Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian

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

---

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs.[1] Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
He has been warned about this various times,[11][12][13][14] but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Wikipedia. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's analysis of the situation. Classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT that has gone on for far too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..

It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support Cuchullain's topic ban proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem with that per David Fuchs's comments on this situation. I agree with Cuchullain that it's perfectly clear that Niemti cannot participate in this article in a collaborative fashion and also that it's about time to look into the situation over at the user's RFC/U. This pattern of disruption is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went to the Anita Sarkeesian article and talk page expecting to see a woman-hating disruptive editor harassing other editors, based upon the description given above, but that's not what I saw. Many of the editors Niemti suggested did, in fact, advance the cause of NPOV policy. He has a clear view, but it's clear that certain editors are wikilawyering to prevent that view from being even mentioned in the article. When editors try to argue that an article about a woman known for criticizing video games for sexism has nothing to do with video games and therefore sources about videogames cannot be used in the article, that's crazy. When they try to prevent published criticism of the topic of the article by saying that the source is not reliable because it is a video game blog (video game blogs can be reliable) but allows a lot of primary sources and feminist blogs to be used as sources, that's not following WP:RS, that's cherry picking sources to use the article as a promotional piece advancing her views and her career. In my opinion Niemti is not any more guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT than the editors currently their rejecting his input. Wiipedia editors are far too quick to try to block people over disagreements over views instead of actual behavior. This is just civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that regulars of WP:VG appear to have a thing or two to learn about critical analysis of references. Some of the nonsense sourcing (blogs, forums, fan databases, "quote references") that many video game articles get away with would never be tolerated in other fields. This is a perfect example of what happens when those standards are applied outside the somewhat sheltered views of gaming aficionados. Peter ^Isotalo 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't stress enough that WikiProject Video Games does not call the source in question (Destructoid) "reliable". This is something that Niemti keeps on saying that simply isn't true. WP:VG classifies it as "situational", as it can only be used in rare instances, because sometimes their stories are picked up by more reliable sources, showing it's likely reliable/true information, yet Destructoid should ultimately get credited for being the source. There's no way that this is one of those scenarios where WP:VG would deem the source useable. So don't misdirect the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Content matters aren't at issue here. The issue is Niemti's behavior, which has been totally disruptive to the article. Comments like this have no place anywhere on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this your diff shows exactly what we disagree about. In the diff, Niemti simply makes an argument that a person is not really notable. This may or may not be a correct argument (I would have to do my own research), but I do not see this at all as a BLP violation or a personal attack. I would never make such comment. However, if someone else made such comment in discussion with me, I would consider this comment as frank and straight to the point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Niemti has repeatedly attempted to insert his own favored POV into the article in obvious violation of WP:RS and without any understanding of the topic at hand. Niemti has plagued the talkpage with long-winded rants, general incivility and only two days ago a disingenuous attempt to move the article. He has time and time again shown that he is unwilling or incapable of listening to arguments or to respect consensus.

Are you trying to tell us that Niemti's behavior in this case has actually been helpful and constructive...?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wishes, again, this isn't about the content matters Niemti brings up, it's about his disruptive behavior. In that single edit, Niemti went, FORUM-style, on an irrelevant tangent about some other YouTuber, ignored previous warnings to stick to discussing article improvements, and claimed, with no backing or relevance whatsoever, that Sarkeesian engineered the trolling campaign in a "media-savy way" to "start a huge moral panic" in order to benefit financially from it. Oh, and he suggests she should have just rolled over for her harassers or "counter-attack literally using her vagina". Are you really suggesting this is appropriate and productive talk page discussion? And people wonder why few women edit Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was probably an inappropriate statement, but a quote from elsewhere and about a different person. Still, I would advise Niemti should stay away of this page. As about women in the project, come on, they simply have more important things to do than waste their time here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That kind of blasé comment does not alleviate any concerns, you know.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not be so much concerned about this particular statement to bring the matter to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

These examples are merely to show that Niemti refuses to take feminists like Sarkeesian seriously. This is about campaigning for months to skew the article to fit his own personal preferences, and for choking the talkpage in the process. Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If the comment were isolated it would not be a matter for ANI. However, it's part of a pattern of similar negative and unsourced comments about a BLP along with various other disruptive behaviors that have continued for over two months.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I still do not think that any statement by Niemti provided in the diffs above (on the article talk page) represents a clear-cut BLP violation. However, I would strongly advise Niemti to voluntarily stop editing this page, stop commenting about this person and make a clear statement about this here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral agree with DreamGuy. While Niemti's view may be unpopular, I don't see any blatant BLP issues by him in the discussion. Note also that TRPoD's closure of discussion was not appropriate, as he has already voiced his opinion in the discussion with comments, he has a conflict of interest and should not close the move discussion. As I'm not a participant in the actual discussion, however, I'll just go with neutral !vote. Still waiting for Niemti's statement, though... Satellizer ^talkcontribs 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)I've decided to remove my !vote per the comments responding to this and other comments; I thus have no opinion on this issue.Satellizer (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the BLP problem as much as that there's clear consensus against what he's trying to do, and yet time and time again he wastes editors time with his incoherent rants and attitude, and has even made comments that seem to suggest he's going to just go against consensus once editors lose interest in the topic. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may be neutral in your vote, but you're definitely not neutral in your commentary. It's not a matter of unpopularity. This is a classic example of "Experts are scum" in my view, something which I thought was rather rare on Wikipedia these days. The views Niemti is trying to push so obstinately are about as relevant as the views of an oil lobbyist in a debate about global warming. Gender studies may not be as "hard" a science as climatology, but it sure as hell is more absolute than the opinionated and uninformed editorials of video game reviewers. Peter ^Isotalo 03:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If a source is reliable, it's reliable. Your comments here suggest that you don't think games journalists can be considered reliable for a game-related topic, which seems pretty absurd. Niemti might not be a productive Wikipedian but your attitude is not helpful either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It's really simple. Hot Rod Magazine might be a reliable source when it comes to the topic of cars, however it is not a reliable source for the theory of relativity...even if the theory of relativity is applied to cars. Similarly, game journalists might be reliable sources for games, however they are not reliable sources for cultural studies/women's studies/etc...even if those things are applied to games--which is what's going on in this instance. So no, a reliable source for one topic isn't a reliable source for another topic. As mentioned above, failing to get this point (WP:RS) is one of the problems. DonQuixote (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment. Clearly I believe that taken as a whole, Niemti's rantings, many of which just introduce unsourced gossip, disparaging innuendo, and personal gripes about Sarkeesian and her motivations, constitute a BLP issue. But even if you disagree on that point, there's still the matter that his repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the WP:TPG, his unwillingness to get on track despite numerous warnings, and his bludgeoning of editors who disagree with him. This is patently disruptive and it needs to stop.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts, exactly. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as my analysis mirrored DreamGuy's --Nouniquenames 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support in agreement with comments by Cuchullain and Sergecross. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Niemti is an excellent editor when working alone on uncontroversial subjects, but terrible at working with others. He is unable to make even the slightest concession to other editors and becomes demanding, patronising and sarcastic almost immediatly upon sighting an alternate point of view. This issue is not about what the Sarkeesian article should look like, but the way he goes about the discussion, which is wholly inappropriate and completely disruptive to civil, useful discussion. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• First, and foremost, I'd like to start of by saying that I do not consider Niemti to be sexist, at all. The arguments sighted on the article's talk page stem more from a disagreement about the source of Sarkeesian's notability than any misogynist sentiments on his part. Nevertheless, the concern is that he is using said talk page as a platform to express his opinions (or as he may call them, "facts" — of the variety that cannot be adequately verified by any third-party sources) regarding the subject, and specifically the reasons in which she is considered significant enough to have a biography on Wikipedia; it delves into BLP-violating territory when he says that her fame mostly comes from the harassment campaign levied against her, which cannot possibly be substantiated in the article. It's hard to really get a good sense of what he's trying to accomplish in his contributions there, and it's unfortunately stirred up a great deal of ill will among the participants. Therefore, I'll have to echo the sentiments of My very best wishes in suggesting that Niemti disengages from the topic altogether, precluding the need for an actual community sanction. I think he would find much more satisfaction in editing other topics of interest than from continuing to beat this particular dead horse. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Echoing DaveFuchs and NE Ent, as I see it there's already consensus that Niemti should not be editing video game articles at all. bridies (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I came from my weekend and I see what. You "should not be editing video game articles at all", too, but also maybe first decide if this is a video game article or not (allegedly it sin't). The article is also using Kotaku, which is a very unprofessional video game tabloid blog (as noted by the acclaimed game director Hideki Kamiya[15]). And you know what's "disruptive"? Not allowing a discussion on talk page, replying with "fucking deal" and such, doing things like this thread. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, amd also I just though about it, and this single-event article should be merged into something like "Women and video gaming controversies" (or some better name, it was quick). Which would also cover the professional gamer Miranda Pakozdi, the game writer Jennifer Hepler, and so on (who all have no articles on Wikipedia, despite being widely reported, too, including in the mainstream press, and often in the very same articles as Sarkeesian - just google them and you'll see). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a fine example of the incoherent, attitude riddled rantings you tend to muddle discussions with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, also not. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to midirect attention away from your disruptive behavior and towards abstract content issues. That's not going to fly.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Niemti shows no sign of relenting either here or at Sarkeesian's talkpage. He's even calling WP:VG/RS "a joke".[16] And then there's the deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies. Topic ban now, please. Peter ^Isotalo 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has been going on for just a few days. As an uninvolved admin, in my view it would be premature to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's time to move forward with this proposal yet, but Niemti's recent spate of commentary contains more of the same problematic behavior and suggests he has no intention of changing.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because treating Kotaku (a source of such fine "journalism" as this or that) an unconditionally reliable source surely must be a joke. Anyway, I'm done hopelessly trying to initiate a proper (with arguments and counter-arguments, instead of abuse and bullying that I'm getting from you) discussion on the changes with the article (the article that I've previously edited more than anyone else). See you at AfD in time. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and (of course) I never made a "deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies", and with this bizarrily absurd comment you've just got a taste of what's going on at this talk page. Now I'm unwatching it, like I just unwatched this article, after being central in building it up. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD right after a unanimously opposed RM. We can add WP:FORUMSHOPPING to the list of disruptive behaviors.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough about Kotaku. If you don't like that there's a consensus that it's reliable, start a discussion at WP:VG to change it. The issue at hand here is the edits you're trying to make to this article, and how you handle yourself on the talk page. Neither of those things have anything to do with Kotaku's status of reliability, so it's irrelevant to discuss here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support narrow topic ban -- it's way past the question of right/wrong or POV. Niemti is being moderately rude (which is hardly unusual) and has shown that he is unable to discuss politely and constructively about, at the very least, this specific topic. This isn't "improving Wikipedia" in the slightest, and that should be everyone's main goal. There's no reason to allow this to further devolve into something even worse and there's plenty of other articles that can be improved. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban The problem is evident, even on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - My conclusion after having read the various points put forth by editors here and at the RM is that a topic ban is appropriate in this situation. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per DreamGuy. And frankly I find the comments by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ("get over it" and "get a on with your life!") and even those by Cúchullain (in the way he describes Niemti's comments - which appear to be civil and reasonable - as "he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants") to be way more uncivil and sanction worthy than anything Niemti has said or done.Volunteer Marek 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I highly suggest you take a look at the related RfC and see that RedPen and Cúchullain's comments, while not necessarily excusable, are small potatoes to the majority of Niemti's reported behavior. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't accept that any of my comments, or Red's for that matter, have been uncivil, though I'll gladly tone it down in the future if it takes some edge off the discussion. It also bears reiteration that no one else in the discussion has made unfounded or inappropriate comments about the subject, gone off on tangents irrelevant to actual article improvements, refused to hear it when consensus is against them, or engaged in forum shopping when they don't get their way. That's the issue here; it's not one problem, it's a pattern of behavior.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't believe calling someone's responses "incoherent rants" is uncivil, especially in Niemti's case, where he almost seems to do it on purpose, or uncontrollably. In calmer past situations, I've kindly asked him to slow down and address issues one by one or with more concise responses, because I couldn't understand what he was trying to say, and he simply wouldn't. He's been told he's hard to understand when he responds like this, and he does it anyways, and yet isn't above complaining when no one sides with him. It's not an attack on him, it's merely an observation on how he handles himself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. I reviewed the diffs as well, and I see a lot of hair pulling over Niemti's responses, some of it uncivil, but nothing worthy of Niemti being TB'ed. Perhaps some new eyes whose owners blood pressure is 120/80 might be helpful at the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo the sentiments of ThomasO1989 and suggest that you take a look at the related RfC about his reported behavioral patterns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I count at least thirteen users, including myself, who have tried to debate Niemti regarding Sarkeesian, a few with a bit more intensity than roughness than necessary, but most of them have engaged with him in a civilized manner. If you want to see a particularly frustrating example of how Niemti has operated, take a look at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 2#Dubious. Fifteen posts in 24 hours just in an attempt to hammer home his own views about what "university-level women's studies courses" means. And that's just one of the early ones from back in November. Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this is the situation when someone (Niemti) actually does a lot for the project, but he is stubborn, strongly opinionated at article talk pages, and he tells exactly what he thinks. However, the info he actually places in articles is good and comply with NPOV. What I did in such cases is allowing the editor (Niemti) to take a lead with creating the content, and discussing only as much as necessary. He suggests merging at article talk page? That's fine. Simply tell "no" and explain why. No need for a long discussion. He proposes and AfD? That's fine. Just vote "keep" and explain why. Hence my "oppose" above. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Niemti is clearly driven by a personal disagreement with the basic tenets of gender studies and critical feminist analysis. And all because someone had the nerve to aim it at his favorite form of popular culture, video games. He's certainly not alone in this, and while he's not the kind of person who is sending death threats and anonymous misogynist abuse, his rants has an openly anti-feminist edge that equates analysis of gender roles with extremism and a host of other prejudices about academic media studies. In other words, you're suggesting that he be allowed to engage in activities that don't have anything to do with article improvement. Why exactly should we humor him, or anyone else, in that respect? Peter ^Isotalo 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It was precisely my point that most of his mainspace edits are actually improvement of content (they have everything to do with article improvement), as evident from his successful participation in creation of good articles and his edits in another subject area where I collaborated with him a few years ago. As about rants at article talk pages (if any), it always takes two or more to tango. Tell and justify your opinion one time if this is something like RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
      • We're discussing a topic ban relating to the Sarkeesian article. Niemti's participation there has been extremely negative with little or no improvement. And the RfC suggests there's been disharmonious dealings in the GA process concerning video game articles. So no matter how many good edits there are elsewhere, they don't simply cancel out the looong sting of bad ones relating to feminist media criticism. I'm not sure what you feel you want justified, btw. Can you be more precise? Peter ^Isotalo 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the quality of Niemti's article work, or any other content matter, isn't at issue here. The problem is his behavior at the talk page, which has been consistently disruptive on multiple fronts.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. It is my understanding that Niemti voluntarily will not edit article about AS and its talk page [17]. I also assume that he will not edit anything about AS on other pages. I hope this thread can be closed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • His voluntary withdrawal can be revoked whenever he wants, a community topic ban can't. If he'd volunteered to do that at the start it would be different, but effectively cancelling consensus already established for a community topic ban with something voluntary he can choose to cancel at any time (and thus forcing the ban consensus to start again from scratch) seems a little too much like gaming the system. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 01:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought consensus is not determined by head count, but by the quality of argument. So, I am not sure if we have consensus. No, I do not think anyone can revoke their promise. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I am, of course, making my own evaluation of consensus in my comment above, based on the quality of the arguments presented. Whoever eventually closes the thread will make their own evaluation. My point, however, was that it's easy for someone looking at consensus for a ban to make a last minute act of apparent concession to try to mitigate the inevitable outcome. Offering to cooperate at the eleventh hour can easily be seen as a 'save your own hide' kind of thing, and doesn't mean the community automatically accepts that the ban is no longer necessary. Some people may not have faith that he'll be able to abide by it, particularly given his history. – NULL ‹talk›
        ‹edits› 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is pretty common that people on the verge of being banned/topic banned to suddenly volunteer to stop, but as Null said, it's not reason to stop this process, as he can chose to change his mind at any point, where it's not the case with a topic ban. I think it's especially important not to stop this discussion based on past comments Niemti has said. On the talk page, he has alluded to the fact that he may wait until things die down and go at it again, and that he believes since he edits the article more than anyone else in the discussion, his opinion counts for more. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to take Niemti at his word, considering his lack of regard for other editors' input over the last two months. However, the bottom line is that he shouldn't touch anything related to Sarkeesian on Wikipedia, voluntarily or otherwise.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also not inclined to take Niemti's word for it, given his history of rejecting other editors' input over the past two months per Cuchullain. Per Sergecross, Niemti alluded to the fact that he might go at it again when things die down. The bottom line is that the editor should not touch the Sarkeesian article or anything related to her on Wikipedia, voluntarily or not. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

By telling this, you guys basically reject his good will offer. If you tell to Neimti that he has absolutely no obligation to keep his word, may be he indeed has no such obligation. I am now confused. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more persuasive if Niemti said explicitly that he would avoid editing or commenting on the subject in the future. The linked comment says no such thing.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not telling that coming forward and criticizing himself in this environment is exactly like Struggle session (or "Comrade's court" in Russia), but in certain ethnic/national cultures this is something man would never do. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This whole BLP thing is terribly overblown. What Niemti actually suggested was to merge or delete the article. That certainly would not hurt the person. Banning a long term well-intended contributor because of this is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The "BLP thing" is certainly an issue, and one of Niemti's making. Taken together, his disparaging and unsourced comments about the subject form a pattern of behavior that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia (and of course that's on top of all his other disruptive behaviors).Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I did not read whole discussion (tl;dr, sorry), but in the most "incriminating" diff above Noemti simply explains why he thinks the person is not notable (hence the suggested merging of page). Yes, he uses available sources to explain his position. Some of them may not be reliable, but this is always happens in articles about people of marginal notability. As about his tone, this is a matter of personal taste. It is pretty common that people are excited during such discussions. Bringing everyone here is not an option. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't regard that as the "most incriminating" diff, it's just particularly illustrative of the various disruptive behaviors in which he's engaged. Honestly, his tone is the least of it - it's far more serious that he's making unsourced negative comments on a BLP, using the talk page as a FORUM, ignoring the input of others, and engaging in forum shopping to get his way.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Some"? None of the sources are reliable. The topic is gender studies, not video game reviewing. Period. The opinions of the gaming community at large is not our concern anymore than John/Jane Doe's kitchen conversations about... whatever. The only major difference between these two is that the gaming community is good at loudly proclaiming its disapproval in online forums. That does not make those loud claims relevant or reliable to Wikipedia as sources. Why is this so hard to accept? Why does a dozen or more users have to spend week after week saying the same thing to the same argumentative person?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the subject is not gender study, but biography. Niemti makes an argument that person is not notable. I personally disagree with his argument, but it is very common that people stray away in such discussions or make an argument unsupported by RS. Bringing them here is counterproductive if the person acts in a good faith and contributes a lot to the project, as in this case. This is because our goal is to maximize participation, editor retention and ultimately creation of content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic of any "criticism" should be the same as the work that is being criticised. As such, trying to introduce any sort of criticism in this article involves gender studies. Thus, in relation to what constitutes a reliable source, as Peter correctly states above, the topic is gender studies and not video game reviewing. DonQuixote (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Stongly oppose topic ban: As an uninvolved editor, I think it is premature IMHO to go directly to an indef topic ban (without even suggesting 3-month ban), which smacks of forever silencing an opponent in a wp:POV_dispute. Meanwhile, the use of non-wp:RS sources, as mentioned above, indicates that all sides of the dispute should request mediation to use sourced text, or perhaps merge the article for lack of sources which sustain a separate page. Also, should disregard "Support" !votes from involved editors, as this seems an atttempt to force the outcome of a "fair fight" by censuring opponents. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If Niemti was an outspoken creationist who engaged in destructive campaigns for months in an article about evolution, would you also describe a call for a topic ban as "forever silencing an opponent"? Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, content issues aren't up for discussion here. This proposal is about Niemti's behavior on the talk page, examples of which are highlighted above.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, it should be made clear that making positive contributions is never an excuse for disruptive behavior, especially on the talk page of Anita Sarkeesian; the examples of which are shown above are all there, clear as crystal. As explicitly stated by Cuchullain, Niemti's disparaging and unsourced comments about the subject form a pattern of disruptive behavior, which is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. And unfortunately, his disruption is part of a pattern of similar negative and unsourced comments about a BLP along with various other disruptive behaviors that have continued for over two months. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, although, I have no problem with making the topic ban time limited. The fact that after all of this discussion, including Niemti's own participation in, that Niemti now thinks that AfD is the right treatment shows that he is only here to POV push. The civility of the comments is wholly irrelevant; WP:CIVIL is only one of our pillars, and WP:NPOV is another. Niemti has argued tendentiously to include comments from a source that clearly does not meet WP:RS and certainly doesn't meet the higher level of scrutiny required by WP:BLP. Now, because he's not getting his way, he thinks he'll take to it to AfD, despite the fact that such a nomination would be WP:SNOW kept. Civil POV pushing is, in fact, one of our biggest problems on Wikipedia. Here we have a crystal clear example of it happening, and thus we should take the opportunity to stop it, now. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What AfD are you talking about? Niemti said he would rather not edit this article at all [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban. Let's not mess around with BLPs, especially one like this that has already been vandalised to the extent that the vandalism hit the news. WP:BLPBAN exists for a reason. Andreas JN466 09:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this page has been vandalized at one point, just as many other wikipedia articles, but why do you want to hold Niemti responsible? It was not him who vandalized this page. To the conrary, he contributed a lot and positively in this BLP article (I mean the article itself, while the talk page discussion was indeed heated and sometimes strayed away from improvement the article). Once again, he only suggested merging sometime ago, which has been hotly debated. This is not vandalism, not a BLP violation, and certainly does not hurt the person. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What I am holding him responsible for is waffling on on a BLP talk page about how the subject should have "ignored" the appalling harassment she suffered, including here, or done things like "counterattack literally with her vagina". Get a grip. Andreas JN466 19:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

