven't posted "http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/gospel.htm", it's some other editor who did. I only added the sources to single section. Not any other. Look properly. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it appears that I am claiming 'ownership' of the page, I apologize. That is not my intention. Bladesmulti is attempting to add obscure information about Hinduism and even put up a Hindu plant as the lead picture of the page about pantheism. It's silly. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh, i only sourced the years old information, because it was removed by you. Other than that if the plant has polytheistic values, how it cannot be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This issue seems more suitable for WP:3. (Incidentally, I give third opinions quite often, but this is such a touchy subject that I'm going to let someone else try and sort it out.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Listed at WP:3. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RoslynSKP breach of Arbcom restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

During a recent ARBCOM hearing case closed on 23 December 2013 RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) was restricted in reverting Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#RoslynSKP revert restriction RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period. They appear to have broken that restriction over 26/27 December.

1. [82] reverted [83]
2. [84] reverted [85]
3. [86] reverted [87]
4. [88] reverted [89]

Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

RoslySKP has been notified of discussion. [90] Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are all reverts, with the added distraction that the normally suggested "Undid revision" or "Reverted edit" summaries have been purposefully changed to appear like good faith edits were being made. This is not only in breach of ArbCom's revert sanction, but their finding that inaccurate edit summaries were being made Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Proposed decision#RoslynSKP: Edit warring – this is a clear repeat of that behaviour, only RoslynSKP has attempted to make it appear more subtle. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• It appears to me that the situation is more complex than Jim Sweeney is presenting it, and he is leaving out that the article contained a sourced reference to the unit's involvement in Gallipol - [91], which Sweeney's edit removed - [92], and that he then edit warred with RoslynSKP in order to keep that accurate information out of the article. This could be read as an attempt by Sweeney to incite RoslynSKP into an edit war, and then get her topic banned. I think it might make sense if both Jim Sweeney and RoslynSKP were put on a clear and simple 0RR, and if either breaks that, then they get blocks of increasing duration. These blocks would be distinct from any blocks related to the ArbCom case remedy. It is difficult in a dispute where two people have been in conflict to restrict one and not the other. One sided solutions can end up with situations as we have here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment (and I declare myself as one who has edited the article at times, and had views opposite to those of RoslynSKP) - re No. 1 Gallipoli edit. That some constituent units of the Division had served in Gallipoli is in the article (first sentences of the "Formation" section), is not disputed, and JimSweeney had not removed that from the article. He had removed reference to it the lede with the summary "misleading suggests the division fought at Gallipoli" GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Incidentally, as a breach of an arbcom-imposed restriction, I think this would normally be raised at WP:AE rather than here? (Although, since it's now here it presumably might as well stay here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of Gallipoli in the lede has also been discussed on the talk page Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Lede section and Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Gallipoli campaign The second link from 21 December The division never served in the Gallipoli campaign so to mention it in the lead is way off focus. Can you self revert or provide a reason it should be there. And @ SilkTork in order to keep that accurate information out of the article. there is no reference that the division fought at Gallipoli as it was formed after that campaign had ended. so I did not removed sourced content. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• "This could be read as an attempt by Sweeney to incite RoslynSKP into an edit war, and then get her topic banned." – No it couldn't. Given that ArbCom laid down a specific sanction of "one revert per page in any 72 hours" and RoslynSKP has clearly made four reverts, and not only that but attempted to mask those reverts with friendly looking edit summaries, and not only that but within days of the ArbCom ruling, this isn't a question of whether she was baited into war editing, but that she has acted against ArbCom's decision and attempted to conceal it. Looking at what content was changed and ignoring the actual editor's behaviour is completely missing the point; the ArbCom ruling focused on behavioural issues not content. Am I seriously seeing here that after all that trouble to secure an ArbCom ruling those behaviours are being ignored, because the longer ANI prattles on about content changes rather than ArbCom breaches the wider the time gap becomes between incident and reaction, making any call for a block to actually enforce ArbCom's sanctions too distant to be applied, giving RoslynSKP more reason to flaunt ArbCom on a later date. In short, we're repeating history here by wasting so much time on the wrong issues that the real concerns are being cast aside and offenders unpunished. I appreciate that SilkTork took time to look for any signs that RoslynSKP was baited by Jim, but you can't really claim that four concealed reverts was the result of a minor provocation. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • MarcusBritish sit down, have a biscuit. Your hysterics are doing nothing to resolve the issue, but inflame it more. I'm going to propose that since you're looking for an arbitration remedy to be enforced, that you and Jim Sweeney file an Arbitration Enformcement action and specifically ask for expedited enforcement as the issue has already been discussed somewhat and the detatchment from the offenses is growing. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no hysterics here and nothing to inflame, so a little less of your hyperbolic cheek, laddie. The terms of RoslynSKP's sanctions include a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Proposed decision#Standard enforcement – I can only propose that ANI haven't got the compunction to act on it despite the evidence above. All those admins "willing to make difficult blocks". So far in 2-years, not one has had the gall to do that in this case, and now there are ArbCom initiatives granting blocks they still don't. Now, if you're only interested in your wiki-career and not the particular concerns at hand, please do not waste my time pinging me with frivolous remarks about biscuits, you'd do better to look who is actually at fault in this matter by reading the evidence given above instead of idly parading yourself in an attack on others interests just to create unnecessary drama for yourself. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Responses to Jim Sweeney -