He was comparing and contrasting how other people responded to very similar experiences to how Sarkeesian reacted when discussing whether there should be an article about her. Another woman who was attacked in a very similar fashion did "counter-attack with her vagina" in a manner of speaking and others do ignore this type of vitriol as it is rather typical.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In a manner of highly inept and inappropriate speaking, perhaps. [19] Saying here on Wikipedia that a woman who has been harassed, including here on Wikipedia, could have ignored it or "counter-attacked literally using her vagina" instead of raising a "huge moral panic" is certainly considerably more inept and inappropriate than Wikipedia should tolerate. Andreas JN466 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can repeat this until you are blue in the face, but it won't change a thing. His statements, in context, are far less serious than how they are being portrayed out of context. For the context, I ask people to simply google "Jennifer Hepler vagina" to understand that comment. At best you can fault him for using "literally" as an emphatic.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is difficult for me to judge since I came from another language and culture. I saw one of these shows on US TV performed by a women, so I have to assume such language is permissible in US culture. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, you do not tell a woman who has suffered sexually motivated cyber harassment that she could have "ignored it", or "counterattacked using her vagina", not unless you are socially completely inept or worse. The West is stil on the same planet as the East, you know. Harassment is considered a problem in both places. [20] Perhaps Wikipedia is an exception. Andreas JN466 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Andreas, I understand where your frustrations are coming from. This article is a sensitive BLP that has been the target of harassment last May. And as I have stated, positive contributions is never an excuse for disruptive behavior on the talk page, which has been clearly pointed out by Cuchullain. Trying to introduce any sort of criticism in this article involves gender studies. As such, in relation to what constitutes a reliable source, the topic is gender studies and not video game reviewing. Unfortunately, the quality of Niemti's work or any other content matter, is not at issue here. The problem is with his seriously disruptive behavior at the talk page, where Niemti has making unsourced negative comments on a BLP, using the talk page as a FORUM, ignoring the input of others, and engaging in forum shopping to get his way while he is currently the subject of an RFC. He was also adding comments from a source, Destructoid, that clearly does not meet WP:RS and certainly doesn't meet the higher level of scrutiny required by the BLP policy. On top of that, his sources have all sorts of issues in regards to WP:RS, WP:VG/RS, and WP:NPOV and they should not be used. No thanks, we don't want this type of disruptive behavior here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. On top of that he has made three times more edits to her talk page than anybody else [21] ... way to go. Andreas JN466 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• If that was indeed a contentious unsourced material about a living person (I am still not sure that it was), why did not anyone just removed immediately this thing from article talk page, as should be done per policy, instead of bringing this here? End of story. That's why some part of this looks to me as WP:Battle. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually though about entirely removing some of the threads that Niemti engaged in, but that's surrounded by multiple restrictions (see WP:TPOC). It would most likely only have provoked Niemti, and it would likely have been considered too high-handed even by unsympathetic editors. And there was the occasional glimmer of something semi-relevant in Niemti's talkpage activities, which complicated issues even if it was ultimately overshadowed by the unbearable amounts of opinionated ranting and disparaging commentary about the article subject.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Give me a break. Nothing he said is over the line. He was disputing the notability of Sarkeesian as a biographical subject. Her reaction to harassment does appear to be the main source of her notability and that arising due to her video series so his is a reasonable position to take. Suggesting that it should not be a bio, but an article on her experience or video series is rather reasonable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support making this a strong shot above the bow. This is a sensitive BLP, there seems to be a lot of jealousy between the editor and the subject, the criticism on the talk page comes close to rising to the level of inappropriate discourse. Slowly back away from the cliff, my friend... Carrite (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Per Andreas, below. Oppose for now. I'm half-way through the talk page archive and, though his suggestion she should have ignored the flaming is stupid and patronising, he has removed unsourced puffery about her work being used in "university-level women's studies courses" against significant opposition, and removed the claim she is best known for her video blog Feminist Frequency, both of which are significant improvements. Claims that he breaches WP:NOTAFORUM, at least as they relate to comments he's made in the first half of the archive, are mistaken. Editors on the page didn't get the pertinence of the points he was making. Perhaps he reels out of control further down the archive but I've seen no evidence of that in this thread. I have to go out now and will comment further when I get a chance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that her work is indeed used in "university-level women's study courses". Source: [22]. Examples: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] (for this course). Note that the last one for example is from 2011, predating her harassment. Would you accept these as evidence that her work is so used, and that it is her work that is considered of interest by these universities, rather than merely the fact that she was trolled? Andreas JN466 10:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for proving me to be a superficial fool yet again. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't mention it, Anthony. :) Best, Andreas JN466 11:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite obviously, Neimti was not logical in his argument. That's why I noted above that I disagree with him. However, this is not a reason for topic ban in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This is unacceptable behavior for a BLP article. BLPs should have stricter RS standards than other articles, not weaker. Most video game blogs do not meet BLP standards, especially when you're talking about criticism of the article subject. Writing personally disparaging rants about the article subject on the talk page is also not appropriate for a BLP. Considering Niemti's persistence, I'm not sure why we're only considering a topic ban. Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly reliable sources are needed for claims about living people, not claims about someone disagreeing with a living person's argument. Noting that a video game blog disagrees with her characterization of x video game is not a BLP issue. Our consideration in that instance should be whether the view represented in the source is not a prominent opinion or if it is too inflammatory. I mean seriously, read this thing. Does that read like something that is absolutely horrific and unacceptable for an article about a living person? Basically the source goes, "I am sorry my dear madame, but I believe you are quite mistaken in your characterization of electronic entertainment. You see, these interactive moving pictures to which you refer are actually quite progressive with regards to gender relations. Ho-ho, cheerio!" *sipsa da tea*--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Horrific" is your description, but it's definitely unacceptable as a commentary on Sarkeesian's analysis. Why? Because it's a video game blog with zero credentials commenting on the field of gender studies, the main topic of the article (see comparison to Hot Rod Magazine commenting on the theory of relativity earlier in this discussion). Politeness doesn't automatically translate to reliability or relevance. Peter ^Isotalo 09:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Do note that WP:VG/RS states that Destructoid is classified as "situational". Therefore, that source is not really considered a reliable source to be used on a biography of a living person. It is a blog with zero credentials commenting on the field of gender studies, which is the main topic on the article, and using it as commentary on Sarkeesian's analysis is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but your interpretation of DA RULZ is terribly misguided. Many in the gaming community do not have degrees in gender studies, that does not mean their opinions are irrelevant. The opinion of members of the gaming community with regards to her claims about video games has some element of relevance don't you think? Destructoid would be a reliable source for claims about what a prominent member of the gaming community thinks about Sarkeesian's claims about video games. Also, BLP does not say you cannot use these sources on a biography of a living person, but that they cannot be used to back up claims regarding a living person. Niemti was not talking about using it to make a claim about a living person, but rather to make a claim about some other person's opinion regarding some claims a living person made about video games. WP:BLP does not apply to that sort of claim.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (from an involved editor) - The real issue as I see it comes from concerns that were raised during the RfC/U that one of Niemti's central interests is in adding information glorifying the sexual characteristics of female video game characters. I haven't looked into these claims because I think Niemti generally understands about proper sourcing and I've assumed good faith that the articles properly merited coverage of these aspects. But if these concerns are sustainable and there is a pattern of sexist editing then a limited-duration topic ban might be a good idea as a warning. Given Niemti's prolific editing and the frequency of his conflicts with other editors, this kind of non-NPOV editing could be very harmful. It all depends on whether or not there is a pattern here, though. If this neutrality issue is just a one-off thing then I'll take Niemti's withdrawal from the talk page as a sign that he's dropped the WP:STICK. -Thibbs (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Close discussion?

The above discussion has been lasting for over a week as I post here. While I still support the topic ban, I have posted a request at WP:ANRFC for an uninvolved administrator to assess and close this discussion. Furthermore, while almost all of the recent Sarkeesian discussions have been archived at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 2, I would suggest that everyone should take a deep breath, relax, and wait for the closing admin. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You promised to one of admins not follow edits by Niemty, do not you remember? My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not care about that anymore, as I have already moved on and that case against me was not substantiated. I am still waiting for the closing administrator to assess and close the above discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as people keep on bringing up issues regarding Niemti to ANI, RFC, or WP:VG, or with Niemti bringing attention to himself with going to WP:RM, you can hardly accuse Sjones of "following his edits". If only Niemti wasn't constantly making a scene or stirring up trouble in our field of editing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you guys have lot of common interests, including many user talk pages and even Organ theft in Kosovo... My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(sigh)... Really, I would rather put this off-topic discussion to rest, as this is seriously getting us nowhere fast. We are talking about a topic ban proposal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

MVBW, if you have an issue regarding Sjone's behavior, bring it to his talk page, or open up a new ANI report. It doesn't belong in this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I know how you feel Serge. I just don't want to discuss this issue anymore and I have already moved on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I'm not saying you should have to, I'm just saying that if MVBW wants to discuss it, this isn't the place to do so. (If he does choose a better avenue, you can still opt out of discussing it with him all the same.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. If I don't want to discuss this matter, that is completely my decision. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I only wanted to tell that I agree with comment by User:Wikid77 above. He suggested to disregard all "Support" "!votes from involved editors, as this seems an attempt to force the outcome of a "fair fight" by censuring opponents." (see above). For example, this editor, who was missing for a couple of months, came specifically to post his !support vote here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As it has been stated numerous times in this thread (by myself and others), the quality of Niemti's work or any other content matter, is not the case here. The actual issue is with his disruptive behavior on Sarkeesian's talk page, and we cannot allow this disruption to continue even if he returns to the article. On Sarkeesian's talk page, it is clear enough that there are serious problems. While it is clear that the number of upset people is at least in the tens; it could be unclear if that might represent a consensus across those who pay attention to these matters, although some uninvolved users have commented on the situation. With this in mind, I would like to make a request that previously uninvolved editors and administrators get involved and read up on this and comment. Please take a look at the recent discussions, and the ongoing RFC, as well as the current situation. More input from uninvolved administrators and editors will help determine community exhaustion of patience, and we can't allow this discussion to languish another week. We need a clear consensus on this matter from both involved and uninvolved users. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

MVBV, your suggestion is makes absolutely no sense. By your argument, any time one editor was disruptive, and a half dozen or more tried to stop the disruption, we would automatically ignore whatever those good faith, productive editors were doing. So all an editor has to do is to cause problems on a talk page, and suddenly they become untouchable? Seriously, think through the actual consequence of your suggestion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the suggestion was originally Wikid77's, that MVBV advocated. Still, you're both entirely wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, that is not what me or Wikid77 said (please see above, and I provided a couple of links that should be a matter of concern: [31], [32]). I will not repeat anything, but would like to notice that in a case any BLP violations (that was the reason for this thread) one suppose to either remove the contentious poorly sourced information immediately and/or post the matter on BLP noticeboard for community discussion, instead of bringing it here. My very best wishes (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is really getting us nowhere fast. For the umpteenth time, content issues or the quality of Niemti's work are not any of our concerns. It's about a topic ban regarding his disruptive behavior. I don't want to push this too hard but I think the best option is that we should just wait for an uninvolved admin to take a look at the proposal, determine the consensus and close it as I think this discussion has already gone on long enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm definitely seeing some bias in the comments provided in the original report and I think they're beyond what we should expect from an editor striving from neutrality. I agree the edits are become tendentious too. His edits seem to go beyond a reading of the sources and are actively making the argument that Sarkeesian should "get over" the harassment (I'm getting a strong "elevator" vibe here...). Also, I find the hero worship of Jim Sterling amusing, as Sterling would be the first to admit he's a professional troll. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If i was an administrator, here's what i'd do if he just got off a ban: 1. warn him. 2. if he ignores it, then ban him again for longer. (hopefully it doesn't come to this one though)3. If after his longer ban has lifted he continues to do this crap, then either make a super long ban or an indefinate ban. how do i know this? based on all the cases i've seen here sinse 2005 or so, i'd think that that would be the ideal actions, although i hope it doesn't get to an indefinate ban. Alien Arceus 05:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but you probably ought to figure out the difference between a WP:BLOCK and aWP:BAN before you go about giving advice. (Also, he's not fresh off of a block or a ban, so your scenario is fundamentally wrong either way.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sergio, i've been reading this pageo sinse 2005eo, and know the difference. Alien Arceus 15:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you using them wrong then? And it doesn't matter how long you've been here, it doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to understand the basic premise of what's going on here since he's didn't "just got off a ban" as you worded it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Second request for closure

Seconding the request for closure from an uninvolved Admin. There have been a few good comments lately but they're getting to be few and far between now. Please? Thanks... Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Just about all aspects of this case have by now been processed quite thoroughly.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - All aspects of the case has been processed thoroughly. It's really time to close this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there's plenty of discussion to determine consensus. We're mostly just going back and forth now.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

and it took you guies this long to figure that out? i figured it out a while ago tha this is going nowhere. i smelt it as clear as day. Alien Arceus 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban

User:Brocach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is making war around Gaelic Athletic Association-related articles. He is ignoring discussion, just to push his own POV. There is no effective support for his moves but he just invents excuses. By now he seems so frustrated, that he started vandalising articles. On the 19th, he was blocked from editing to stop him from edit warring over several article. In that same war User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was involved and blocked. They were involved in one of the most silly edits wars I have ever seen: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong. Both appealed the ban, both saw their appeal denied. Unfortunately, Brocach did not learn anything from his block and quickly resumed his disruptive edits and went on with, among others, a clear declaration of war.

An overview from the relevant edits after the block:

Insults

• [33], [34]

Move without agreement or consensus

• [35], [36], [37],

Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories

• [38],

Other disruptive edits

• [39], [40], [41] (later used to claim that people did not live in North Tipperary, while it was de facto there from 1838), [42], [43],

This drama is already going on for a year now. With pages moved back and forth, edit wars and a very nasty atmosphere.

I certainly acknowledge that a block is counter-productive but to restore peace, I request a long term topic ban for Brocach for all articles related to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The Banner talk 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]and [54]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to Brocachs habit to remove everything from his talkpage that he doesn't like, I present here the proof that I have informed him. The Banner talk 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot of accusations there so it will take some time to respond.

I have never vandalised any article on Wikipedia. Anyone who looks at my edit history will find a long record of reverting vandalism. Some examples: [55], [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=533547170], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] and on and on.

I am not ignoring discussion. In relation to the GAA articles, most of the edits that User:The Banner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) objects to are actually reverts of previous controversial edits, generally made by User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without discussion, and generally moving articles about the GAA away from the common name of the topic - typically, renaming football competitions by inserting "GAA" within the competition name. Generally when I have moved things back to their common name, I have opened a thread on the talk page.

The POV I am "pushing" is Wikipedia policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing particularly controversial about that.

It is absolutely not the case that there is no support for my reverts of controversial moves. In the most recent discussion of this, here, you will see clear majority support for the reverts. That in itself should be enough to establish that the topic ban belongs with the editor who made the original controversial moves without discussion, and then busted a gut trying to undo all the reverts, namely Laurel Lodged.

Turning to the Tipperary question: for those unfamiliar with the sports, Gaelic football, hurling etc. are organised in Ireland on a traditional 32-county basis, not in line with newer administrative counties such as North Tipperary. Top-level inter-county players play for Tipperary, and the category for them has long been "Tipperary hurlers", just as it is for "Dublin hurlers", "Galway hurlers" and so on. Because only the GAA organises hurling, no-one had ever thought it necessary to change a category name until - guess who - Laurel Lodged, without any discussion, renamed that one category "Tipperary GAA hurlers" and moved many articles to that page. This now sits as a completely anomalous category: every other county lists hurlers in the long-established form, "Carlow hurlers" and so on.

Next, Laurel Lodged, as ever without any discussion, started moving individual Tipperary sportspeople from the long-established and well-populated category Sportspeople from County Tipperary into two new categories of his own creation, namely Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Sportspeople from South Tipperary. Again, of course, without discussion; and again creating an anomaly, in that none of the other Irish sportspeople by county categories use the new local government counties; they all use the traditional 32 counties.

The behaviour of Laurel Lodged in changing literally hundreds of GAA articles and refusing to engage in discussion frustrated me greatly; as my history shows, I have made a significant contribution to GAA coverage here. I regret that on one occasion I re-reverted a Laurel Lodged move repeatedly, following which we were both briefly banned.

I have not "resumed disruptive edits" nor "declared war" - follow the link provided by The Banner and you will find me quite properly taking the issue of Tipperary changes to the relevant talk page, and as it happens, securing support while Laurel Lodged did not.

Next, as for "insults": the first link provided is to me stating the incontrovertible fact that Laurel Lodged keeps changing pages without discussion, and it will be seen that I did not use any abusive language; the second link provided is to me rebuking what I refer to as the "disgusting behaviour" of another editor who, on the talk page of an unrelated (non-GAA) topic, referred to me as "arsehole" and, in another edit, "a stupid cunt". Now there's an insult; but I was not the person who made it, nor would any reasonable person think that referring to that as "disgusting behaviour" was an insult.

My accuser then links to supposed "Moves without agreement or consensus". But all three links were on the basis of consensus that anyone can check at the reference already given.

My next offence is "Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories", a plural accusation with but a single link, and this turns out to be, yet again, a matter of reverting changes made without discussion of consensus by, need I say, Laurel Lodged. The usual pattern applies in that I am the first one to take the issue to the talk page, and Laurel Lodged refuses to engage there.

As for the "Other disruptive edits", the first two again were reverts that were discussed and supported here, unlike the original moves which had not been discussed. The next is, far from being a "disruptive edit", a perfectly normal edit to an article dealing with local government history in County Tipperary. Looking at it now I see a little typo, which I have fixed; perhaps that what was thought "disruptive" but anyone checking the history will see that it was a simple mistake with no harm intended or done, and heaven help us if every case of clumsy typing is construed as vandalism. The next is, again, a normal and innocent edit to the template for Derry GAA clubs, ensuring that text appeared in black rather than red as per WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR. Any problem with that? My last "disruption" was to add a factually accurate, and sourced, improvement to wording around the ISO code for "Ulster" - an obscure enough topic, but interesting for some, and worth getting right, which it now is. In short: these accusations of disruption are completely spurious.

I therefore insist that no case has been made for topic-banning me, least of all on a theme, the GAA, where I have made a substantial and worthwhile contribution. However, because of Laurel Lodged's long history of moving GAA articles without seeking consensus, reverting moves back, and refusing to engage on the relevant talk pages, I would be hugely relieved if he were topic-banned from the GAA, at least for a few months. I'm proposing that here, and notifying him on his talk page. Heading above amended accordingly. Brocach (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have no connection whatever with Finnegas and if The Banner has some problem with him/her, this is not the place to discuss it. Brocach (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the usual modus operandi of mr. Brocach: I am the good guy, I am the victim, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and you guys are all wrong, had been wrong all the times and will be wrong forever more. The Banner talk 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You've said your piece; I would prefer that your proposal, and mine, be decided on the facts. Anyone who wants to know my "usual modus operandi" can look at my thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. Please keep the revised heading above as this section contains a counter-proposal. Brocach (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, please don't change the title as it breaks links to this discussion. File your own request when you want to bring Laurel Lodged to AN/I, don't hijack my filing. The Banner talk 14:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to break links to this discussion, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to respond to a ban proposal by showing that another user is the real problem and should be topic-banned. For me to repeat all of that in a separate posting would be a waste of everyone's time, particularly when Laurel Lodged is aware of this discussion (since you notified him of it within four minutes of proposing that I be banned). I have therefore placed a subheading for my counter-proposal immediately below your heading, and have verified that links still work. Brocach (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now you only made a mess of my filing, making it appear that I filed the request. Do you mind the sub-header to below this edits and file your counter-request there? Although they are related, it would be confusing to have two requests in one thread as people will have difficulties responding to the right request. The Banner talk 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to cause any confusion and don't think I've done so. I think that the difference in heading level will make that clear. But for the benefit of anyone who has been interested enough to read down this far, can I make it 100% clear that The Banner wants to ban me, and I want to topic-ban Laurel Lodged? Brocach (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did file a request for a topic ban, but that will not say that I will pursue it for the full 100%. I believe in Good Faith, so I still hope that you are willing to change your behaviour regarding the GAA voluntarily. The Banner talk 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Really excellent news there. Of course I intend to continue, as I always have, operating in good faith. Can I ask you to review the points you made against me above, and my replies; delete any exchanges above that relate to points that have been answered to your satisfaction, and set out which (if any) grounds you still believe justify a topic ban? If there are none, I would ask you to withdraw this request, so that I can reframe my ban request for Laurel Lodge and pursue it without involving you. Brocach (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It means as much: show me (and prove of a reasonable time) that you really stop with this nonsense, revert all your actions yourself and start behaving like an adult. If not, sorry. Your combative behaviour has disrupted Wikipedia long enough. The Banner talk 10:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighter's souls, but made their bodies carrion feats for the dogs and birds and the will of Zeus was moving towards its end."

What is the cause of all the warring? Rage. The final straw for Brocach was when a decision at WP:CFD went against him here. This touched on the area of (GAA) and involved a decision to change the name from "Tipperary hurlers" to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers.

I took the rather unusal step of saying in my block appeal that "Perhaps the purpose would be best achieved by simply imposing a topic ban on all GAA related articles on both of us until a decision one way or the other had been reached at a neutral forum like WikiProject:Gaelic games or WikiProject:Ireland". Only a few hours of the unblock had expired that my hopes that the block would have a sobering effect on Brocach were in vain. Reluctantly, I must now request that my suggestion be actioned. I am prepared to go into voluntary exile if the same temporary sentance will be passed on Brocach (and his inept sidekick Finnegas) so that a holy peace may descend upon the GAA articles and categories.

He has gone around numerous article writing the same whiney thing on the talk page. This essentially bemoans the injustice of the decision that went against him at WP:CFD. By the time that I saw this entry Colm Bonnar whining, I was getting a mite tetchy in my responses. And so to Noel Lane where Brocach's rationale was "a player for GAA county of Tipperary". This is not in dispute, but it's beside the point. What is most definitely in dispute is that he is not "from County Tipperary", which no longer exists as a unit of local government, but from North Tipperary. The two entities are different. Brocach likes to pretend that the two are essentially identical. He refuses to listen to all arguments to the contrary. This explains why I peppered a lot of my reversions with the epitheth WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In Patrick Maher, the difference between the two entities was again explained in my reversion rationale: "As a county hurer he is listed with Tipp GAA. Geographically, he is from NT. A horse of a different colour". Further examples are Aidan Butler and Sportspeople from County Tipperary.

I will copy the text from my appeal for the second major point of contention. I realised that the cat "Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers" should not even be in the cat "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary". This moment of clarity came to me when I reviewed the article on Tony Reddin who was born in County Galway (i.e. he is from Galway) but who played hurling for his club Lorrha-Dorrha GAA which is governed by Tipperary GAA. So while it is right and proper that he be a member of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, it is not right that he be a member of "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary"; instead he is correctly listed as a member of "Sportspeopple from County Galway". Moving from the particular to the general, I deduced that one may not assume that just because a person is a member of a GAA club that happens to be in Tipperary that all members of of that club must necessarily be from Tipperary. I wrote this in the edit commentary as "a club is not a person". Again Brocach refused to acknowedge this logic and continued to revert. See Category:Lorrha-Dorrha hurlers, where the rationale provided was "Tony Reddin is from Galway. So not all members of Tipp GAA are automatically from County Tipp. A club is not a person". See also Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers, where the rationale provided was "a CLUB IS NOT A PERSON". Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From everything that I have said above, you will understand that I profoundly disagree with Laurel Lodged about how people who play on Tipperary GAA teams should be listed (by the county that they play or played for, Tipperary, or by the current local government district that they were born in, or would have been born in had it existed when they were born). No point going into all the details of that issue again. This discussion is not about whether this or that category should be used; but the changes made by Laurel Lodged at Tipperary categories have put it out of sync with every other county in Ireland, and he has made scores if not hundreds of other changes, all undiscussed, that moved articles and categories (dealing with Gaelic games away from their former and proper locations.

What this is about, is (1) whether a user (Laurel Lodged) should be free to move dozens of long-settled articles and refuse to engage on the respective talk pages when that turns out to be controversial; (2) whether that user should be topic-banned for a while until he learns to respect the views of other editors; (3) whether an editor (me) who moves articles back to their original and long-established names, after controversial moves that weren't discussed, should be regarded as a vandal and banned.

Check out (if you have some hours to spare) every instance where a Gaelic Athletic Association sporting competition has been renamed. I believe that in every instance, you will find that any moves away from the original title that were made without discussion were made by one single obsessive editor, Laurel Lodged, for reasons that cannot easily be aligned to the interests of readers or the notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. In most instances, I moved the article back to its settled title, only to be reverted again without discussion. In most such cases, I opened a discussion topic on the talk page, and Laurel Lodged did not engage. Here are a few examples, and you will see the pattern: [61], [62], [63], [64]... I could go on and on. As noted above, I canvassed views on this wholesale moving and the most recent discussion is here, where you will see that my reverts had consensus on their side.

If you want Wikipedia to be the preserve of those who have a really strong point of view about what things should be called (but aren't, in real life), and for which they really need to control Wikipedia as a platform to impose their view on the stupid masses, please vote to ban me. If you want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, give people who care about accurate coverage of the GAA a break, and send Laurel Lodged off to annoy someone else for a few months. Whatever way you vote, the Leinster Senior Football Championship will continue, in real life, to be the Leinster Senior Football Championship, rather that whatever User:Laurel Lodged wants to call it today. Brocach (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would remind everyone in this thread of WP:TLDR. If you want to attract the attention of other editors, walls of text are unlikly to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• When I see the words "POV-pushing" and "topic ban" in a section heading I expect the proposer to have a particularly strong case. When I see something like "Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong" I think the proposer is most unlikely to have a strong case. And sure enough, that is the case here. I think the most intelligent sentence in the proposal is "What on earth are you fighting over?" This is a content dispute, essentially between three editors: the proposer agrees with Laurel Lodged and disagrees with Brocach. It should be dealt with on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have been observing this dispute from a distance, and agree with the previous contributor (Scolaire). There is more heat than light being generated by these interminable arguments. However, there are two main protagonists putting their cases forward, and I don't think that Brocach should be the only person facing censure. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having read The Banner's response to my suggestion on his talk page, I have to wonder if WP:BOOMERANG doesn't come into play here? Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have disappointed you by not being convinced that there is a solution possible by mediation. More drama, more words typed, but I see no evidence from Brocach and your side that a compromise is possible. Sorry. The Banner talk 14:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a side. I don't edit-war. Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute that has spiralled out of control over a long period of time. How long has this been going on? A year? More> It revolves around a tiny point - the definition and use of the term "county" in Ireland. I suggest that a ban is put on any more moves, renames, relinks and discussions, and that the matter is discussed at WikiProject Ireland until consensus is reached. That's actually the best and correct place for this. --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A year? July 2011 was when we apparently resolved the problem of counties! At that point it had been going on non-stop since at least June 2010. --Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with most of what has been written in the last few postings. And I would again remind you all that it was I who I took the rather unusal step of suggesting that I topic ban myself. This must surely be a record for ANI. As it is obvious that even a 48 ban cannot produce the required level of contrition or even meditation in Brocach, nothing other solution will give us all the breathing space - free of vandalism - that we all need. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While I strongly commend LL's volunteering for a topic ban, well deserved and hopefully long-lasting, I'm not taking the same line. The innuendo above that I was involved in "vandalism" needs to be fleshed out here and now. If one instance of vandalism by me is shown, in relation to GAA topics or anything else, I still won't volunteer for a ban but I will accept one. Brocach (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

At your service: [65], [66] and [67]. Deliberately damaging an article by removing a correct link and replace is by a redirect is in my opinion vandalism. (issue: "Drom, County Tipperary" redirects to "Drom, North Tipperary") It can be a mistake ONCE, but not multiple times and certainly not when deliberately removing the mention of North Tipperary at all. The Banner talk 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Even if it was a mistake – which is only your opinion – it is not vandalism. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. That a good faith edit is "in your opinion vandalism" doesn't make it vandalism. Scolaire (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a more general topic-ban for a month at least just to encourage Brocach to engage more and stop consistently reverting and pushing when they are in the wrong. Take for example their recent 48-hour block for breaking 3RR. This and this from BrownHairedGirl shows Brocach's poor attitude when it comes to editing and discussion quite well. Obviously these are not the only instances, but I'd cite this one as the main one.

Blocks and topic-bans are meant to deter editors from bad behaviour, not to punish them. As such I back a topic-ban of at least a month from editing articles in regards to GAA and Londonderry topics seeing as this is where his attitude is at it's worse. Whilst they are incredibly stubborn and unwilling to budge from their opinion, disregarding compromises, I'd suggest that if blocked from editing, they should still be allowed to partake in discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If the "main" evidence against me is from September 2012 and October 2012, in relation to matters long since settled, we must hope and pray that Mabuska has never, ever made any mistake that might be resurrected by someone to argue for a topic ban. Note that in the instances selected, the editor who disagreed with me did not, then or thereafter, propose a topic ban. Brocach (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys Finnegas here, It appears that The Banner has a problem with my edits " And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]and [90]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)" Well the Banner was welcome to discuss the whole Sportspeople from Tippp Vs Tipp N or Tipp South at Talk:Patrick Maher (hurler) if he so desired. I maintain that the use of administrative counties for Sporspeole from county ? should never replace the 32 counties In addition I would like to declare contary to The Banner I am not User brocach or anyone elses sidekick. It just so happens that I agree with him on this issue.Finnegas (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Your reply here comes remarkably quick after Broacach advise to have your say here on your [User_talk:Finnegas#Similar_Requested_Move|talkpage]. About 9 minutes later... The Banner talk 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks more like 23 hours to me! Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I question your powers of observation Banner!. There was a full day between Broacach's advice and me acting upon it. [68]Anyway what do you expect me to do? Remain silent will you and Laurel Lodged demonise me. Not a notion.Finnegas (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC) BTW love the fact you did not reply to the part about you ignoring the part about you failing to engage in discussion on a talk page.

No what do you do? Banner take a cheap shot at me. You could be described as Laurel Lodged lapdog Finnegas (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it was just a few minutes after you had acknowledged Brocach's call to arms. You are right that the original WP:Canvassing was much earlier. The Banner talk 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I am will not consent to a topic ban. I did nothing wrong.

I think the above has shown that Finnegas is (a) a creature of Brocach, (b) has nothing to contribute to our understanding other than "because I say so", (c) engages in insulting behaviour. Given that he has continued the destructive path of Brocach on GAA related articles and is dangerously close to a 3RR situation with Banner, all of this leads me to conclude that GAA peace will be impossible until he too joins Brocach & I in our topic ban. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to (c)If I am guilty of "insulting behaviour" then so are you Laurel Lodged. You continue to describe me as Brocach's sidekick which I find quite insulting. I repeat I am nobodys sidekick.I am not engaging in an editwar with The Banner.

Reply to (b)I attempted to engage in a debate on Talk: Patrick Maher (hurler). (a)Does not merit a responseFinnegas (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked at the mess created by Laurel Lodged at the GAA in Cork article where the nonsense on differences between administrative and traditional counties was fudged into the opening paragraph. This type of nonsense has to stop immediately. I certainly Support the topic ban for Laurel Lodged until this type of editing comes to an immediate halt and the damage reversed. I dread the thoughts of what has been done in other articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, interesting that you are showing up here, mr. HighKing. Always good to respond on the canvassing] of Brocach. The Banner talk 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the diff posted by HighKing proves the opposite of what he was saying. It proves that the bits which he deleted showed that there is a difference between the two entities. The only reason to delete those bits is to create a fudge. It is HK's tendentious editing that was the problem there. Perhaps he too should be topic banned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

One topic ban here would be enough. It isn't HighKing, it isn't Finnegas and it isn't me. And it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, particularly those who have taken part in related discussions. Brocach (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

By now, the only thing we have is a massive smoke screen of words, so lets break up this discussion for convenience The Banner talk 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for Brocach

The original proposal of this discussion filed by me. The Banner talk 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as set out above. Brocach (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question: What topic? Gaelic Athletic Association, Counties of Ireland or both (both being the most obvious)? Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My proposal was a topic ban for all Gaelic Athletic Association related articles. The Banner talk 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for Laurel Lodged

The counter proposal filed by Brocach The Banner talk 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as set out above. Brocach (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question: What topic? Gaelic Athletic Association, Counties of Ireland or both (both being the most obvious)? Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for both Gaelic Athletic Association and Counties of Ireland: per Brocach below, LL is continuing to perform disruptive edits and moves without prior discussion, even as good faith attempts are ongoing to resolve this dispute. Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3

First off, this is a content dispute. Looking back at the edits, I also believe everyone tried to act in good faith. The biggest problem as far as I can see is that Laurel Lodged didn't give enough weight or merit to the many objections raised with the renaming, and therefore didn't really attempt to take on board the concerns or accept that perhaps being wrong. Sure, we could go down the Topic Ban route, but I don't believe it is necessary at this point. I believe the most sensible approach is that everyone involved agrees not to continue with any more renaming until this matter has been resolved at WikiProject Ireland. If everyone agrees, we can close this off and get the discussion started over there. --HighKing (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm afraid I don't agree with simply moving this discussion to WT:IE. There are many people on the Wikiproject who don't want to see their talk page hijacked by a couple of bickering editors posting reams of angry exchanges over a period of thirty months or more. Plus, you might notice here, merely discussing things on WT:IE doesn't stop participants from moving pages or creating cats at the same time. There needs to be a formal dispute resolution procedure at an appropriate page (not a Wikiproject talk page). But I absolutely agree it is essential that everyone involved agrees not to continue with any more renaming until this matter has been resolved. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I hear you - my reasoning for suggesting WT:IE was that this ultimately may make it's way into the IMOS so we'll need more than dispute resolution. --HighKing (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Step 1: resolve; Step 2: work out the details; Step 3: worry about IMOS. Scolaire (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Laurel Lodged is unlikely to stop; yet more moves have just been made, this time to Armagh Intermediate Football Championship, along with various edits to lede texts to insert "GAA" into the names of competitions in Derry and Dublin. His supporter, The Banner, has done so repeatedly at London. I am no longer able to assume good faith on their part; these look to me like obsessives who are determined to move GAA articles and categories away from their actual names. If I try to revert these changes I am accused of edit-warring and nominated for bans; this behaviour is damaging Wikipedia and it is exhausting to try to challenge it constantly with limited help from others. Brocach (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given what Brocach has said, this is disruption pure and simple, and won't be resolved by talk. Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose You need willingness to compromise, something I absolutely don't see with Brocach. That makes any dispute resolution attempt straight away useless. The Banner talk 22:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@ The Banner, consider just for a moment that your associate may be in the wrong. I think that his behaviour in the last few hours says it all. Rather than continue advocating in this discussion for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged, which has never had the same prominence as the campaign against me because my efforts to amend the heading or insert subheads have repeatedly been deleted, I am going to make the case for that in a wholly separate discussion. The matter of stopping what Laurel Lodged is doing is too urgent to await the outcome of a discussion of baseless complaints against me. Brocach (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh? You already forgot the discussion Talk:London GAA Intermediate Football Championship earlier this evening where you refused to allow the word GAA in the title mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, conform the name of the title of the article? The Banner talk 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, haven't forgotten that; I answered fully on that article's talk page. Brocach (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• FYI You may wish to consider the proposal for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged here. Brocach (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not big into forum-shopping. Doesn't tend to make a great impression with admins either. But let's see how it goes. Scolaire (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not forum shopping, I just wanted to separate out this increasingly urgent proposal to ban further Laurel Lodged moves; I put it on AN because I was advised that that is where ban proposals normally go, but as it was moved to this page (and hidden) I have now placed it as a separate item at the bottom of this page. I am keen as many others are to bring this discussion to one place, it is Laurel Lodged who continues to open multiple fronts. Brocach (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I was just saying. And looking at it where it is now, I have the impression that the admin's weren't impressed. But we'll see. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I have moved the section referred to up here, immediately below. Please don't split discussions like this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban for Laurel Lodged

Topic proposing ban moved from WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I request an immediate and permanent topic ban on Laurel Lodged in respect of any edits relating to the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA - the largest sporting organisation in Ireland), and agreement to revert all the changes that have been made by him since late 2012 without discussion or consensus. I additionally request a six-month topic ban on the same editor in respect of edits relating to Irish counties, where he displays a similar behaviour of making multiple and radical edits without seeking consensus, and then ignoring or deriding any opposition.

Laurel Lodged has a very extensive history of making controversial moves of GAA articles and categories away from their long-established and accurate names to new locations when there is no need to do so. He then edits the lede to echo the unilaterally changed name. He usually makes these changes without any prior discussion, reverts any moves back to the actual names of the competitions, refuses to engage on the talk page, and displays condescension, hostility and sarcasm towards any editor who challenges his behaviour.

Laurel Lodged has been pulled up on multiple occasions for making these changes, and has at times gone through the motions of requesting discussion, while making it difficult for other editors to keep up by maintaining conversations at multiple locations, e.g. here, here, here, here and, meanwhile, continuing to make changes elsewhere without even the pretence of consultation.

The following lists are certainly not exhaustive – I will add others below - and other instances may have arisen by the time you finish reading this:

• (1) Instances where Laurel Lodged moved GAA articles or categories without any prior discussion or consensus, knowing that such moves had attracted controversy: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

• (2) Instances where Laurel Lodged reverted moves of GAA articles or categories back to their original titles, again without any prior discussion or consensus: [85] [86] [87]

• (3) Instances where Laurel Lodged changed ledes, without discussion or consensus, to reflect the moves that he made without consensus: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]

• (4) Instances where Laurel Lodged reverted changes back to the original text of ledes: [101]

Instances where Laurel Lodged treated those who criticised his edits with disrespect, hostility or sarcasm: [102]

Believe me, this is the tip of the iceberg. It is exhausting keeping up with this behaviour. I will post below under the same category numbers other instances of similar behaviour by Laurel Lodged - but because there are so many I would also invite other concerned editors to do so. Brocach (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a revenge topic ban proposal and forumhopping from AN/I where his attempts to get Laurel Lodged a topic ban get not much support. The Banner talk 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach is no stranger to cancassing. But he is now so desperate for support that he has actually tried to canvass me!!! Hilarious! Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice that you appreciate irony. If only you appreciated the opinions of other editors. Brocach (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have a good sense of humour. Like suddenly inventing OK, 9 days since proposal, looks to me like 4-1 for reverting those undiscussed moves. while the proposal was still under discussion (there was even a vote after your misplaced interference). It seems a bit strange to complain about Laurel Lodged timing when you just plain ignore discussions! (The 4-1 was also incorrect). The Banner talk 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't this the same thing as this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, if you look at the history here, you'll see I moved it to the earlier section at ANI from WP:AN and then collapsed it. Then, Brocach, in his infinite wisdom, moved it down here. I'm tempted to just delete it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have moved this section up to rejoin the main discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request from uninvolved admin

I have quickly read the above sections in their entirety, although I have not followed up every blue link and diff that has been posted. I am not willing or able to do the detective work necessary to form an opinion on this, so poorly have the arguments been made. Nor is it clear what admin action is being requested, or would be appropriate here. The protagonists must be aware from the few uninvolved responses that the discussion so far is not convincing from any side. May I make a request?

Would each person involved in this in any way make a statement of no more than 250 words setting out what is wrong and asking for a specific admin decision/action, backed up by diffs. If no kind of clear and urgent argument appears from any side, I suggest closing this discussion and treating it as a particularly ill-mannered and pointless content dispute, to be managed on article talk pages.. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no time at the moment to present the diffs requested, but basicly it is a conflict around the use of the name "GAA", the abbreviation of the Gaelic Athletic Association. As far as I have noticed, the trouble began with the introduction of a "County Derry" into the articles about GAA-clubs in Northern-Ireland. "County Derry" is a bit of a hot apple, with its own article about the name conflict: Derry/Londonderry name dispute. To avoid that problem, it was agreed to rename "County Derry" to "County Derry GAA", to make clear that this was not a geographical county but a provincial organisation belonging to the island-wide GAA. Shortly after that, it was proposed to change the names of the other GAA-counties along the same line. From there, the discussion went bananas and ended up in a heap of move wars, edit war and people with personal grudges. As far as I can see, people have been digging in and the viewpoints are more entrenched than a World War I-battlefield. Canvassing, side-kicks, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, ignoring of ongoing discussions is all going on. The Banner talk 12:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you The Banner. What (if any) action (eg block, page protection) or decision (eg ban) are you requesting? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from HighKing I haven't been involved in these GAA discussions although I do participate in many Ireland related topics such as this. From what I can see, Laurel Lodged is engaged in tendentious behaviour and either refuses, or is unable to accept, that many editors disagree with the many moves of articles and categories that have occurred or have been proposed. I believe many of the points made, on both sides, are pretty good and valid. I made a proposal above that all moves or requests cease until this is resolved, but this did not attract an agreement. So I'm now requesting a Topic Ban for Laurel Lodged from all "County"-related articles, broadly construed. --HighKing (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A gross breach of WP:BLP at the 'Derby sex gang' article.

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

---

Amongst all the other problems with the recently-created Derby sex gang article, it had remained unnoticed util an hour or so ago that amongst those described as 'convicted' was an individual entirely unconnected with the case. This individual had been included right form the start, which has made a redaction of almost the entire edit history necessary. The person responsible, user:AnkhMorpork, has attempted to post an apology of sorts to ANI while asking for a revdel [103] (this has been deleted as 'wrong venue' for the revdel) but given the severity of the error, I consider a mere apology inadequate. Not only was this a gross breach of WP:BLP policy, it could possibly even have legal repercussions, given the source that AnkhMorpork seems to have got it from. This user seems to have a habit of writing sensationalist material, often based on a poor reading of often-questionable sources, frequently apparently aimed at placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light. Given this latest fiasco, and its potential ramifications, I have to ask whether it is in Wikipedia's interests to let this editor contribute to such articles at all? I think not...

(A reminder: DO NOT under any circumstances name the individual concerned, and DO NOT provide links to sources which would allow the name to be inferred - we must not compound the problem by drawing more attention to the individual) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've popped it onto pending changes given that it's history has been one gigantic BLP violation. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I erroneously included a name when creating the table of perpetrators in the Derby sex gang. As soon as I became aware of my unfortunate error, I removed the name and requested revision deletion. I must have gotten confused with a recent case of child grooming that I was reading about and was simultaneously working on, in which this individual's name was mentioned.

I obviously understand the BLP ramifications of such a mistake and will certainly be more careful in the future.

• "often-questionable sources" - I ensured that I only used reliable sources when creating the Derby sex gang. The sources used in the article are: the BBC, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Times. This accusation is unfounded.
• "placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light." - I am mindful of the sensitive nature of this article and before I created it, I asked an experienced editor, Malik Shabazz for advice on whether I had described the analysis section in a "balanced and accurate manner". He replied that "the section represents fairly what the sources say" upon which I created the article.