1. This is not a revert. Jim Sweeney had undone an edit by me claiming it was misleading as it suggested the division fought in ANZAC. I redrafted the information to ensure that it was the men who were being described, not the division.

2. I replaced the word "defeat" with "stopped" as no territory was lost and the EEF occupied the position unopposed the next day.

3. I reinstated part of the information cut by Jim Sweeney to do with the direct quote as the paraphrase is misleading. This was not a straight revert, as I did not include the information about the Vilayets also cut by Jim Sweeney.

4. As the inbox did not include any battles, only the name of the campaign, I added three notable operations per the Template guide. This was not a straight revert as Jim Sweeney cut the Battle of Romani, the Southern Palestine Offensive (not mentioned in the Battles subsection) and the Third Transjordan attack. They were replaced by Battle of Romani, Southern Palestine Offensive and Battle of Megiddo (1918) (not mentioned in the battles subsection}. For some reason Jim Sweeney cut these notable battles from the infobox. Even in the body of the article, in the Battles subsection, Jim Sweeney has cut mention of the First Battle of Amman and the Second Battle of Amman.

I have attempted to discuss these issues and more, on the Talk page here [93], here [94], here [95], here [96], here [97] and [98], without any response. --Rskp (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You've obviously never read the definition of a WP:REVERT ... and how the clearer definition in WP:3RR applies quite clearly to WP:1RR. You've totally violated your restriction ... unbelievably, really ES&L 00:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

... and in case you miss it: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" ES&L 00:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Never having read all the guidelines on Wikipedia, and never having been directed to these links before, I thought a revert was undoing the whole edit by someone else. --Rskp (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@RoslynSKP: At Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division you began seven threads in three days, each complaining about various content issues, including one called "Ownership issues" made against Jim Sweeney on 26 December. Despite the intentions of the ArbCom case to lessen the disputes, you have in fact only continued to escalate your behaviour further, including your surreptitious reverts – you've been on Wiki for 3.5 years, there is no way you can claim not to know what qualifies as a revert except by playing ignorant and hoping it will be seen as "a simple mistake" along with all your other "mistakes" noted on ArbCom. And do you seriously think seven disputes is reasonable and not overly presumptuous? And why are you complaining that no one replied quickly enough.. it's the Xmas/New Year period, people often have other things to do during this period that run around responding to a shopping list full of your disputes. You don't need to have "read all the guidelines" to have a little common sense, and there's nothing to stop you looking up a guideline or policy before committing to an action, as it's usually ANI that leads you to regret in retrospect. For someone who has "all the answers" from a period 100 years old, you sure lack the skill to find answers to being a better editor in the Wikipedia pages, as you're quickly heading yourself towards unsuspending that topic ban ArbCom proposed. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Since most of us just came from Arbcom, let me post this here:

An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
2. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
3. RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
4. For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
5. Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