I have tried my best to represent what the sources have stated in a fair and neutral manner. Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to.

• Upon discovering my erroneous inclusion, Andy opened a new section on the talk page emblazoning the name of the individual in big font, which subsequently had to be redacted; this despite him being aware of the BLP implications. Another editor commented on this inconsistent approach. If an editor more experienced than myself of BLP considerations, and who is aware of an imminent problem, can similarly cock-up, perhaps you might appreciate that my error could similarly have been unintentional.Ankh.Morpork 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that there have been no convictions regarding this other case of alleged child grooming either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to. For some reason I doubt that. I cant see another reason for edits like this. nableezy - 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that AnkhMorpork, in his very first edit to this shambles of an article, thought it prudent to specify the group as "Asian men" (my italics) tells you everything you need to know about this editor, and what he wanted to achieve with the article. Not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. GiantSnowman 20:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And it tells you exactly the same about The Telegraph who reported: Asian gang prowled streets searching for rape victims, upon which I based my edit. Two other editors on the talk page agreed with this inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep - on the right-side of the political spectrum. GiantSnowman 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And we're not supposed to mention the ethnicity at all, even when it's mentioned in reliable sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'the ethnicity'. Not all the offenders were from the same background - though It took a comment from me on the talk page to point out that a 'non-Asian' offender had been omitted (and even then, the individual's name seems to have been spelled wrongly, thogh by whom it is hard to tell, given that the article history has been redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger - we shouldn't give the ethnicity WP:UNDUE weight, as AnkhMorpork loves to do. GiantSnowman 09:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ankh's last point in his first reply above (added after I had replied, contrary to talk page guidelines), When I started the new section on the name, I was of course entirely unaware of where it came from, and of the possible repercussions. Initially I wondered if another source had named the man as one of those convicted, and the source had merely been omitted. It would clearly have been impossible to ask where it came from at that point without actually naming the individual. As soon as I was aware of the precise situation, I of course moved to have it redacted. It seems that AnkhMorpork is trying to distract us from the significant event here - a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing this side show which has nothing to do with matter above Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry AndyTheGrump - I have been watching matters unfold and I now feel obliged to ask "you" to account for the following. On 20 Jan you raised the issue of three named persons being included in a table - you felt that they should not be included as the history and sources did not warrant inclusion. Given that you had to asses the content of the table and the people included - how is it possible that you missed the inclusion of a name not connected to the case in anyway? Which sources were you using to recognise three people correctly and yet fail to see a person who should not be included at all? Please explain the error(s)! I was shocked when I discovered it - as I was working though all page content and history and was aware of your participation and focus on the very place where the BLP violation was found Three days later. You had been making so much pointed comment about BLP I was Stunned that a Violation of such magnitude was there. How did you miss it? I am concerned about the amount of smoke that is suddenly being blown. Also access to history and diffs is not an issue as the matter, time references are clear and recorded on the talk page! 3 Gross violation of WP:BLP policy Under the circumstances I find this language by you "a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence." to be inappropriate and disingenuous. Kindly stop smoking up the Joint! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) What the fuck! This thread is getting complex enough without having to put up with such nonsense. No I didn't check and copy-edit the entire article (though I wish I had). Neither did you. Neither apparently did anyone else. Are you trying to purposely derail this thread, or just waffling on for your own personal satisfaction? Anyway, if you accuse me of drug-taking again I reserve my right to whatever recourse I see fit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Andy- It's not derailing it's simple - How did you miss the BLP Violation on the 20th whilst citing three BLP violations in the same table? I did spot the issue whilst reading Auditing and verifying every cited source - I'm like that I check everything and look at the BIG Picture. Again you seem to be blowing smoke to divert away from multiple fails .... especially you own. I note you have not answered the Direct Questions but made inferences about me, that I take as Ad Hominum so stop it. It's a well known but very poor Blocking & Derailing tactic . It does not make you look good. Again I advise you to moderate your language and tone as well as stopping the Smoke. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) How did I miss it? I (wrongly) assumed the content was correct, except in that it was including individuals in an article on sex crimes who had been convicted of other things - as the talk page shoyuld make clear. And as for blowing smoke, given that you have already accused me of drug taking, I'll make as many ad hominem attacks on you as I feel like, as long as you continue to try to derail this thread with your deranged ramblings and accusations of drug-taking. I suggest you cease spamming this thread with nonsense before an admin steps in and makes you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I see that you have yet again stated I have accused you of taking Drugs. can I have a reference to show me and any other readers when and how this has been done? I'm fascinated by your claims and wonder why you are making them? Do you have a valid reason for making such false claims? You evidently ave no problem in making yourself look bad, so there is no point in advising to stop blowing any more smoke or moderate your tone. You evidently have no interest in reality or how you look to others. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) You wrote "Kindly stop smoking up the Joint!" above. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is how I read it. Now, will an admin kindly advise this troll to stop disrupting ANI with vacuous bollocks, so we can get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Right here, don't be disingenous. You put that capital J there for a reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) The editor has a long history of writing lurid, sensationalist tabloid articles on crimes that happen to have been committed by Arab or Muslims. The editor's MO in these articles is always to highlight the most lurid, sensational aspects and too keep ethnicity and religion front and centre. While I have no reason to doubt that this particular incident was an honest mistake, it was a mistake that occurred in the process of activity, that in my view, is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) As the person who spotted the BLP issue, raised it with AndyTheGrump I have been looking at all factors in and around the "fail", rechecking and re-auditing matters. I would like to add the following points for consideration by all parties. : I became aware of the page and content issues due to an Rfc. It was clear from the outset that personal views and dogma were being allowed to over-ride Wiki content policies and requirements. It has evidently been a long standing issue. It was because of that lack of clarity - and the sense of "Own" that was being shown by a group and a that an uneasy obscurity was being maintained ..... I started to audit all page content. As I audited It became harder and harder to accept that the sources cited supported the assertions made, and there was a growing indication of WP:SYNTH. I was even becoming concerned as to how basic layout, sectioning and positioning of links appeared to promote a certain set of perceptions rather than neutrality. Then much to my amazement and shock, the BLP Violation jumped up and ended all progress. I can't understand the claims of orogin for the Violation - especially as it's being indicated that the name came form a different case, in a different city in a different year. The linkage of name to specific criminal activity makes the explanation highly implausible. Wrong name from wrong case linked to right criminal activity? However - I am also disappointed that the error was found in a table that has been subject to hot debate and alteration of content - especially names that should not be included. How was it possible to claim that two names should not be included without checking all the included names for accuracy? That also requires explanation and needs to be factored in to the bigger picture. The question of table content was raised and acted upon on 20 Jan See here, and yet the error was missed even then. It had to wait another 3 days for me to have to audit everything to spot a Glaring Issue that should have been recognised days ago before if basic goof editorial practice had been followed by anyone. I'm disappointed in ""all"" concerned as there had been multiple opportunities for multiple editors to spot the issue and act - so it's a multi-person, multi-factor fail on multiple sides .... and not just one person. I do feel that needs to be made clear so that all parties can learn. I fear that passions have exceeded reason for all concerned and that has not been good for anyone or wiki! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I am quite sure it would have come to light sooner without the diversionary tactics, off-topic waffle, and general obstructionism evident on the article talk page - including what appears to quite possibly be an attempt to hold an RfC on whether to ignore WP:BLP policy, and cite sources for something they don't say - see Talk:Derby sex gang#RFC on WP:BLP policy. However, I think we need to stay on topic here - and the topic is that AnkhMorpork, through what at best can only be described as gross negligence, falsely described a person entirely unconnected with the case as a convicted sex criminal. I can think of no legitimate reason to allow someone so utterly incompetent to continue to edit such articles - and so far, none has been given. Contributors have to be held accountable for their contributions - otherwise, the entire concept of a user-generated encyclopaedia breaks down. If this was a genuine mistake, it was a mistake made by someone clearly lacking the elementary skills needed to edit. This error (if it can be described as such) was present in the first draft. AnkhMorpork had plenty of time to check it, but failed to do so. It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Again More Smoke being blown - so Direct Question - why is it that on 20th Jan you are berating people over BLP Violations which could only be assessed by you referencing on sources - and yet at the same time you missed that a person with no link to the whole Derby Sex Abuse case was listed as convicted of offences they had no connection to? It's pretty basic in Good editorial practice when dealing with contested content and sources - You Check - everything! Why Didn't you? Say you were busy - the dog needed to be walked - but don't try and cover it up by pointing fingers at others. You do see how it starts to look bad that you are saying of others It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute and yet you are not willing to account for your own equally significant failures. At least the other person said My Fault I'm Sorry what do we do to fix it. You are acting in a way that appears exploitative. You represent yourself as an authority in BLP, but you are not setting an example to be followed. Again I advise that you stop blowing smoke and moderate your tone and language about others. It's making you look bad. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) See my response above. Then fuck off and troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And the both of you take a trout and chillaxe before blocks for policy violations (you know, WP:CIVIL) start getting tossed around. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah - WP:CIVIL, which says you mustn't be rude to each other - keep the self-evidently libellous material back for non-contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Which applies to everyone as a policy (and, as it happens, one of the Five Pillars), same as WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC) What? "Libel anyone else if you like but don't be rude to each other" is one of the five pillars? I never knew that ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the bold move to collapse the above argument. It's an oft said thing about ANI's that all it takes is one comment from another editor and a whole new can of worms is unleashed without the original issue being dealt with first. If anyone thinks that this action was inappropriate, I have no issue with being reverted. If anyone wants to revert and open up a new thread, also please feel free. It is my hope that one thing at a time gets dealt with rather than one ANI descending into a chaotic mishmash of X number of threads causing all manner of headaches. Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of 'Cyber harassment' etc

Sadly, I am going to have to refer to User:Media-hound-_thethird's behaviour once more. I have just discovered that this contributor has posted at AnkhMorpork's talk page, accusing me of "failing to honestly report matters", of "exploitation of Wiki Systems and protocols to pursue agendas in mendacious ways", of "Cyber harassment" - specifically mentioning the UK " Protection from harassment act 1997", of "Using ANI as a cover to carry about patterns that are harrasment" and of "Lynchings to cover up other people's fails".[104][105] Frankly, I am bewildered by this. A few hours ago Media-hound was posting on my talk page to bring the improper name problem to my attention, to ask about issues with Wikipedia search etc. It seems that it was only after I made it clear that I wasn't interested in what looked to be a speculative conspiracy theory [106] [107][108][109] that Media-hound suddenly decided that it was me, rather than AnkhMorpork, who was supposedly responsible for this mess, and that it was me that had to answer for it all. I really can't see any rational reason for this whatsoever, and am genuinely baffled at Media-hound's sudden change of tack. In any case, regardless of what brought it about, I have to ask that at minimum, Media-hound be told in no uncertain terms that such postings are unacceptable, and that false and malicious accusations of breaches of UK law (Media-hound is aware that I am a UK resident, incidentally) are in particular likely to result in sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound is obviously running an obstructionist line to derail this report, and it is disheartening to see The Bushranger falling for it—naughty words get a threat of a block, while there is zero comment on the substance per not my department. I'm not sure what can be done about "good faith" incompetence because the community is gaining too many editors who fail to understand or care about WP:NOTNEWS, and who believe it is productive to insert gossip into articles that rank #1 in Google. Media-hound's accusations of dishonesty and "Cyber Harrasment" against Andy at User talk:AnkhMorpork#ANI notification are beyond absurd, and I have no idea if it is incompetence or another attempt to derail the report by provoking an outburst. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound's comments there look to add up to a legal threat, far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see I need to ask some more direct questions:

1. Since when has it nor been permitted in Wiki for an editor upon assessment of content to change their op8inions and views of either content or another editor?
2. Why do you persist in attacking others and diverting from from your own failures of 20 Jan 2013?
3. Why are you Wiki Lawyering and not doing as advised in Wiki such as:

Wikipedia:NPLT#Perceived_legal_threats

"Handling: users should seek to clarify the user's intention (if unclear), explain this policy, and ask if they are willing to withdraw the threat. This helps to ensure that a mere misunderstanding or ignorance of our policies is not involved. Even if comments may not be per se legal threats, they may still fall under the scope of other policies related to disruption or incivility."

It is clear that you are determined to divert attention from yourself by any means - and that you are embarked upon copnduct that I do define as Bullying and Cyber Harassment. You are therefore asked yet again and advised to moderate your tone and language.

The pattern of constructing false allegations and the repeated use of misdirection is a well document pattern of bullying designed to fatigue and burden those targeted with excessive work to disprove each falsity. Please do pursue your persecutions by any means - but you have tried to defend your fails by 1) Trivialisation and now 2) Counter attack . You have been advised that your conduct was not looking good - and now I am obliged to make it clear why - WP:UNCIVIL is too mild.

Again - Kindly stop your misconduct and refrain from behaviour which is Bullying and Harassing. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive; I, as an uninvolved editor, have asked you on your talk page to retract your statement, as it could easily be interpreted as a legal threat. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of responding to the abject nonsense above, beyond repeating what I have already said regarding my 'failures of Jan 20th' and expanding it to make clear what occurred - that " I (wrongly) assumed the content was correct, except in that it was including individuals in an article on sex crimes who had been convicted of other things - as the talk page [should] make clear". [110] To expand further, I saw that a table included individuals in an article on a 'sex gang' that were stated to have been convicted on non-sexually-related crimes. Considering this a violation of WP:BLP policy, I deleted them from the table, see [[111]] Did I check the other entries? No. Should I have done? With hindsight, one can argue 'yes', given that an individual was named who was neither charged nor convicted of anything, and appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the events leading to the convictions. That is hindsight however. I do not, as a normal procedure, check an entire article against sources before correcting errors and/or breaches of policy, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect contributors to do so as a matter of course. The simple fact here is that contributors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their own edits. This is a core principle of the way Wikipedia works - there are no separate 'fact checkers', 'copy editors' or other such functionaries. I assumed, (wrongly, obviously) that AnkhMorpork was working from the sources he cited, and that the sole problem with the list was inclusion of individuals who were convicted of crimes, but not of sexually-related ones - and who therefore shouldn't be described by Wikipedia as part of a 'sex gang'. So why is Media-hound holding me personally responsible for AnkhMorpork's gross error? I have no idea, beyond suspecting that Media-hound took umbrage at my refusal to consider his wild conspiracy theories seriously. I didn't check the entire article against sources, but neither did anyone else, until fortunately Media-hound discovered the name problem, and raised it at my talk page. So can I be held in any way responsible? Of course not - I did nothing that I shouldn't, and was under no more obligation to check the article than I am to check any other Wikipedia article - i.e. none whatsoever, as a volunteer. If Media-hound is suggesting that there is some kind of obligation to check the entire content of each and every article against sources before making changes, or before commenting on talk pages, I can only state that this isn't the way Wikipedia works, and that Wikipedia couldn't possibly work that way. The sole person responsible for the error was AnkhMorpork, and I consider Media-hound's attempts to somehow shift the blame to me to be as obnoxious as they are ridiculous, and beneath contempt. If contributors who act to deal with serious WP:BLP violations and the like are to be faced with such random and nonsensical attacks from contributors in future, my advice, sadly, would be to stay the hell out of such issues, and let some other poor sucker deal with the problems. I attempted to deal with problems in good faith, and in return have been confronted with wild (if not entirely deranged) attacks from someone who was only hours before drawing them to my attention, and asking for advice. On this basis, I have already indicated that I think AnkhMorpork should be facing sanctions for what was a grievous error, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in suggesting, given that Media-hound has repeated his ridiculous and nonsensical attempts to hold me responsible for AnkhMorpork's failings, that Media-hound be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia on the grounds set out WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE - a clueless troublemaker, if ever there was one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you have been very informative, Andy, thank you, and thank you indeed for raising the matter in the first place. Please take a deep breath and take the thread off your watchlist now. You're letting yourself be played like a musical instrument. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

At least it has been settled amicably, at last. Basket _Feudalist 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Summing up

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

---

Well, having reviewed the diffs posted here and the article history, I must say that I get an unpleasant vibe. AnkhMorpork, your editing has been tendentious, at times, in my opinion and, for that, I'm inclined to issue a rather long block, unless you accept an indefinite ban from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed. Media-hound-_thethird, from where I'm standing, you've been trying to derail this thread and that's disruptive. If you persist, you'll find yourself blocked. This is your only warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to change Islamic people to Muslims. Because I dont really know what an Islamic person is. nableezy - 19:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Change made. I admit I thought the terms were synonymous... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I will at this point make it clear that I do not consider a withdrawal of legal threats by Media-hound to be sufficient grounds to withhold sanctions against him, given his behaviour. At this point though, I will take Bishonen's advice above, and make no further comments - with the proviso that, if I do not see the issue resolved in what I see as an appropriate manner, I reserve the right to raise the Media-hound issue with the WMF, as the right to raise gross WP:BLP violations here and elsewhere without being confronted with accusations of 'bullying' and with legal threats goes to the core of how Wikipedia operates, and needs to be defended, strongly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If Media-hound does not persevere, then there is no reason to block him: that would be punitive. Then again, if you feel strongly about it, you can, of course, raise the issue with the WMF. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media Hound's primary mode of interaction is to derail legitimate discussion with abuse and accusations that are both nonsense and nonsensical. That user's bullying at Talk:Rape_culture has driven away at least one legitimate contributor.

AFAIK, Any content dispute MH is involved in follows the same pattern; Tens of thousands of characters of abuse until the other parties give up, then MH changes the article to their preferred form, per WP:SILENCE.

It was discussed here, to no resolution. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. Far from retracting his baseless attacks on me, Media-found is continuing to repeat them. [112][113] [114]Given this relentless behaviour, I have to ask what it will take before action is taken? Anyway, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you have now lost yet another editor - I can't see why the hell I should have to put up with this shit just because I took action over a gross BLP violation. Find some other mug, and enjoy your swim in the ever-shrinking editor-pool, as you contemplate your navels, whine incessantly about trivia, and let article-space turn into a POV-ridden cesspit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And still the remorseless shit continues: [115] And note that Media-hound is attacking admins as well now - welcome to the club... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck - if I'm going to be treated like shit, I might as well behave like it - Meet AndyTheGrumpyVandal (and yes, I know you'll block me, but as every vandal knows, half the fun is getting round the blocks - and I know a trick or two. Catch me if you can... ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the editor has since retracted this comment. m.o.p 12:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked MediaHound, following the above-quoted diff [116], which came after a clear warning by Bishonen as well as the warning by Salvio above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Too fucking little, too fucking late... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This clearly WP:POINT [117] edit is not appropriate at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover his AN/I notification of random people is clearly disruptive--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked AndyTheGrump for 24 hours for his disruptive editing. Fram (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Salvio

1. I made a BLP error and and immediately attempted to rectify it, and this apparent "crass negligence" formed the basis of the complainant's case. I have accepted the need for greater caution on my part.
2. At all points, I have adhered to what the sources have expressly stated and have attempted to present their content in an accurate manner. I solicited advice from an experienced admin before creating this article who confirmed the fairness of my editing. If you think this article evidences "tendentious editing", please clarify why you think that's the case.
3. I have only employed quality sources, contrary to the complainant's assertions, which is readily apparent upon a brief inspection of the article.
4. I initiated an RFC when Andy disagreed with my rendering of the sources, and the majority view is that my position is more accurate than the complainant's.