Now there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Roslyn is in breach of arbcom mandated restrictions. Whatever else may be debated above, the fact that more than one revert occurred here means that the first uninvolved admin has an ethical obligation to block RSKP in accordance with an arbcom mandate, and the longer the guilty party goes without a block the worse this is going to get. We can sort the greater whole of this mess out later, but right now we need that block. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user is still causing problems at a talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs) has been treating the talk page like a forum the past week or so. S/he has been edit-warring over libel remarks which is not helpful in building an encyclopedia. The user has already been warned on his/her talk page a few hours ago. This is the second time I am here at ANI in the past 24 hours. The talk page has already gone through page protection due to the problems caused by the user. Numerous users have done everything they could to tell him or her to stop treating wikipedia like a forum and to please talk about how to build a better encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that hasnt been done yet. Proper action against the user is required asap. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newby posted BLP on user page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The business article they started has been deleted and the BLP, repeated on his user page, Annael is likely to be deleted also. There's a chance this is the subject of the article who founded the company and doesn't yet understand Wikipedia. See User:Mr_Annael. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The user page is not problematic. The mainspace article about the person, Annael, has a BLP PROD template on it. Administrator action doesn't seem to be needed until the clock on that runs out. (It doesn't seem to meet the A7 criterion.) I've added a conflict of interest notice to the existing warnings/notifications already on the user's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The "article" needs to go long before the expiry of a PROD, the userpage is bordering on promotion. ES&L 12:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked for sourcing but found very little, although sources certainly may exist in another language. I didn't see anything as violating BLP on the article so maybe it's just too early for that subject. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a wholly non-notable person who thinks this is LinkedIn ES&L 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the article as an expired prod and added the {{userspace}} and {{__NOINDEX}} tags to his userspace. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashkenazi Jews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We just had a conflict on Ashkenazi Jews where consensus was reached with great trouble. Now Nishidani (talk · contribs), who in the beginning participated in the consensus forming process, started to make non-consensus edits, claiming they are "per talk page", while the discussion is still ongoing and at least two editors disagree with his opinion. Please protect the page and warn Nishidani. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of those involved in the discussion, I'm not sure admin actions are needed at this stage. I agree that Nishidani's latest edit was premature (and not correct in my own opinion) but I have the impression all users involved actively discuss and that there is very little edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No consensus was reached. We had three days of stalling, and only Jeppiz took some trouble to actually look at sources. The other editors, Debresser, Tritomex, and now Ankhmorpork, simply asserted an opinion in support of a text that is verifiably false. This frivolous complaint should at least draw administrative eyes to gaming, and Debresser's failure to respond adequately to serious, RS-based edit proposals, in favour of his personal POV. After some days of getting chat, I made this edit, with the edit summary, 'as per talk', where numerous sources justify it, and no one troubled to answer the evidence.

Content-wise, I replaced a statement which represents a widespread traditional view as a fact (violating WP:NPOV), with a statement, supported by quotes from eminent sources, showing the mainstream view, and the fact that some scholars variously contest it.

The only response by Debresser to detailed examination of several sources which corroborate my point were (a) assertions of his personal feelings about the language in question, and (a) a rabbinical joke. No work, no sweat, no reading, just an attitude.

Examine the quality of comment here where there is a clear case of stalling normal editorial decisions. If that is too long the gist is summed up by the contrast in the following diffs between attempts to argue from sources and the flippant replies they receive from Debresser, who is chatting to defend an identifiable POV against policy:

I wrote this, and Debresser replies with his personal opinion which counts apparently for him more than RS

The pattern repeats itself, as I answered here and here and only to see Debresser fashioning a rabbinical story to justify his refusal to accept or even acknowledge the force of the several sources I cited.

That page is generally held hostage, and is a complete mess. I think over two years I've managed to make only four or five successful edits to emend its patent and ubiquitous POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser - warning someone is something you can do. It isn't actually an Administrative action if it is just meant to be an ordinary warning. This isn't the page to request protection either. So the reasons you've given for bringing this here don't seem appropriate for ANI and the only other editor besides Nishidani posting here sees no need for action. I am thereby closing this discussion as there is no appropriate request here for Admin action. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

70.53.97.28

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

70.53.97.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been replacing talk pages of articles about children's movies with the text of the article. I've left two messages on their talk page, but have gotten no response. Not quite vandalism, but unhelpful and baffling. Trivialist (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

User Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly added wrong, not related links in articles, and starting edit wars. Please take some action against it. That user repeatedly adding original research statement ([99]), which has been removed per discussion at talk page, but he readding it again. Adding non related links ([100], [101], [102]). Besides, reverting edits with uncertain/wrong explainations in edit summary. He was previosly blocked 3 times for edit war in same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Δαβίδ (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What discussion on the talk page? There's nothing there but a list of WikiProjects (I even checked the history and found nothing). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

[103], [104] that statement has been removed, but that user added it again and again.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)