I have attempted to edit a sensitive subject in a fair manner, and have made use of the talk page, expert advice, and dispute resolution to ensure compliance with wikipedia policy. I have had no previous blocks or topic bans, and think that such proposals are draconian for a BLP lapse that I regret. Ankh.Morpork 20:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your editing is tendentious because it is primarily centered on providing negative information about a specific group. In doing so you have been shown to make errors of judgment frequently such a the BLP issue, the addition of dubious see also elements that clearly serve no purpose other than to try to link negative stories to every article having to do with Islam or muslims. There is a precedent for placing sanctions in such a case, even when there is no evidence for explicit bad faith, but simply a long standing pattern of bad judgment that slants a series of articles away from NPOV. This happened when User:Noleander was topic banned from editing articles related to Judaism because whether wilfully or not his editing moved wikipedias coverage of Jewish related topics away from NPOV and in a largely negative direction, like you he also committed a serial of judgment errors, probably in good faith. Sometimes whether or not bad faith is present it is necessary to keep editors who have demonstrated difficulties editing neutrally in a topic area from doing harm to wikipedias coverage. I do believe this is one of those cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Salvio suggested it above - should AnkhMorpork be subject to an indefinite topic ban - "from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed"? GiantSnowman 20:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think a topic ban fair for a single mistake. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's not for a single mistake. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom; long history of tendentious editing in this area. GiantSnowman 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not a single mistake but the latest in a long series of civil POV pushing that has adversely affected wikipedia's neutrality. I point to the precedent of a similar case in which it was found that "Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site." and that "No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims". And finally: "An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group." And finally: "Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately."I think these four findings by the ArbCom in the Noleander case apply equally here. It is possible to be a goodfaith contributor and still unconsciously edit in a biased way that negatively affects the encyclopedia, and we need a way to stop this. Topic bans are excellent for that purpose, and in the Noleander case it proved extremely effective as he remains a productive, responsible and beneficial editor to this day working mainly in other topic areas. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Classic WP:TEDIOUS with as Salvio says an unpleasant vibe. GiantSnowman, could you please specify that we are (as I assume is the idea) opining about an indefinite topic ban here, as indeed in the Noleander case that Maunus mentions. Not a few months. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

• Indeed - I am proposing an indefinite topic ban. Indefinite, however, does not necessarily mean forever. GiantSnowman 22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unjustified. Article seems reasonably edited bar that BLP blip. Juddhoward (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously - and I think that Maunus sums up the broader problems with AnkhMorpork well. The quote from the Noleander case regarding "scrupulous sourcing" is particularly cogent, not just in this obvious case, but elsewhere in AnkhMorpork's editing history, which is littered with cherry-picked quotes from questionable sources, clearly chosen for spin rather than for encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly necessary given the ongoing pattern of behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User:Maunus.--В и к и T 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support obviously. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Tendentious and careless, a dangerous combination where people's reputations are concerned. Per GregJackP, below, with the proviso that, if his editing in other areas is without problems, he can request the community lift the ban after a suitable time period (not less than six months). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Added proviso 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose—it is true that AnkhMorpork violated a number of policies, and as someone pointed out here, has focused perhaps too much on edits about a single religion. However, there are two things that are missing from the conversation that I feel that have been absent in many similar cases on Wikipedia, for the detriment of the project. One: while editors are quick to point out problematic editing patterns by AnkhMorpork, no one has pointed to a similar pattern of engagement by serious uninvolved editors. That is, as far as I can tell, no one warned AnkhMorpork just how problematic some of his editing might have been (no, it's not obvious), and when someone did warn him (as in the recent BLP case), AnkhMorpork apologized and even initiated a request to have his revision deleted. So it seems like a clear case of not assuming good faith and wanting to ban an editor because it's the easiest thing to do. And two: AnkhMorpork clearly has an interest in the subject matter, and has contributed a lot to it, including writing new quality articles. So whatever the problems, how would banning him permanently from the area where he makes his best contributions be productive? People want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, but let's not get carried away and look at what would benefit Wikipedia instead of what would be easy. I suggest that AnkhMorpork take a voluntary break from editing on this subject matter and focus his energies on other topics, but without an imposed ban so that he can also make small edits and vandalism reverts to articles he surely follows/watches. At this time I suggest that he familiarizes himself more with Wikipedia policies, and that other more senior editors help him if he makes a mistake. This is clearly a good-faith editor, so the negative discourse in this discussion is surprising. IMO it's an editor we want to keep on Wikipedia, and not alienate by imposing harsh sanctions—because a permanent topic ban might not seem that harsh, but forever is a very long time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that "indefinite" does not mean forever, but just untill there is a consensus to abolish the ban. Also perhaps it is pertinent to supply links to previous ANI cases to show that this is not a standalone issue and indeed AnkhMorpork has been warnedbefore, including a previous topic ban discussion here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Prying yet another tendentious warrior out of the I-P topic area is never a bad thing. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Long term pattern of editing in this area is not consistent with the purposes of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This user's contribution to Wikipedia has consisted almost entirely of tendentious pov pushing ever since he arrived here. I see it mostly in the I/P area but looking now at his vigorous promotion of the British-Asians-are-all-evil-rapists slur by "objectively" compiling every negative incident from the UK press just makes me sick. Yaseen Ege, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Rotherham sex grooming case, Derby sex gang and more of the same is on the way. Please put a stop to it. Zero^talk 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article was reviewed by an experienced admin who approved it. This is an attempt by political opponents to win a content dispute by banning their adversary. They think it's all over (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Please take note of the single-purpose accounts, e.g. They think it's all over (talk · contribs) & Juddhoward (talk · contribs), beginning to infest this discussion. This is what invariably happens, as "friends" show up to support those who share a point-of-view on the topic at hand. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But no doubt it is fine for those who have a different POV to vote for a topic ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I have no POV when it comes to Israel-Palestine, I hate you all rather equally..."you" as in pov-pushers, not as in Israelis and Palestinians personally. That's the difference between you and I, is that I can and have argued strenuously in defense of a person or subject even when personally I may be deeply opposed to their politics. For example, I am a strident proponent of same-sex marriage, yet I put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that Rick Santorum and Campaign for "santorum" neologism remained neutral and objective. I also fought what IMO a rather Herculean battle to get Marcus Bachmann's article deleted, as it was only created as a platform for pro-gay activism. I was also, again IMO, the primary antagonist in last year's should-we-censor-images-of-Muhammad debate, Arbcom, and RfC, which ultimately answered that question with a resounding and forceful "no" to censorship. Any examples like that you can point to DS? Or does your mile-long block log speak for itself in terms of why you are an editor in this project, and what your track record is thus far? Tarc (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Truer words have not been written on this :) They think it's all over (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Eh? Not to embarass you, Tarc, but it looks as if TTIAO is already an established editor, first editing July 10th. Juddhoward is fairly new, but still predates this discussion, first editing on December 30th. Calling other people SPA's without at least glancing at their edit history is NOT assuming good faith. I could see your point here, but im just not buying it if you accuse wildly. Also, I hardly think that two votes (from two independent people) is "infesting" the discussion. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The closer should note that They think it's all over (talk · contribs) began editing 6 months ago, has 200-odd edits, mostly in the Muslim/Jew area, and was spouting Wiki-jargon and quoting policy like a pro straight out of the blocks. [118][119][120] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed in the slightest actually, as I did look first. In 6 months, "TTIAO" has edited almost exclusively in this topic area. Length of time does not make this person's editing any less singular, I'm afraid. I have no doubt it is simply a formerly-blocked user. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Be that as it may, it is not in good faith to assume that someone is a sockpuppet because they have oppose your arguments and a habit of editing volatile articles. Everyone has an equal opinion on Wikipedia. If you have no respect for other's comments, why should we have any respect for yours? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Everybody's opinion is valued on the merits of their argument, and to some extent on their reputation for good judgment. The opinion of an unknown editor, with 200 edits over six months, with all the behaviours of a long-term editor with 20,000 edits will be weighed accordingly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, if you wan't to go down the WP: ABF road, then you can go right ahead. They are you admin rights after all, don't let me stop you. My WikiVampire]-slaying blade needs sharpening, and i'm in no shape to resist the dreaded WP: BITE. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And AGF dos not mean behaving like a blind fool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely over the top. No previous blocks and editor acknowledges his fault. Opportunidaddy (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with a proviso that if his editing in other areas is without problems, he can request the community lift the ban after a suitable time period (not less than six months). GregJackP Boomer! 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Although only in the basis of one incident, his constant infringing on the topic has completely justified a topic ban. This could have easily become a legal issue. We don't want another Tron fiasco. However, I agree with GregJack. If he shows he can edit at non-inflammatory levels, then the topic ban should be lifted (of course, after a considerable amount of time). Perhaps he would like to join me at WP: MINING? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support something but an indef topic-ban appears to be asking too much too soon relative to established community consensus and precedent, as far as I can tell. I read through the ANI histories and User Talk page of both Ankh and Noleander, and also the Noleander case. Noleander was the focus of five separate ANI threads (by my count). The final ANI thread lasted four days with !voting falling about in the same proportions seen here so far, but was not closed with a sanction. Instead, it went over to ARBCOM for 20 days before resulting in a 12-month topic ban for Noleander with the possibility of being lifted after that. The fundamentals of the argument against Noleander were that s/he was engaging in creating articles about individual Jews, using poor sourcing, and (particularly) misusing the sources to depict Jews unfavorably. The ARBMCOM ruling that specified the topic-ban gave two examples, 1) undue weight on negative views of Jews, and 2) misused sources were misued in a way to present negative views of Jews.

  In the case of Ankh, I can see some but not all of these characteristics. To start with, I could find only one other ANI case, which was closed with a recommendation that an WP:RFCU be filed, which did not happen. Noleander was the focus of much more scrutiny at ANI over a much longer period of time than Ankh has been so far. And the fundamentals are different: the quality of the sourcing is different, and convincing evidence was brought showing Noleander's misuse of sources in a way that completely turned around their meaning, and that's not even a main complaint here about Ankh's editing.

  To be clear, I personally am disturbed by the kinds of articles Ankh has created so far--they are not on topics I'd care to find in an encyclopedia, and they appear to be carefully crafted to show particular groups of individuals who are identified as Muslims or who have (I don't know how better to say this) Muslim-sounding names in the worst possible light. Some sort of intervention should happen here - whether it's an RFC/U, a warning, mentoring, or even a topic-ban of some length, but when Ankh's history is lined up with that of Noleander, who after a significantly greater amount of attention received a 12-month topic ban, an indef topic-ban here from "Islam and all Muslims" seems out of bounds. Zad68 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all the ban is too wide if there some problem it only in Sex gang articles second of all like was noted in the thread he only reports what the sources say.The complaint of User:GiantSnowman that it was right wing source.Maybe I missed something but I thought we can use the sources from all political spectrum as long as they meets WP:RS and not only [121]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. AnkhMorpork has been blatantly trying to paint articles about Islam and Muslims in as negative a light as possible. There are plenty of examples already given, but this seems like a particularly egregious example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. There is a lengthy history of POV editing here; it's about time a topic ban was enacted. Yes, he "acknowledges his fault" in this instance, but if he doesn't do anything to change his pattern of behaviour (and he hasn't so far) then it's just window-dressing. It's time to enforce a change of behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• (e/c)Support topic ban. Persuaded over the line for a topic ban per Boing! and the milder but still sensorious presentation by Zad: "they appear to be carefully crafted to show particular groups of individuals who are identified as Muslims or who have (I don't know how better to say this) Muslim-sounding names in the worst possible light" Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support; the recent strife at the Derby article seems to be part of a broader pattern of very worrisome civil pov-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Over the top. Zad makes a few good points, Shrike, too, it seems. Further, if reliable sources paint a group negatively, we should anticipate that articles here will (and perhaps should) do likewise. I suggest the supporters stop trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and let it go at this point. --Nouniquenames 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- this is not the editor to make the sort of judgments required. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia

• User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia

Jokestress/Andrea James has repeatedly acted inappropriately at the talk page of the Hebephilia article. Often, she's either attacking User:James Cantor/James Cantor or making demands. James Cantor is someone that she should generally have no contact with while on Wikipedia, by the way. Check their user pages, Wikipedia biography articles, and the Hebephilia talk page for why that is. In this section, not only did she demand that editors start doing what she wants done with the article, but also suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic. When editors understandably did not take kindly to her comments, naming some offenses she has committed off Wikipedia, she decided to respond with more venom and tamper with others' talk page comments. Jokestress claims that she is validated in tampering with the talk page comments like this,[122][123][124][125][126][127] disregarding what WP:TALK states about tampering with others' comments, because they are what she considers to be WP:BLP violations. As seen in those diff-links, I reverted her three times; she reverted me three times as well. We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations. And if they are WP:BLP violations, I do not believe that she is allowed to tamper with the comments in that way. There are other methods that can be taken.

I will be alerting her to this discussion on my talk page, where she has already commented about the perceived WP:BLP issue. And I'll alert the others (those involved) at their talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring of the comments is the most disturbing thing I see here. Why does she need to avoid James Cantor? Is there an interaction ban? Other then that I see two editors on the opposite end of the spectrum. WP:TROUT for refactoring the comments and a grow up to all partied involved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are also WP:CIVIL issues to worry about, even though, these days, I have seen people (administrators and non-administrators) not take WP:CIVILITY seriously. She constantly creates a bad environment on the talk page (the Hebephilia talk page and other talk pages) because, with the exception of messing with others' comments, she is consistently doing what I noted above. She takes any chance she can to make a disparaging remark about Cantor, such as stating that he is a WP:Single purpose account (even though others disagree that he is and there's nothing necessarily bad about being a single-purpose account) or what Cantor has mentioned are WP:BLP violations. This is one of the things that makes the talk page environment toxic because, for example, Cantor is sometimes left having to defend himself in ways that sometimes result in bitter banter between the two or because others decide to defend him and/or tell her to stick to focusing on improving the article and not on Cantor. I don't know if these two have an official interaction ban, but like I stated to her on the Hebephilia talk page: "As some of us here know, you were a part of a well-publicized campaign against J. Michael Bailey, who Cantor has supported. And you hate Cantor almost as much. Now you are at an article repeatedly attacking a diagnosis proposal made by Ray Blanchard, Cantor et al.; when these individuals are involved, it's never simply about being neutral with you; it's rather about you having, as Legitimus has stated, an axe to grind against these people. You do this at almost all such articles involving views expressed by Bailey, Cantor or other researchers you don't like. You constantly hound Cantor around Wikipedia, and that is not at all about 'fair and accurate' matters. You act like Cantor is always pushing his POV and that you are never pushing yours, which is the opposite of what many others at this site have seen. For years on Wikipedia, you and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like you have been repeatedly asked this for nothing." Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The "offences committed off wikipedia" are documented in this 60 page article. Probably a good place to get an idea starts with the words "In May 2006, knowing of my increasing curiosity in the matter". For me they are more than a little concerning. I would be quite concerned if Jokestress/James knew my real-life identity; comments like this, suggesting (though perhaps I'm being paranoid) that she is trying to ferret out my real-life identity, do not help the matter, nor do comments like this, where anonymous user names are used as an accusation of an undisclosed COI. Again, perhaps I'm being paranoid, but there seems to be genuine reason for concern that the noticeboard could benefit from knowing about.

The disputes between Jokestress and James Cantor do spill across a lot of pages and Cantor has voluntarily agreed not to edit many of them, but the two will often get pulled into unproductive baiting of each other which is disruptive to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So what are you exactly asking for in this situation? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For administrative action regarding her repeated WP:CIVIL violations and WP:TALK violations in general, and for her tampering with others' comments. Your initial statement above shows that you don't see any validity in her messing with others' comments like that simply because of her perception that they are WP:BLP violations. I'm not sure if an interaction ban between her and Cantor should be proposed at this noticeboard, but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary i find that refactoring others comment is very much an issue, is it a tarring and feathering worthy offense not unless they have a history of ignoring warnings regarding it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "on the contrary": I didn't state or imply that you don't find refactoring others' comments very much an issue. In fact, I stated the opposite. And giving the user a warning about it, which I am obviously asking of someone with Wikipedia administrative powers to do if what she did is not permitted by WP:BLP, is not "tarring and feathering." And tampering with others' comments is not something that takes "hav[ing] a history of ignoring warnings regarding it" before being given a warning about it. If you are not an administrator, which it doesn't appear that you are, I'd rather an administrator weigh in on that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Trout and close'. Jokes tress gets a trout for the refactoring (it's not a BLP issue). FWIW Jokestress did not demand others identify their public personas, but suggested they might want too. Nothing wrong with that. Her other comments are mostly about how the minority scientific view is being given undue weight in the article. She might want to ask for more eyes from WP:MEDRS if that's a concern.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  15:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress needs a warning, not a trout, and not just about refactoring others' comments (which is made even clearer by my initial post in the Proposed Interaction Ban section below). I did not state that she demanded that anyone identify their real-life identities. And if the majority scientific view is that hebephilia is not a mental disorder, that is not given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the article at all. It's given overwhelming weight, which is why a request has been made to cut some of that weight down.[128][129] As for bringing WP:MED, not WP:MEDRS (which is the guideline for reliable medical sources), into this, they have made it very clear that they generally are not interested in working on/weighing in on psychological/psychiatric topics. And Jokestress has made her lack of respect for WP:MED very clear, stating that she would rather not take things there because they (including me) see things through a medical POV. Jokestress is admittedly very anti-medicalization of any sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than the refactoring, I don't see any wrongdoing, even from the section below you mentioned. It would help if you presented diffs, as tl;dr sections won't help your case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see anything wrong other than the refractoring, then I have nothing more to state to you about this except the following: I have obviously provided diff-links on certain parts. And there's no need to provide diff-links when the links I do provide suffice. As for "too long; didn't read," that is only a problem for certain editors; most who frequent this noticeboard deal with lengthy discussions just fine (not that this discussion is actually that lengthy yet), and such lengthy discussions often do help cases.

Now again, I would rather administrators comment on this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

So in essence you are block hunting? You don't care what the consensus of the community is? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And how is that at all deduced from my comments above and below in this section? I'm not a newbie who is so naive to think that Jokestress would be blocked for any of this. I came to this noticeboard for administrative commentary and/or action. It is called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, after all. That does not mean that I don't want to hear from non-administrators. It means that I especially want to hear from administrators. We can talk about this section being too long to read, but it wouldn't currently appear that way to any administrator if the non-administrators hadn't kept contributing to making the section longer than it needs to be. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) If you aren't block hunting why the insistence that administrators only comment on this? help us understand how an administrator will be the key to fixing this if you aren't looking for a block and a interaction ban won't resolve it...If you notice there has been very little support for your version of events, yes there is some issues with the refactoring of the talkpage comments but other then that the consensus of established editors here thus far is that it doesn't raise the bar of disruption to the point where the person should be blocked or banned. It's also very telling that you are willing to ignore the considered viewpoints of others (who are nuetral) in resolution of said dispute either. I also would note you are only concerned with her viewpoint and not the viewpoint of Cantor or inappropriateness of comments. This points out that you may have a position/bias on what is right or wrong in her edits from a viewpoint of subject standard and not nec. interested in dispute resolution but want enforcement of a specific view by block, which is contrary to the entire base of Wikipedia which is consensus. Again i pose the question what are you looking for if not a block? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And FYI Thumperward is an Admin..just saying. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And yet again you are clouding up the talk page. I already explained myself above; I'm not about to repeat something you clearly don't understand. I'm not sure why you think that the only reason a person would seek help from administrators at an administrative noticeboard is to see an editor blocked or banned. Would you issuing a warning to Jokestress carry as much weight as a warning from an administrator or administrators? No. That's why we have these noticeboards. Administrators have the authority that you don't have, which is why editors come here. A lot of them have also been critical of non-administrators at this noticeboard and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard trying to do the job of administrators. And stating that there has "been very little support for [my] version of events," as if I've made anything up, is quite off. Administrators not having yet weighed in on this matter, other than Thumperward's criticism of the Proposed Interaction Ban section you started below because you started it too soon, with one non-administrator not seeing anything wrong with the issues that I and WLU have brought up, is not "very little support for [my] version of events." And, yes, support for the refractoring of comments being inappropriate is clear. As for not being concerned with Cantor, I have also made very clear that if Cantor has a WP:COI, Jokestress has as much of a WP:COI and that Wikipedia interaction between them is problematic. But it's not Cantor who WP:HOUNDs Jokestress all over Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Above you said "I'm not sure if an interaction ban between her and Cantor should be proposed at this noticeboard, but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them." but now that's not good enough, the clouding here is coming from you and what you're actually requesting...You say one thing but you are rejecting that same solution, so what are you wanting to happen? A topic ban can be decided by consensus (and that is the preferable way to decide things) but there is no support for that at this time. Maybe if you're more clear about what you think needs done we can have a wider discussion because for an admin to arbitrarily say you're topic banned is in extremely poor taste and over-reaching in my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC) What in the world? Yes, I stated that...with "I'm not sure" being keywords. And my statement definitely did not encourage you to go ahead and start a section about an interaction ban while discussion on these matters was just beginning (except for in your own mind). Thumperward is right about the matter of when interaction bans are usually proposed, which is something you should know if you visit this noticeboard frequently. As for the rest of what you just now stated, I made myself very clear as to what I am looking for on this matter. If you still don't grasp that, even though others, such as administrator Mark Arsten, do, then I don't know what else to state to you on this. People are also allowed to change their minds, or add on to what they think the solution could be. If I clouded this discussion at all, it was in response to your and another non-administrator clouding it. And, yes, I'm quite aware that administrators cannot arbitrarily state that anyone is interaction or topic banned. Again, I'm very obviously not a newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Let's not forget the last half of that sentence "but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them" so in essence I think you're here in bad faith if you can't be clear with what you want. I don't think you like the suggestions of those of us that disagree and so you are selectively wanting to discount those because we aren't admin. The only difference here is that an admin can block and we can't. And you may not be a newbie but you definitely are acting like one here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I haven't forgotten anything. Your assertions are off, and other comments show that. Equating my belief that there needs to be an interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress with WP:Bad faith and making it out like it's just about what I want, even though I've made clear why there needs to be one and that there may need to be more than an interaction ban, and when others also believe that an interaction ban between these two is appropriate because it would be beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole, is absolutely ridiculous. Like I noted above, "[f]or years on Wikipedia, [Jokestress] and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like [they] have been repeatedly asked this for nothing." And I've already made clear the administrative matter, which you don't grasp for some odd reason. And I've made clear that it's you who has been acting like the newbie here, seemingly not being familiar with how core aspects of this site/noticeboard work. You talk about bad faith. But I see you having acted in bad faith because you didn't like my "15:10, 24 January 2013" comment, where I corrected you above. From that point on, you decided to divert attention away from the matter at hand and focus the attention on me, making this section "too long; didn't read" for some people in the process. Congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I guess you just speak or in this case type a version of English that doesn't mean what you typed. My mistake, perhaps you can be clear what action you really think it should take? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban

Proposed that due to incessant infighting due to COI on both sides which has lead to civility issues for both an interaction ban is enacted to both user Jokestress and Cantor for a period of six months. First break in ban is a day block and each time it is extended a week, month year, indef. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls are a useful tool for judging consensus following a detailed discussion. Starting one three hours after coming across a situation on a random walk across ANI is less so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And you meaning is? There's a suggestion that was proposed by a member above other then myself as a belief it would be a solution. I merely made a separate section for it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While an interaction ban would doubtless be a good thing, it doesn't address some of the other issues. Jokestress in her non-wiki life as Andrea James has done things that make people feel threatened (per my initial comment). Her edits to others' talk page comments are removals of statements by people pointing this out, and pointing out why they might have valid concerns about real-life consequences. I don't know if ANI is equipped to deal with something like this, which requires much patience and reading, and consideration of the overlapping roles and actions on-wiki and off. I don't know if arbitration could handle it. Jokestress has, in my opinion, a significant non-financial COI - but there is no clear-cut way to deal with it in a manner that will seem fair. I don't necessarily think "fairness" should be the over-riding ideal in this case, I think a topic ban based on human sexuality articles might be a way forward, but I doubt it would be endorsed by a critical mass of the community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was also thinking that something more than just an interaction ban needs to be done on this matter. After all, an interaction ban wouldn't restrict her from commenting or editing at articles that concern Cantor's work or the work of other researchers she doesn't like. It's the paraphilia articles, more than sexuality articles in general, that she significantly focuses on. And this is because some of the researchers she doesn't like specialize in those topics (especially Cantor). Anything to do with such researchers and transgender topics is also a concern when it comes to Jokestress's Wikipedia editing. See this section (which has subsections) at the List of paraphilias article. See the current edit history of the Attraction to transgender people article and its talk page; if that were a high-traffic article, something very visible to most Wikipedia editors, she would have gotten a WP:3RR warning or would have been blocked for breaching it. And on a related note to that time frame, see how she inappropriately started the following WP:AfD debates that concern Cantor: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynemimetophilia...and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael C. Seto. Then look at her comments at Talk:Michael C. Seto. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

However there were valid concerns about those AfDs that Jokestress was correct on, even if they weren't handled with the height of decorum. Cantor has been fairly obviously promoting his work and that of his co-workers, a COI if ever there was one. I don't know if Jokestress tries to restore balance but she has done so every time I've dealt with Cantor's work. It's time consuming and unending dealing with unwinding these knots of the fringe researchers promoting their views on Wikipedia as mainstream. Insomesia (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WLU and Flyer22 that a topic ban would better address the problem than an interaction ban. Even when I withdraw completely from a talkpage, Jokestress continues disrupting the otherwise unanimous editors. (For examples: [130], [131]).

I’ve kept on my userpage this pledge to end the persistent warring to no avail. I’ve repeated my invitation on the other pages to which she followed me (e.g., here, here), still to no avail.

Also, Jokestress’ incivility and personal attacks are repeatedly about me, even when they are not TO me, which an interaction ban would not address:

• On pedophilia: [132] “David Finkelhor is about five to ten times more influential than Cantor's colleagues regarding the definitions of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. ”
• On hebephilia: [133] “I can't take it any more…"Hebephilia" is a fictitious diagnosis, one of many created by an activist minority in the mental health field to pathologize sex and gender minorities...Unfortunately, one of the people in that activist minority, James Cantor, happens to be an editor here at Wikipedia.”
• On List of paraphilias: [134] "James Cantor, the Wikipedia SPA who does most of the editing here...Frankly, a gay guy is probably not the the most objective POV "expert" to conclude that his sexuality is "euphilic" ".
• On paraphilia: [135] “James Cantor appears nowhere in the top ten Google Scholar list when I do a search for "pedophilia". And that list is extremely biased toward the sociobiological/disease model of sex and gender minorities. ”
• On Feminine essence theory of transsexuality: [136] "User:James Cantor is a single-purpose account editing Wikipedia for two reasons: to promote his own writings and those of his sexologist friends"
• On Gynandromorphophilia: [137] “This is yet another attempt by this editor to medicalize a common form of attraction with an obscure term used by an activist minority in the mental health field, a little pocket of pathological science fixated on the concept of paraphilia…This is discussed much more commonly as a sociological phenomenon than a medical one, with the exception of a few holdouts clinging to 20th century ideologies.”
• On Michael C. Seto: [138] “Article was created by…a single-purpose account here to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends.”

Jokestress is, of course, a productive editor in a wide range of articles, but the edits she makes to sexology articles and their talkpages are invariably about me and other people she keeps off-wiki attack sites about. (For examples: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-usual-suspects.html .) Indeed, her off-wiki attacks against experts she dislikes have become so notable as to have been covered in the NYTimes. (See here.)

— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved here per se, but I've closed some Afds that the involved parties have commented on and have read through some of the talk pages involved. I've been very concerned by the interactions between the two. I'd support an interaction ban at minimum, but I think Arbitration may be better suited to handle the complexity of this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think arbitration would be declined at this point as interaction and topic bans have not been attempted, so I suggest that we (the community) at least give it a go. It might be just postponing it for a couple of months, but we can hope it might work. As other have suggested above, I don't think either a topic ban or an interaction ban would work on their own but I don't see why they can't be combined. Perhaps something like:

• Jokestress is topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to sexology and paraphilias, broadly construed.
• Jokestress and James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.

Do those more involved with this than me think this might work? I'm not certain that James Cantor needs the interaction ban as he seems better able to control himself, but one-sided bans are very often more problematical than problem solving. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with a topic ban, there hasn't been adequate formal dispute resolution for that extent yet but the interaction ban is in my opinion doable although it may be unnec as well if we can impress community consensus on Jokestress assuming we get one, a broadly construed interaction ban can be helpful if that doesn't work. I think in this case especially with the original posters reluctance of working with the community at that point we are enforcing one view by hammer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, accuse us of being reluctant to work with the community/of WP:Bad faith all because I stated that I also wanted to hear opinions from administrators at an administrative noticeboard. That's right, accuse us of being reluctant to work with the community/of WP:Bad faith all because you now have a score to settle with me. Ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this was a prior request for arbitration: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=264958462#user:Dicklyon.2C_user:Jokestress.2C_and_user:James_Cantor_at_The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen_and_related_pages — James Cantor (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a highly relevant diff thank you for posting it. I would be more inclined to agree with a community enforced interaction and topic ban as it is noted by the Arbitrators that a previous one did work in the past and also note that several of those arbs said this is still within the reach of community discussion to resolve. I would also note and emphasize the part about community and discussion as being key to that, which is precisely what is happening here despite Flyers best efforts to subvert that process. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There have also been mediations, but I cannot locate the archive.— James Cantor (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And flyer if by score I'm trying to settle you mean discuss the situation posted here you are quite right, I'm trying to help settle it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No efforts on my part to subvert community discussion, no matter how many times you make such an absurd claim. You would do well to learn to focus on the matter at hand, and not on me because of your newfound and unwarranted grudge. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What grudge is that precisely? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder (sarcasm). Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

So do I that's why I'm asking, what grudge do I have here? Maybe you could enlighten me, because as far as I know this is the only time we've interacted. I've asked very simple questions of you, you've answered one way then changed that answer saying that's not what I meant so here's your chance to do it over what do you think should happen because a warning as you also said above doesn't seem to be what you are aiming for? I only want clarification of what your aims are. I'd take an example from James Cantor he is showing relevant material and discussing the issue, which is the key to resolve it. If we (the community) don't understand whats being requested how can we help? Here's your chance to show your good faith, you can clear it up and I'll say thank you and leave it alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Hell in a Bucket, there is a such thing as dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. I've made my comments about this matter, and how I feel that you and I got to the point of sniping at each other, clear above. You also don't recount my statements as accurately as you should if you are going to recount them. As for Cantor showing relevant material and discussing the issue; I have done that, and Cantor acknowledged that by his agreement with what I stated on issues concerning his interactions with Jokestress. I have significantly, and clearly to others here, expressed my thoughts on these issues. And I would now like to take The Bushranger's advice about stepping back for a bit and letting others weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At AN/I, "the matter at hand" is whatever comes up in the discussion. Everyone's conduct in a discussion is open to discussion - and, if necessary, sanction - and repeated insistence to 'focus on the [original] topic' only raises suspicion, rightly or wrongly, of trying to dodge or hide something. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Maintenance note: I've refactored the header to remove the links (with the original header added one line below) as links in headers are not of the good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also, may I humbly suggest the above discussion slow down, just a little? There's lots and lots of discussion and already proposed interaction and topic bans and the person primarily under discussion, User:Jokestress, has not been online (judging by the contribution history) for the entire period of the discussion above which has already reached that point. Perhaps it might be wise to step back, drink a cuppa, and wait until the other side of the story is received? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Deeply concerned. I just read the NYT article Cantor presented and was shocked to read the following about Jokestress/James Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided.. I assume this issue has been addressed on-wiki already? Would someone please share a synopsis of the consensus?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it hasn't been. My opinion is the obvious one: that the sexology pages have been let to become Jokestress' WP:battleground for her off-wiki campaign against those same people and their colleagues (including me).— James Cantor (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those things were also made clear in my and WLU's original posts above in this section. I linked to the Hebephilia talk page discussion where others expressed that such off-Wikipedia offenses by Jokestress are why they are not comfortable revealing their true identities to her, and WLU linked to a journal source about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

Since you are now accusing me of distorting your comments lets look at the diffs. In this one you say you're not sure an interaction ban should be proposed here but you think there should be one [[139]] in the next you say Joketress needs a warning [[140]] and with the last one you state needs more then an interaction ban. So which is which? [[141]] I'm going to bed so you can feel free to take some time to think about what you were really trying to say and like I say if you can clarify what you meant, even if I disagree I will very happily apologize. even if you think a block is justified and that's what you want, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC) There are valid reasons that I stated that you don't "recount my statements as accurately as you should if you are going to recount them." Examples are you making it seem like I suggested to you to prematurely start an interaction ban discussion, and you stating that I changed my answer by saying something to the effect of "that's not what I meant." No, I told you already that the words "I'm not sure" were key words and that "[p]eople are also allowed to change their minds, or add on to what they think the solution could be." I suggested an interaction ban; I then stated that "I was also thinking that something more than just an interaction ban needs to be done on this matter." I didn't discard my suggestion; I added on to it. It's not one or the other. I believe that all of my suggestions would be appropriate actions. At the beginning of that same paragraph that you love to cite, I told you that I was looking "[f]or administrative action regarding her repeated WP:CIVIL violations and WP:TALK violations in general, and for her tampering with others' comments." I then suggested an interaction ban. This is called "adding on to thoughts," not discarding any. Now you really need to drop your trivial focus on me; and it's clear that it's trivial, as even another poster (below) besides me has called it sniping. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) While I disagree with your explanation above and rationale that one person calling it sniping makes it trivial or that the comment was aimed at one person. I do agree it's irrelevant at this point because valid discussion has now started on this thread, which is what should have happened at the first point of discussion. Please realize that when you open a thread here that anyone is able to comment and help develop the consensus, it only becomes an administrative issue when you are specifically requesting a block(which is the point I was trying to make, very poorly), as that's the only difference in a situation like this and that there is not prohibition to anyone commenting or weighing in, whether you agree or not and you did appear IMHO to be trying to quash anything that was not agreeing with your spoken desire for admin action. I am going to drop this now because I have stated that I do agree with a topic ban and an interaction ban both broadly construed to stop the issues. I am a man of my word and while I do not agree with your rationale I apologize for my assumption of bad faith in this case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Like I stated, others feel that valid discussion started with my and WLU's initial posts; I don't see what's invalid about them in the least. While I understand that you were initially trying to help, it moved from that point soon afterward. I mean no offense by this, but you don't have to tell me what this discussion board is for and what is allowed here, as I'm very well aware of those aspects. I disagree that bringing an issue to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "only becomes an administrative issue when you are specifically requesting a block"; that has never been the sole reason why there is a board (one of the boards) for editors to bring problems specifically to administrators. There is nothing wrong with coming to this board specifically seeking administrative opinion and/or action, whether non-administrators weigh in or not. That's what it is for. And I already expressed how administrators can help in this situation in ways that non-administrators cannot, while never requesting a block. You jumped to the block assumption. But like I stated, it makes no sense that I, a very experienced Wikipedia editor, would be seeking a block. I accept your apology, and I also apologize for acting harshly toward you. Now, yes, let's just agree to disagree and move on from this part of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And I agree that Only in death's "sniping" comment was directed at us both; I did call the matter "sniping at each other" in my "19:17, 24 January 2013" comment above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ignoring the above sniping (feel free to hat it anyone) To Cantor & Rosetta - Jokestres's off-wiki actions regarding Bailey are not really anything Wikipedia can do something about. Old news for a start, and at best they can be taken into account that she has a COI when it comes to editing the topic area (as does Cantor). Do you (James) interact with Jokestress anywhere else on wikipedia other than the Sexology topic area? Because if not, then a topic ban for both of you would be the simplest way forward for everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: An IP suddenly popped up to complain about Jokestress at the talk page of the J. Michael Bailey article. It's suspicious that the IP showed up on this day, with all the above already going on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantor may have a COI. However Jokestress appears to have a vendetta against some BLP subjects. A topic ban for her and and an interaction ban between her and Cantor.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban for User:Jokestress from all articles and talk pages relating to sexology and paraphilias, broadly construed, and mutual interaction ban between User:James Cantor and Jokestress as proposed by User:Thryduulf above.

Among many points above not fully grasping the issues at hand the contention offered by User:Only in death that as WP cannot "do" anything about off-wiki behaviour, that such behaviour is now old news, and that the relevant issues pertain only to the interaction between Cantor and Jokestress, fails to address the potentially chilling effects of an editor with a documented history of behavior off-wiki that many would regard as intimidatory enjoining other editors to reveal their real-life identities (as detailed on the hebephilia talk page). In this instance, off-wiki behaviour, rather than being irrelevant, clearly informs the reception of such comments by the editors at whom they were directed.

For clarification, I've previously edited the Hebephilia and Talk:Hebephilia pages but departed more or less coincidentally with (but not consequent to) Jokestress's arrival at those pages. I've also had some earlier interaction with Jokestress but cannot, through the available tools, actually pinpoint where and when on-wiki [142]. That source is obviously missing something as, arising I think out of some discussion on related sexology pages and alterations to Andrea James's biography, I had agreed to add previously removed content to Andrea James's biography (a promise I didn't fulfill) and entered into limited email contact with Andrea James/Jokestress about the same. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the proposed topic ban for Jokestress and interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress are very good ideas. I think they would solve the issue nicely without need for Arbitration. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Realistically FiachraByrne, wikipedia cannot do anything off or on wiki to prevent that 'chilling effect'. Given the tactics Jokestress has been willing to use in her activism, topic-banning her wouldnt prevent those actions from happening again. It just means she wont be able to do anything at the article in question. It doesnt prevent her or anyone else from reading the talk page/edit history and deciding to take action elsewhere. I wouldnt touch any of those articles just knowing someone who feels strongly enough to take the actions linked above is watching them. Even if they cant contribute. A topic ban may at least prevent the (I am not convinced on this) attempts to solicit real-life identities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Thryduulf's suggestion. And a minor point of note - James Cantor is sometimes referred to by editors (inclding myself) as "James", making it difficult to parse some comments that refer to Jokestress as "James". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per all the comments showing (among other problematic things regarding Jokestress) the toxic environment that is created when Jokestress comments on researchers she does not like and/or edits articles concerning one or more of those researchers, and per what often happens when Cantor and Jokestress interact on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for this issue

• Maintenance note: I slightly renamed the section (having added "for this issue" on to the title) to keep us from being taken to a section far above that has the same title; this would happen when we saved edits in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please see my further comment below before commenting in this discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

From an activist perspective, I would be very sympathetic to James, were it not for the "pictures of Bailey's children" part. I have my deep, deep personal concerns about some of the professionals at CAMH (and Bailey, though he works at Northwestern University) and their support of alternative theories into transgender typology which I agree with James (and, indeed, the NGLTF) are unscientific and objectifying. This is a very nasty real-life dispute that has flowed onto the wiki. That said, NPOV dictates that we must leave such activism at the door. First, James' reverts are legitimate per BLP and NPA and are oversightable. Legitimus basically accused her of a serious crime that I can see no evidence of her ever committing; even, in the case of Bailey during the The Man Who Would Be Queen controversy, the NYT and even Dreger agree with her on the facts that the pictures of Bailey's children were freely available on his website. Such an accusation would normally be grounds for a ban in itself; I propose blocking Legitimus until he retracts his accusation. First, I agree with an interaction ban, but I would also expand that to Legitimus, and topic ban all three of them from articles on sexology indefinitely. It's very clear that all three have major COIs relating to their real-life work which is causing them to push their own points of view and attack each other. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen with Jokestress's repeated removals of the text, Herostratus also wrote that she is the photographer of the pictures of Bailey's children that she used. It wasn't only Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic banning Cantor or both Cantor and James, as proposer. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) (Edited: 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC); see below
• Oppose for Jokestress, sorry she may have issues but she is highly competent when not provoked and I'm afraid we're only getting a part of the fully story. I would like to see her commit to toning down the problem behaviors and explaining a bit more what is going on. From what I've seen there has been some highly visible fringe campaigning going on for years and she is doing a part of the walled-garden weed-whacking. Insomesia (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Jokestress. I had no intention of ever posting in this discussion, but by making your statements about me, I have no choice. I have gone back and edited my own talk page comment to remove the untrue portion, and I encourage all other users who made similar statements to also edit there own remarks. I was neither accusing nor lying however. I genuinely thought that was what had happened because sources I read never said where the photos came from. I need to clarify two things though. First, I did not "accuse her of a serious crime." In real life (as opposed to lifetime movies) photographing people out in public in situations where there is no expectation of privacy is not illegal. Otherwise the staff of TMZ would all be behind bars. Second, how the photographs are obtained makes little different as to the heinousness of the behavior. In the jurisdiction I live in, James would have faced prison time all the same due to how our cyber-stalking laws work here. While I freely admit my statement was in error, my disgust at the behavior and anger at being so flippantly and incorrectly accused of libel with the threat of a ban prevents me from outright apologizing at this time. If this can be sorted out peacefully, I may change my mind. I have chosen to voluntarily recuse myself from the hebephilia article entirely and have removed it from my watchlist regardless. I think Jokestress should do the same or else be topic banned. Had she and I met in another topic that was less contentious, we might have gotten along.Legitimus (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimus, c'omn, we need you at that article. Leaving it is exactly what she wants, which is why she tried intimidating you. Don't let her win. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

She genuinely makes me nervous about retaliation. She said on my talk page she tried to e-mail me twice, though I never received anything. Could be a technical issue, but I'm concerned what they might have contained or if it was some kind of ploy to get my e-mail address. I'm similarly not fond of being brow-beaten on a psych topic by a Hollywood writer with no mental health creds. I don't want to be involved if she's going to still be editing these articles. Bullies exist only so long as the system lets them get away with it.Legitimus (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're strong enough to handle it. But I understand being tired of it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The problem is not jokestress, the problem is that the article (like others) are a battleground becasue of two parties with strong POV's, and at least one party (Cantor) with a clear COI. Because of this, several articles are in poor state because of the POV involved. If users who push back to this get topic banned, POV-pushers like flyer and cantor get their way. I have repeatedly edited edits of Cantor because they are not reflecting what the sources state, but his personal conclusions. If anything, Cantor needs a topic ban for repeated POV pushing based on his COI. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You really want to start with me right now? I don't have any POV to push on the Hebephilia article, or any Wikipedia article, except keep POVs like yours and Jokestress's out of it/them. You have as much of a POV at that article as anyone, coming out of "retirement" just to push that POV. Whereas Jokestress is very much for hebephilia not being characterized as a mental disorder, you are very much for hebephilia being characterized as a mental disorder. You have made it no secret that you pretty much see it as pedophilia. This is why you made this mention of the overlap in the lead, although I ended up tweaking it. So don't come here making false claims of POV and stirring up needless drama. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The article made it sound like it was a accepted fact that it was a separate paraphilia from pedophilia. It is not, and if you want to push the idea that it is my POV when I actually provided some recent citations for the claim, instead of a single decades old citation that did not cover what we know NOW, you just showed what the problem is. You are one of the worst POV pushers I know. And for the record, you have obviously NO clue how I see things. But in the end, it does not matter. What matters is that Blanchard and Canter have tried to get it in the DSM-V in various forms, and they were rebuffed soundly. That included a redefinition of pedophilia away from current definitions, and the article was reflecting that, and not the accepted definitions. That is what is wrong with the artiel. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is separate from pedophilia, according to most reliable sources on the topic, and the article did not call it a paraphilia. I, however, have argued that it's only somewhat separate from pedophilia. But that it overlaps with pedophilia, an overlap that I have repeatedly acknowledged (to Cantor, you, and to others), and is also why I did not revert your "overlap" edit, does not make it pedophilia. That is your problem; you want everyone to equate hebephilia with pedophilia, which you have made no secret of (here at Wikipedia and on your personal blogs, which would sometimes coincide with your editing, and is why you are one of the worst POV-pushers I know of). Because of that, I very much doubt that you did not want it listed by name as pedophilia in the DSM-5 (which makes your bias against Cantor all the more odd), unless it's the fact that it would still be distinguished from pedophilia under Blanchard's proposal that caused you not to want it listed in the DSM-5. At the time of the aforementioned edit you made, the article was (and currently still is) reflecting that a lot people (including researchers) do not consider hebephilia to be a mental disorder or a paraphilia, meaning that it is different than pedophilia (and the article being formatted like that is largely because of Jokestress's involvement with the article). That hebephilia is different is the currently accepted definition among most experts in this field. So, yes, I (and others) obviously have a clue how you see things. And just like Jokestress, you take any chance to make a disparaging comment about a Wikipedia editor that you don't like. But this thread is not about the animosity between you and I. And so... Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be wise that you do not speculate on what my opinion is about things, as you obviously have no clue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I have no clue (sarcasm). But it is wise to keep the animosity between us out of this thread, as well as off Wikipedia as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and using sarcasm is not going to change that you indeed have no clue about what my opinion is about certain aspects. If you respond to things I write, i will respond back if I feel like it. if you do nto wantb to be called out of making things up, don't make things up. It is really simple. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I indeed do have a clue about what your opinion is about certain aspects. Stating that I don't won't change that. It's that simple, really. As noted, your stance (past and/or current) on certain aspects is on Wikipedia, so the "made up" argument is silly. And as for you responding to things I write in response to you, that goes vice versa. Yes, I know that you love getting the last word; that's old news. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can keep proclaiming that you have a clue about what my motivations are till eternity, the fact is that I know what my motivations and opinions are and you have them wrong. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And you are obviously allowed to keep claiming/asserting that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am indeed allowed to claim that I know my own motivations. Or is there is rule against "knowing your own motivation" nowadays on wikipedia? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, someone wants the last word badly. I'll be childish like you and not let you have it. This thread will have to be shut down first. That, or warnings to us both will need to be issued by an administrator (or administrators, as in not from you). Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the incivility, but you're both acting like a pair of 5 year olds fighting over the swingset at kindergarten. How about you both shut the hell up since you're doing yourselves no favors, other than appearing to be a pair of dicks? Fish^Barking? 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No apology needed for your incivility, BarkingFish. I obviously agree. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Jokestress, per all the comments showing (among other problematic things regarding Jokestress) the toxic environment that is created when Jokestress comments on researchers she does not like and/or edits articles concerning one or more of those researchers, and per what often happens when Cantor and Jokestress interact on Wikipedia. I disagree that Cantor or Legitimus should be indefinitely banned from sexology topics. They have excellent knowledge on sexual topics, especially regarding pedophilia. Having a COI does not mean that these editors cannot and should not contribute to these articles, as long as they edit respectfully concerning those COIs. But I've never known Legitimus to have a COI, and especially not on the level of Cantor or Jokestress. He has never tried to push his personal POV on a sexual article or any article. He rarely edits, mainly showing up to revert vandalism, other unconstructive edits, or to comment on the talk page of articles (such as providing needed information). When he edits an article, his edits are always fair and balanced. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Jokestress, as per Thryduulf (with little green rosetta, FiachraByrne, WLU, Flyer22, Hell in a Bucket, and Mark Arsten...Or does this new section indicate a whole new ball of wax?) I am also willing to support/participate in a mutual interaction ban.— James Cantor (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban for all involved without going into extreme detail as to the particulars. I think James Cantor has shown exemplary poise in this Ani and also note that Jokestress is a very valuable contributor (multi-lingual) in many areas in spite of her inclusionist nature (I am a deletionist). It's unfortunate anytime a topic/interaction ban must be made however I think it should be six months with a hope that they can all come back to their senses and edit constructively. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • By all involved let me clarify, I mean Herostratus, Legitmus, Cantor, Jokestress and Flyer22. We have such a partisan issue here that I don't think that short of Arb which is looking more and more like a good idea we are silencing one side by interaciton/topic ban. This is a mess. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Arbcom or defer until Oversight review. I see a little kangaroo court has popped up before I am able to comment fully. Legitimus and Herostratus suddenly seem to understand they have crossed a serious line, and their attempts with Flyer22, WLU, and James Cantor to poison the well here and get a quick decision before I can respond is typical of their previous attempts to sanction me here via this kind of trolling. How about we close this without action, take this to Arbcom, or wait on a trial till I am able to comment? It's way too complex to be a simple up or down vote on one editor. Jokestress (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time to comment, such as when I first brought this matter here. You decided to lay low while all this was going on. I'm unaware of Herostratus, Legitimus, WLU or myself trying to bring sanctions against you before. Suggesting that you stop WP:HOUNDING Cantor, on the other hand? Yes. And as comments from outside editors show above, the concerns expressed regarding your actions on and off Wikipedia are not a matter of trolling. As for taking this to WP:ArbCom, I'd be fine with it being taken to them, especially since it doesn't seem that this thread will be successful in resolving the issues. But there is the matter of what Thryduulf stated above: "Hmm, I think arbitration would be declined at this point as interaction and topic bans have not been attempted, so I suggest that we (the community) at least give it a go. It might be just postponing it for a couple of months, but we can hope it might work. As other have suggested above, I don't think either a topic ban or an interaction ban would work on their own but I don't see why they can't be combined." Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And deferring to Oversight review only addresses the WP:BLP concerns you've expressed regarding Legitimus and Herostratus stating that you are the photographer of the pictures of Bailey's children that you used. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Jokestress per Flyer22 and per this. Oppose topic ban for Cantor and Legitimus per Flyer22.--В и к и T 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comment: While I was aware Cantor worked at CAMH (which already rang alarm bells in my head) when I proposed the topic ban, I was not aware of this line in his Wikipedia biography:

He is skeptical of shemales—men who undergo procedures to look female and who live as women, but who do not seek sex reassignment surgery—who say they want to remain in a shemale state. Cantor has been quoted as saying that "[the 'shemales'] often change their stories as they come to terms with everything."

After reading that line, I immediately retched. If an editor had said that on-project, I think they'd be looking down the barrel end of a long ban. Reading into his activities more, he seems to be have been active within a concerted effort of his colleagues at CAMH to introduce their own pet theories into DSM-V (most notably, autogynephilia, a theory which Cantor seems to support due to his positive review of The Man Who Would Be Queen). If he's willing to push such a personal unscientific agenda in the medical industry, I think it's not inappropriate to discuss whether he would do the same on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Cantor has a long history of POV pushing here at wikipedia, and Flyer often seems to act as his meat puppet. Because of this, a whole series of articles is effectively owned by them, and it ios sheer impossible to get quality edits into those articles based on actual sources, or as with hebephilia, sections get so incredibly bloated that they are anything but encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So much for keeping the animosity between us off Wikipedia. There is no proof whatsoever that I act as Cantor's meatpuppet. Not to mention, that I don't agree with what a lot of Cantor believes (and I do mean his research). And like I stated above, the Hebephilia article being what you call "bloated" with the DSM debate is largely because of Jokestress's involvement with the article. It's not like Cantor would want all the criticism in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, the section is bloated because Cantor is pushing a specific POV with regard to this topic. This inhibits sensible encyclopedic writing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect? LOL. The talk page and its currently only archive show otherwise (that rhymes). Most of the DSM material currently in the article is criticism of the hebephilia diagnosis. And who requested that such material be in the article? Jokestress. Jeez, you'll lie about/distort anything. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:LIARLIAR. Tread carefully. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, The Bushranger. I wasn't going to reply to you on that, but, seeing that WP:LIARLIAR is an essay page about deletion of content/articles, the only relevant thing I see there regarding this discussion is where it considers calling someone a liar to be a personal attack. But, on Wikipedia, we often state that others' claims are not true, as demonstrated in this discussion; I don't find that much different than using the words lie or liar, except that using those words are less pleasant. I much prefer the Wikipedia:Honesty page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose topic ban for jokestress. I would support a civility remedy however, as jokestress does have an aggressive and combative approach to other editors which is damaging to the editing environment. I cannot support a topic ban on jokestress alone as there are other editors on that page with strong POV's who engage in disruptive POV pushing and singling out jokestress would be unfair on her. I tried to edit the article as I felt that it was very biased (although the article has since changed substantially) but I kept getting reverted and met with strong POV's on the talk page. In the end I backed away from the article and left it for others with better stamina to bring the article to neutrality. Jokestress is certainly not the only problem editor on there and thus should not be singled out on her own. Anyway, the way forward I feel is an admonishment and a possible civility remedy placed on jokestress. If this fails to resolve the issue, then ArbCom or a topic ban might be in order; topic bans are not first resort remedies, usually.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) **Support topic ban for Jokestress on articles related to sexual matters including paraphilias. Also would support an interaction ban between Jokestress and James Cantor and a civility remedy for Jokestress. Initially I was opposed to a topic ban on this user (due to ignorance of the very long background) but upon reading comments more closely and doing some background digging, I see there is more to this editor than I first thought and I have grave concerns regarding the conduct and behaviour of Jokestress. I am particularly concerned about the long history of harassing type behaviour including the abuse of pictures of opponents children - editors have expressed a fear of this editor destroying them if they find out their real world identity. Their aggressive style is also desruptive. I don't see how one can expect other editors to work alongside an editor like Jokestress given the harassing behaviour she has engaged in, especially given that this editor has not reformed their ways in the past 10 years.--MrADHD | T@1k? 09:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose topic bans or any remedies on anyone. Support sending this to ArbCom. After reading this response by Jokestress to my concerns, I am changing my vote for the 3rd and final time. I oppose any community action on any editor including jokestress. I (and I am sure others as well) am getting mislead left right and centre with half truths and lots of mudslinging. What is at the heart of this is a complicated POV battleground and to get to the bottom of it requires ArbCom I feel. Kneejerk reactions by the community risks punishing people who have the most mud sticking to them but not necessarily guilty of much. I honestly don't know for sure who is the 'main problem' on these articles - so lets just send this mess to ArbCom. :-) --MrADHD | T@1k? 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Although my above preference and belief that this is best handled ArbCom remains, if the community decides this should not be sent to ArbCom and community sanctioned topic bans should be passed I think both James Cantor and Joestress should be topic banned rather than one or the other for reasons I have articulated else where on this thread.--MrADHD | T@1k? 03:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban for Cantor/Jokestress, topic ban for Jokestress While the actions by Jokestress are 5 years old, they are so reprehensible that it should be obvious to all that her judgment is clouded with respect to the whole "phillia" thing. And it appears these off wiki battles are still occurring onsite. Enough.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Jokestress and Cantor - topic ban on all paraphilias for Jokestress - Clearly this is going nowhere, suggest both Cantor and Jokestress stay the hell out of each other's way, and Jokestress stay out of the topic as a whole - their presence and edits are clearly causing strife, but let us not forget that Cantor's COI pushing doesn't exactly help matters. Fish^Barking? 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've said so above, but since new voting sections keep getting added, I'll make it more clear for the closing admin: Support an interaction ban between Jokestress and Cantor and a topic ban on paraphilias for Jokestress Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In addition to my proposal above, which I still think is worth trying, I beginning to think that something needs to happen with Kim van der Linde and possibly Flyer22. Certainly the former is not acting at all like an admin should, and I'm thinking that some sort of restriction is in order to get them to civilly discuss content rather than attack other contributors. I wouldn't object to an interaction ban between the two parties either, but I'm not sure both it and the restriction on Kim van der Linde are necessary. I don't really see Flyer22's contributions to the interactions between them being significantly more than rising to bait (which they really need to stop doing), but as above I'm not a fan of one-sided interaction bans, and in this case I'm not convinced that Flyer22 wouldn't game and bait a one-sided ban on Kim.
  If we can remove the hindering users then I strongly believe that high quality neutral articles in this area. James Cantor does have a very big COI, but that in itself is not a problem as he appears to abide by the WP:COI guidelines well. Jokestress has an equally large COI but doesn't seem to be able to play nicely with others in this topic area or respect the COI guidelines nearly as well; this is a real shame as her actions do much to discredit her views even though they seem broadly aligned with the mainstream in many respects (as I understand both her views and the mainstream).
  Finally, a think a firm reminder to all parties about civility and COI policies and guidelines needs to issued along with the understanding that further breaches [i]will[/i] (not maybe, will) lead to sanctions including blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

KimvdLinde is hardly on Wikipedia these days. She's "semi-retired." So there doesn't really need to be an interaction ban between us. On or off Wikipedia, I can work with people that I dislike; she has repeatedly displayed that she cannot, often attacking me out of nowhere (just like she's done here). I don't game and bait people, by the way. Most who are familiar with my editing can attest to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I have seen of Flyer's contributions, they seem to be within policies and guidelines and in my opinion Flyer is a competent and productive editor. I have not seen any evidence of baiting or gaming behaviour. I am not familiar with Kim at all, so I can't comment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm an involved party (sort of), I did allow myself to be goaded by Jokestress into quoting Joseph Welch and so forth (justifiably, but I still shouldn't allow myself to be goaded), and I did make an error: Jokestress (that is, Andrea James) did not take a covert photo of her opponent's elementary-school-age daughter and publish it on her website with the eyes blacked out and a caption asking whether this elementary-school-age daughter was "a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?". I shouldn't have said that because it wasn't true (I had misunderstood) and I apologize. What I meant to say way that Jokestress copied a photo from the web of her opponent's elementary-school-age daughter and published it on her website with the eyes blacked out and a caption asking whether this elementary-school-age daughter was "a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?". Obviously that is so much better and of course that changes everything.

However, inasmuch as I do have standing, if any, as an involved person to comment, I would also Support interaction topic ban on all paraphilias for Jokestress I suppose. Actually I guess I would support a topic ban on all topics and an interaction ban with everyone if that were possible. Heck if it were possible I'd support her being banned from the internet and here's a couple reasons why:

1. , she constantly and persistently goads me (and others) as some kind of unworthy mook because I "hide" my real identity (which is perfectly within policy and tradition and general pratice here). This is very annoying and depressing since I have reasonable cause to believe that if she did get hold of my real identity she'd use to to try to ruin my life and quite possibly succeed. I'm afraid of this person and that's no fun, and no way to run an encyclopedia, I don't think. If we were running a drug cartel then "instilling fear" might be a good core value, I suppose; for writing an encyclopedia, not so much.
2. , we really don't need the kind of editors who write articles like Adult sexual interest in children with text like "...survey of human adult–child sexual behavior worldwide indicated it has occurred throughout history with varying degrees of acceptability and was much more prevalent in the past...."; "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern...", as she did. No other editor can get away with this sort of stuff. Hats off to her that she can, I guess, but how helpful is this to our mission? "Hi! My name is Andrea James. I am a writer and activist..." but do we really want this kind of activist? Not in my opinion we don't. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this information Herostratus - I was not fully aware of the background. That is quite shocking and I agree that editors cannot be expected to work alongside someone like that especially given that this editor continues some of the problematic behaviours and has not apologised from what I can tell and is continuing harassing type behaviours. I have changed my vote above to support a topic ban on this user Jokestress as well as supporting other remedies against this user.--MrADHD | T@1k? 09:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I didn't say that. Richard Posner, one of America's most famous living attorneys, said that in his widely-read book Sex and Reason. This is all part of Herostratus' long-running bogus attempts to paint me as "pro-pedophilia," an outrageous accusation which should probably also be oversighted at each instance. I frequently work on topics of a controversial nature here because I find it interesting, but my article edits are always within policy. In the case of human sexuality, there are a few people who are so hairtrigger about the whole thing like Herostratus, that it's impossible just to mention the full range of scholarly opinion on a topic without being accused of this or that by Herostraus et al. I edit under my real name and work for a number of high-profile family-oriented companies off-wiki. Do you think I would do anything here like be pro-pedophilia (whatever that means)? This has turned into a giant IDONTLIKEIT referendum and has nothing to do with any recent activity. It's a rehashing of old grudges. I have done nothing in violation of policy and I am being punished because five editors want hebephilia to represent James Cantor's view, and because I do not want actionable libel about me to remain on the site. It's a no-win situation, where I somehow get punished for others' bad behavior in distorting an article. Herostratus libels me and his pals escalate the abuse then bring it up here, yet I get proposed sanctions? Now I think we should definitely all head to ArbCom. Herostratus bad-faith actions at hebephilia and just above call for some serious remedies. I can't believe he can libel me with impunity and I get painted as the villain. Jokestress (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have concerns about Cantor and 1 or two other editors on that page as well regarding their ability to write neutrally on that subject matter. In fact it was I who recruited WLU (an editor with a skill at editing neutrally in controversial articles) to the page to try and bring some sense and balance in the POV battleground. The main concern however, is not your POV or other people's POV but it is harassing type behaviour. What do you have to say about taking pictures of someone's children from a website and placing them on another website alongside sexually abusive commentary? That is not normal behaviour unless people are making stuff up?? I don't see you disagreeing with this allegation.--MrADHD | T@1k? 11:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is complicated, but here's what happened. In 2003, an exploitative professor named J. Michael Bailey wrote a lurid book about transsexual women. To sell it, he was doing a book tour around the US using images of transgender children as young as six without their knowledge or consent, mocking them in a lecture that provoked laughter from attendees and sexualizing them by saying he could tell their sexualities were one of two "types." Example: Psychology lecture lacks sensitivity to sexual orientation. Bailey also claimed these children could be "cured" with reparative therapy. His 19 year-old son and 17-year-old daughter were also helping to promote the book that year because it was dedicated to them, doing press, etc. To illustrate how outrageous his exploitation of trans children was, I took a quote from his book and put it next to an image of Bailey's 19-year-old son, and I asked which of two sexualized types his daughter was, using her image. As you might imagine, people went crazy, illustrating my point. And of course, no one cared that Bailey was making lurid mockery of our children, because they are trans and mocking and medicalizing trans children is completely acceptable. Once again, proving my point. Bailey was investigated by his university for a number of infractions involving informed consent and academic misconduct, and they sealed the findings right after he stepped down as department chair. You may recall Bailey is the guy who had his human sexuality class taken away after he arranged for a live fucksaw demonstration on a woman for students on campus. Example: Northwestern’s Fucksaw Sex Class Gets Axed. Ten years later, people have completely forgotten about Bailey's exploitation of trans children, exploitation of bi men (he said you are gay, straight or lying), and exploitative fucksaw class. But they remember that I am a bad person. Bailey and James Cantor have been closely connected since the earliest days of his exploitation of trans people. As noted above, Cantor has stated on record that he doubts "shemales" are telling the truth if they don't want to have genital surgery. He has also argued that "shemale" is a scientific term. Bailey works closely with a number of James Cantor's colleagues at CAMH.

Has any of this affected my edits at hebephilia? I don't think so. I just know that James Cantor and his friends at CAMH and here at Wikipedia have a long history of problematic activity toward sex and gender minorities. Because I am intimately familiar with how they operate and keep a close eye on everything they do offsite, I have tried to keep Cantor's excesses here in check, with limited success. My limited success is because of gross misrepresentations of what has really happened. I have been very above-board and have always edited under my real name, because I think that's important on these topics. These guys are just trying to shock people into thinking I am a bad editor/person. I think anyone can look at my 46,000 edits across all aspects of the project and see that I tend to be pretty even, particularly in the last 5 years or so. I often get commended for my work on controversial topics. This one has proven exceedingly difficult to edit because of how emotional everyone gets about the subject matter. I stay completely calm as wild-eyed editors libel me left and right and make numerous false accusations, but I get a kangaroo court after they bring up their own bad behavior here. Kind of amazing. Jokestress (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you were being pointy off wiki. No rule against that. FWLIW when I see anyone claim reparative thearapy works, I tend to discount most of their other beliefs. The problem here is that the off wiki activities of multiple parties have spilled over here, and it is disruptive. I am particulary concerned about the "outing" fears some editors have expressed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind and waiting till I gave (part of) my side of this.

• First and foremost, I have never outed any Wikipedian or threatened to out any Wikipedian. I do believe that it would be better for everyone editing extremely controversial topics to identify themselves in the interest of Wikipedia's transparency, especially those who have undisclosed COIs, but I can not and did not "demand" it of anyone. I believe something as controversial as a disputed diagnosis like "hebephilia" would be best served if those editing declared their COIs and better yet identified themselves. I also find it hard to edit with the constant personal attacks if I bring this up. Legitimus is a "mental health provider" of some sort who agrees strongly with Cantor for some undisclosed reason regarding hebephilia (they are a tiny minority in their field). I asked about that. Then comes the libel. I concede that some of my replies reflect my frustration, and that I should tone it down. When people start libeling me, then Flyer22 reverts the libel three times despite my telling her I am being libeled, I find it rather unpleasant to say the least.
• The NY Times guy who wrote the one-sided distortion was on a vendetta after I got him in trouble with media watchdog groups like FAIR etc in 2005 for an uncritical profile of Bailey called Gay, Straight or Lying? Bisexuality revisited. Example criticism: [143] Bailey claimed his now-disproved "science" proved that bisexual men are liars, and Ben Carey lapped it up. Two years later, Carey composed a hit piece on me and two other notable trans women (one of whom I have never met) who Bailey claims were a cabal orchestrating a vast conspiracy trying to "ruin" him. "Gay, Straight or Lying" was also the marketing term Bailey used to sell his exploitative book on transsexual women. Example: [144]. The book has long been out of print and the published took the unprecedented step of distancing themselves from the views of the book. James Cantor has been one of the book's staunchest defenders since its publication.
• Reparative therapy of trans children: as with hebephilia, James Cantor has been heavily involved in POV-pushing at the article covering reparative therapy of trans children. His friends at CAMH run the world's largest "clinic" for this "therapeutic intervention," as Cantor calls it. Clinicians have called Cantor's CAMH colleagues Ken Zucker and Susan Bradley's clinic "something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals" and have noted that the goal is preventing transsexualism: "Reparative therapy is believed to reduce the chances of adult GID (i.e., transsexualism) which Zucker and Bradley characterize as undesirable." Author Phyllis Burke wrote, "The diagnosis of GID in children, as supported by Zucker and Bradley, is simply child abuse." (from the GIDC article).
• In my many, many years at Wikipedia, I have never seen more persistently egregious COI activity than James Cantor's. He epitomizes a single-purpose account. Almost without exception, he is here to promote his allies and denigrate people like me. The diffs for this are his entire edit history under all three names. I believe Cantor's Wikipedia editing can be viewed as a particularly insidious form of paid editing on behalf of CAMH. He hides behind "expert retention," even though he is really "an activist minority in the mental health field" according to his peers. Having said that, I once again believe that we have had a good recent history of working together. I have also been making good progress at hebephilia with WLU. The disruption of that work is because of Flyer22, even more so than the libel by Herostratus and Legitimus. This AN/I should never have been opened by Flyer22, but since it is, I have proposed suggested remedies below up to and including formal interactions bans for all. Barring that, let's head to ArbCom. Jokestress (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out below, Jokestress's claim that she and Cantor have "had a good recent history of working together" and that "[t]he disruption of that work [and disruption of her work with WLU] is because of [me]" is utterly false. And as has already been made clear, most people here do believe that this ANI report, which, again, is obviously not just about refractoring comments, should have been filed because it has brought significant attention to serious issues. Jokestress obviously often cannot refrain from speaking of me negatively, but that is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And regarding what Legitimus believes, I point people to the Stagnant discussion of the Hebephilia talk page where he stated: "I also do need to mention that I have no opinion on whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder. This is another reason why I have stayed out of the debate. Though I don't think it's fair to favor certain professional's opinions who have never actually conducted any primary research in this subject area and appear to have financial and/or political stakes in opposing this. I am more interested in adding information about the term (and/or very concept) in an investigative capacity. The principle (whether called 'hebephilia' or something else) undeniably exists among criminal profilers and other members of law enforcement for use as a way to classify sexually-based offenders, though the actual motive that drives a criminal towards this population varies. For now I'd rather wait for the other parts to get sorted out." Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jokestress, thank you for giving your side of the story. I still think that what you did was wrong as two wrongs do not make a right but no one is perfect. Your explaination of events does add context however which was lacking when other editors in good or bad faith were slinging mud. Your explaination cements in my mind that this is a complex battleground and requires an ArbCom intervention. I have changed my vote supporting sanctions against you back to opposing sanctions on you or anyone else and I instead feel that referring this to ArbCom is the best way forward and have 'voted' for this above. There is lots of half-truths and mudslinging going on in this topic area, I suspect.--MrADHD | T@1k? 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

MrADHD, I don't believe that Herostratus was trying to misrepresent anything Jokestress stated; rather, I believe that he was demonstrating what type of text was in the article she created; he did use the words "with text like," and they are in quotation marks, after all. For anyone wanting to read what was stated in that AfD, here is the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult sexual interest in children. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not have Herostratus in mind when I was talking about mudslinging but someone else. I have no opinion on Herostratus as I do not know them and I am not familiar with their editing. I am not sure who did what and when and feel this whole dispute as stated needs the attention of ArbCom to figure everything out.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not stating that you were, MrADHD. Jokestress is the one who stated that she did not say that and that Herostratus was misrepresenting her words. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note to combat the obvious assertion that I want the Hebephilia article to represent James Cantor's view: Like I stated at the Hebephilia talk page, I recently have repeatedly stated that most researchers do not consider hebephilia a mental disorder or a paraphilia. But Cantor has criticized my use of the word "researchers" and believes that most of what he considers to be the actual researchers do view hebephilia as a psychiatric issue that should be diagnosable. Do I believe that Cantor's view should be in the Hebephilia article? Yes, of course. But, for me, building the Hebephilia article is not about only or mostly "trying" to represent James Cantor's view. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• On my talk page, Jokestress has asked me to reconsider my proposal for a topic ban for her and interaction ban between her and James Cantor in the light of her responses here. Having re-read through everything, I still stand by it. Although her stated aim is for neutrality, I am not convinced that her presence is actually condusive to achieving this. I'm less certain now that some restriction on James Cantor isn't needed, but if it is then I think it would need to cover only article space, as his talk page interaction is not causing the problems that Jokestress' is. In terms of moving forward with content, I think that it might be a good idea to reach out to get more input from the community with a well-structured RfC, particularly if the removal of Jokestress from the talk pages doesn't on its own lead to the finding of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Jokestress. I've been involved in this, although I'm not one of the main protagonists. IMO, Jokestress's position is philosophically wrong-headed, but that's not the point. Both Jokestress and James Cantor have a COI. The difference between them is that Jokestress has an unrealistic aspiration that the article should reflect her POV in it's entirety, whereas JC engages with other editors and accepts that he can't always have everything his own way. That makes one of them, on balance, a negative and the other useful. The issue is really WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've had a think about JC's role with regards to the article. It is not the case, as has been suggested above, that other involved editors are his meatpuppets. That should be obvious from reading the talkpage. He does command respect as an expert on the topic (there's no denying that he is one) and he supplies other editors with papers, which is likely to curry favour (although it seems he is willing to supply whatever people might ask for, not just material favourable to his own position). However, the end result is actually an article which contains a lot of information against his position, so it does not seem to be the case that he has had any terrible distorting effect on it.

I'm perturbed by a few comments above along the lines of "anyone who is opposed to the medicalisation of sexuality (ie Jokestress) is OK by me". The article should properly reflect that this is part of the debate on hebephilia. But Jokestress's position seems more radical (and less coherent) than this, because she seems to want to write an article that puts it on a level with palmistry, which is something not supported by the sources or by common sense. Formerip (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about, FormerIP? Palmistry? Are you going to supply diffs for these false accusations? I have never said anything like that. My position is quite coherent and aligns exactly with the expert consensus of medical and legal professionals. I agree with experts who consider this to be a pseudoscientific construct similar to phrenology (example). You do not seem to have any coherent idea of my POV, so please do not try to summarize it or vote based on what you think it might be. I believe the hebephilia article should reflect the consensus view of experts, just as any article should, and it does not by any stretch. The reason it does not is because of the James Cantor voting bloc and their control of the article. This article may appear to be balanced on the surface to the uninvolved, but it is not even close to reflecting the actual expert consensus position, which has remained consistent over the years. It doesn't even include the publications of the most prominent "hebephilia" critics. Yet when I object to this egregious NPOV problem, a little alliance of editors tries to vote me off the island through means like this AN/I, attempting to make it look to uninvolved editors as if I am the POV-pusher. James Cantor is the person most responsible for skewing Wikipedia's coverage of hebephilia, up to and including tampering with the biographies of anyone who disagrees with his minority (possibly fringe) POV. [145] [146] I know this is a lot to take in for an uninvolved editor, and your comment and vote are both perfect reflections of why a vote on sanctions here is bound to be based on first impressions and misinterpretations rather than a full reckoning of the depth of the problem. I believe an ArbCom case will be a much better place to deal with these issues if sanctions are applied unevenly here. Jokestress (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to arbcom – they haven't had much to do of late, and this longstanding dispute is probably best resolved by them. Andreas JN466 04:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic bans or any remedies on anyone. Support sending this to ArbCom. As MrADHD has figured out, the trans* continuum of articles comprise a warzone, a "POV battleground". Frankly, what disgusts me most about this - and has largely driven me away from editing Wikipedia - are not the editing actions and misbehaviors (or not, depending on how one views them?) of User:James Cantor or User:Jokestress, either one of whom knows more about the topic than I do as a relative amateur… but the incredible onslaught of anonymous persons, either in the persona of "Joe Random IP Address" or "Jane Pseudo Nym" raising accusations against publicly identified persons (including myself) and engaging in hyper-contentious editing: WP:CIVILITY on Wikipedia is nothing but a bad joke, from my point of view.

Re: James Cantor's comment:

"If one removes from Jokestress’ comment the poison to get to the facts, one finds there are no facts at all, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and trying to tell people what I think (but don’t), what I believe (but don’t), and what I want (but don’t). The only “evidence” that I think/believe/say such things is what scholars of rhetoric call “the association fallacy.”" - User:James Cantor

Frankly, I do believe Dr. Cantor should follow his own advice here, and observe WP:AGF rather than endlessly accusing those who happen to disagree with him of being taking "politically correct" stances rather than raising meaningful points. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia - in full context, please?

Like I said there: I don't do PC.

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

…added strikeout of "being" in "being taking", oops.-) - bonze blayk (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: I informed Bonze blayk of this ANI report, because, like I told her, I know that she has expressed some issues with the editing of Wikipedia transgender articles and has interacted with Cantor a bit. Because of that and because Bonze blayk and I have bonded over some things on and off Wikipedia, it didn't seem fair to not inform her of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Jokestress, as well as a mutual interaction ban between her and James Cantor. To my knowledge I have never edited articles that cover transsexuality, or for that matter any sort of sexuality. However, I have lurked in this debate for several years. These two have imported an acrimonious and longstanding off-wiki dispute to our sexuality articles. The details of the off-wiki behavior surrounding the dispute are appalling, but I will not highlight them here. Many of Jokestresses' on-wiki interactions are disturbing. Borderline legal threats (accusing editors of "actionable libel") and veiled attempts to determine the identity of editors, taken as a whole, create a chilling effect on her perceived opponents. Her battlefield mentality is on full display in this AN/I report, particularly in this diff. This can't continue. Skinwalker (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Jokestress and mutual interaction ban between Jokestress and James Cantor. Enough is enough. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Response from Jokestress

Per the instructions at the top of this page, I am working with the Oversight Team instead of responding here. Please don't take my silence as agreement with any opinions posted above. I'll have a longer reply sometime soon. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-Oversight update

Now that oversight is completed, it's clear that

• I was within my rights to remove actionable libel posted by Herostratus and Legitimus under WP:TPO.
• Flyer22 and WLU were in violation of multiple policies in reverting my removals.
• Flyer22's tattling via this AN/I report is pure trolling and disruption.
• This AN/I report was a pretense to poison the well and get me sanctioned when I could not comment.

I propose:

• This AN/I case be closed without action, unless you want to give a trout to Flyer22 for creating the disruption. I consider the incident that occasioned this to be resolved, as I am the aggrieved party, not her.
• Barring that, trouts all around for incivility.
• Barring that, wrist slaps for Herostratus and Legitimus for their policy violations, and for Flyer22 and WLU for reinserting said policy violations. In that case I should also get a wrist slap for rising to their bait and getting snippy.
• Barring that, I propose interaction bans for Flyer22, James Cantor, WLU, Legitimus, Herostratus, and myself.

The COI matter of single-purpose account User:James Cantor and his sympathetic proxies listed above, along with my own COI and that of a few others, is much more complex and probably requires a different venue for resolution. Everything in the section above is a one-sided account of some drama from 2003 they use whenever I call them on their POV-pushing at human sexuality articles.

With the exception of a handful of edits, every edit User:James Cantor has made on the project under User:MarionTheLibrarian, User:WriteMakesRight, and his real name promotes himself and his friends, or denigrates their critics (including me). In the case of "hebephilia," James Cantor and his friends recently failed badly in getting the concept codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), so he now seems to be using Wikipedia to rewrite what happened and to gain traction for his views among lay readers. This is an extremely complex matter that at first glance is hard to understand, and the topic matter means emotions can run very high.

• This article space edit by James Cantor, a revision that removed a factually accurate and reliably sourced summary of what happened with "hebephilia," started the recent article space problems. Cantor is part of the "activist minority in the mental health field" (a published expert's words, not mine) described in that revision.
• Uninvolved editors User:MrADHD and User:FiachraByrne made a series of excellent observations about the obvious bias in the article.
• I was making good progress with WLU and James Cantor despite our differences until Flyer22, Legitmus, and Herostratus showed up. Flyer22 is the real hindrance to productive collaboration in my opinion and should have stayed banned from Wikipedia. This disruption is typical of her overwrought behavior. You can see she responds every single time to people she dislikes. It's a dispiriting grind to deal with her, as we can see by this entire thread.
• It's very frustrating to see the James Cantor voting bloc control article content to reflect his views, fabricating a "consensus" on Wikipedia that is the opposite of the medical and legal consensus. I had previously agreed not to edit the article and have been limiting my comments to the talk page.
• I'd rather we all spend our time fixing "hebephilia" than creating unnecessary drama here. This incident report was unfounded. These kinds of disruptions are not improving an article badly in need of attention due to POV and COI.

tl;dr version: Incident resolved to satisfaction of aggrieved party (me). Propose trouts all around, or barring that, interaction bans all around. COI issues need to be resolved elsewhere. Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated below, "Reporting [you] was clearly about more than [you] tampering with others' edits. And as all others above have agreed, what I reported goes far beyond the refractoring of comments." And above, I've already stated, "You had plenty of time to comment [in this ANI report], such as when I first brought this matter here. You decided to lay low while all this was going on."

Your claims against me are baseless, while mine against you have been validated by others above.

You state that you "were making good progress with WLU and James Cantor despite [your] differences until [I], Legitmus, and Herostratus showed up." That's false. I was already at that article, working with you and others. Legitimus was already at the article as well. Cantor was barely participating. Legitimus was barely participating. Herostratus hadn't even participated. When you created that aforementioned Stagnant section on the talk page, essentially demanding that the article continue to be designed the way that you want it designed or else you'll make the article the way that you want it yourself, I called you out on that and that's when things got unpleasant yet again at the talk page. Then they got ugly when you suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic.

Your assertion that I am "the real hindrance to productive collaboration in [your] opinion and should have stayed banned from Wikipedia." is ludicrous, as even MrADHD, who propelled more eyes on the article due to concerns that the debate/controversy regarding the hebephilia diagnosis was being significantly downplayed, has made clear. I wasn't one of those editors reverting MrADHD. I was also never banned from Wikipedia. I was blocked. And Alison, the administrator/CheckUser who indefinitely blocked me, made it abundantly clear that I was wrongly indefinitely blocked. If others need her to weigh in about that and my conduct on Wikipedia, I'm sure that she would be more than happy to do so. And if it were me that you mostly have/had a problem with at the Hebephilia article, things would have gotten ugly between us before the Stagnant section because of how you treat those you dislike. But, no, who did things repeatedly get ugly between? You and Cantor. And as for me responding every single time to people I dislike... Why should I not respond to people making baseless claims against me, other than the fact that I am clearly rising to the bait?

Your claims above are nothing but a smear campaign against me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oversight

I just checked the edits in question, and they have been oversighted. This basically flips the issue around, and should be rephrased to why Flyer22 reinstated obvious BLP issues, and when she could not keep those in the article, running here to get the person who tries to remove those BLP punished. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A section devoted to me? Your obsession with me is pathetic. And the way that you often act unprofessional/childish (for example, being unable to work with someone you hate without bickering with them) has made me and many others (such as people at WP:BIRD) wonder how you ever were granted administrative rights. Reporting Jokestress was clearly about more than her tampering with others' edits. And as all others above have agreed, what I reported goes far beyond the refractoring of comments. While you're querying answers, you should also ask the uninvolved editors why they also viewed Jokestress's tampering with others' comments as inappropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Being uninvolved, I saw those edits and they seemed like they were hypothetical statements. Maybe oversight had to get the backstory in order to deem them BLP, but at glance they didn't seem that way.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The details of this story have been rehashed many times in context of the disputed articles, and Flyer is very well aware of the details of that situation. An uninvolved editor might have been a different situation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The details of this story have not been rehashed many times in context of the articles I frequent, including the Hebephilia article (as the article's talk page and its currently only archive show). I'm not yet as familiar with the details as Cantor or Legitimus. And Legitimus and Herostratus messed up on their wording. My initial "We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations." line, which I crossed out, shows what my mindset was. If anyone wants to WP:Assume bad faith and state that I was pretending, then whatever. But it would be ridiculous for me to assert what I did, as if the opposite wouldn't be proven. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If one removes from Jokestress’ comment the poison to get to the facts, one finds there are no facts at all, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and trying to tell people what I think (but don’t), what I believe (but don’t), and what I want (but don’t). The only “evidence” that I think/believe/say such things is what scholars of rhetoric call “the association fallacy.” (If I and someone else can be fit into whatever degrees of separation, then I too am guilty of whatever crime the other person has committed in her eyes.)

As many here have already recognized, the problem is one of politics. To folks who do not study it closely, the GLBT communities can seem to have a uniform agenda (that being GLBT rights), and opposing it is dichotomously homophobic (or to risk being so accused). For anyone who attends them, meetings of GLBT activists are famously fraught with the “drama” over opposing flavors of political persuasions. However, the gay and lesbian movement (I am purposefully leaving out bi- and trans-) evolves. When I was first in school, it was politically incorrect ever to say that G/L folks were ever any different from straight folks. As G/L issues became mainstream, however, it become not only okay to acknowledge the differences, but even to do so affectionately and humorously. (Gay men being into fashion was an offensive stereotype in the 1980s, but now it appears on Will & Grace reruns and forms an entire marketing strategy.)

The trans- movement is, naturally, at an earlier point in this evolution. It is still politically incorrect to say that trans- folks are anything other than literally ‘women trapped in male bodies’ (or vice versa), and we are not yet at the point where many writers feel comfortable saying that there DO exist meaningful differences between natal women and transwomen (or men). When it comes to civil rights and certain other issues, the women-trapped-in-male-bodies can be a helpful metaphor. However, to a sex researcher studying (for example) the brain, it is not literally true. Unfortunately, saying so has become sufficient evidence that the speaker must be transphobic, incompetent, self-aggrandizing, or whatever. It is no accident that Jokestress’ complaints about me are not about what I actually say or do, but about what she believes or tries to get others to believe I >think< (but don’t).

Over the years, I have stopped bothering to correct the oft-repeated misstatements about what I think, but for the record:

• I oppose reparative therapy. (Even though I am a member of APA, I am well known for criticizing their lack of action on the topic.)
• I have and do publicly support the rights of the widest range sexual diversity imaginable, wider than any activist, scientist, or author anywhere. Although I have been very explicit to include the many kinds of gender transpositions, I am much more noted for defending the rights even of pedophiles. To insinuate that I somehow support rights for everyone from gay to pedophilic—but not for transsexuals—is frankly bizarre.
• That WP sexology pages were doing fine when only Jokestress was here (2003+) but got disturbed from NPOV when until I arrived (2008) is also a rather frank denial of reality. Anyone is free to compare the before and after of the pages relevant to Jokestress’ off-wiki attacks, such as J. Michael Bailey and The Man Who Would Be Queen.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor and I are in complete agreement that there are political issues here. This is about politics, labels, and definitions.

• James Cantor has been described as an activist in peer-reviewed publications (an activist minority in the field, no less). He refuses to acknowledge he is an activist.
• James Cantor opposes reparative therapy for gays and lesbians, but supports reparative therapy for gender-variant children. He refuses to acknowledge the "therapeutic intervention" he supports is reparative therapy.
• James Cantor makes a great show of supporting the rights of people, but much of his work is around claiming gays and straights are "euphilic," a word he created and attempted to add to Wikipedia as part of his incessant self-promotion. By pathologizing and distinguishing his own sexual orientation from other sexual minorities, he is merely repeating the history of medicalization that used to be done to gays and lesbians (mental disorder label, reparative therapy, etc.). His recent attempt to make "hebephilia" a mental disorder failed outside Wikipedia, so now he uses a group of allies here to push his politics.
• I have written a vast array of psychology articles related to paraphilia, including biographies of many of the main experts. I believe those edits are pretty consistently of the highest quality. I work on many topic where I find the concept problematic because few editors are willing to apply policy to those kinds of articles.

Anything that happens at this AN/I should be applied evenly to all parties, and then we can head over to Arbcom if needed after that. I reiterate my proposal of interaction bans for all, including with each other in every direction. These guys are playing a little chess game where if they get me at the price of one or more of them, they still have several players on their team in play. I have been on set all week and not really able to give this matter the time it deserves. I believe Cantor's pattern of editing needs a much more serious evaluation. The real problem here at this AN/I (in order) is Flyer22, Herostratus, Legitimus, and WLU. Cantor and I should probably go to Arbcom with his voting bloc once this is settled here. Jokestress (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The real problem in this ANI discussion? The only problems I see in this ANI discussion are the bickering, false accusations/false claims and baiting. But as for the real problem concerning this whole matter, apart from the problems that have risen in this ANI discussion, most people (here in this ANI discussion) have agreed that it is mostly the toxic history between you and Cantor...because it has negatively affected the Wikipedia environment for years...and the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia regarding other editors you don't like. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted already, I long ago stopped trying to correct Jokestress’ spin-doctoring. Nonetheless, her above list provides a good example of the problem, for those who would like to check her claims:

1. Actually, there is only Karen Franklin, a psychologist and defense expert witness, who said in a single article, without exactly naming me specifically, that she believes there exists such a minority. Incidentally, Franklin’s article was riddled with factual errors (available here), which Franklin refused to address when confronted with them. Readers can decide if Jokestress is providing a faithful (neutral) description of the truth.
2. Actually, it has long been shown by several studies that the usual course of gender variant kids is, in about 80% of cases, for the gender dysphoria to stop by puberty, after which they instead identify as plain vanilla gay/lesbian. The other 20% do continue to desire transition, although many wait until graduation or other “clean break” with their social groups. I therefore generally advocate therapy to help the kid and family adjust to both the present and the most likely future, holding off on irreversible decisions (such as castration) until we are sure about the individual case. Readers can decide whether Jokestress’ use of “reparative therapy” is an accurate or misleading description of my views.
3. Much of my work? Of the many dozens of articles, book chapters, etc. that I’ve written, I wrote one, in response to a question I was assigned about whether homosexuality counts as a paraphilia. After reviewing the known correlates of both, my conclusion was:

Overall, homosexuality and the paraphilias appear to share the features of onset and course (both homosexuality and paraphilia being life-long), but they appear to differ on sex ratio, fraternal birth order, handedness, IQ and cognitive profile, and neuroanatomy. [C]onsidered together, the existing data seem more consistent with the conclusion that homosexuality is a characteristic distinct from the paraphilias….Because only few paraphilic interests have received much scientific attention, it also remains possible that each paraphilia is associated with its own, novel set of correlates, and that homosexuality is no more novel in its profile of correlates than would be any other paraphilic interest. Thus, although homosexuality is probably better said to be distinct from the paraphilias, that conclusion is still quite tentative. The complete article is available here.

4. It is true, however, that Jokestress has written a vast array of articles in psychology. The extent to which they are accurate is again up to readers to decide.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Facts:

1. The Franklin paper describing James Cantor's role in the field's activist minority is here: [147] After attacking her offsite, he attacked her here by tampering with her Wikipedia biography to make her seem less notable and credible: [148]
2. You can read about the reparative therapy James Cantor supports for trans children in many publications: [149] [150] [151]
3. You can see him self-promotionally add a word he made up, "euphilic," here: [152] Nearly every edit he makes has an element of self-promotion. Pick any one at random and you will see.
4. I'll stack my record and reputation on this project against his self-promotional activity here any day.

Jokestress (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: People can refer to the Gender identity disorder (GID) and Gender identity disorder in children (GIDC) articles for what Cantor means about GID in children being clinically distinct from GID that appears in adolescence or adulthood, and that those diagnosed with GID in childhood usually cease to desire to be the other sex by puberty, with most growing up to identify as gay or lesbian...with or without therapeutic intervention. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue of GID in children is incredibly controversial; it was one of the major reasons why the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce opposed Ken Zucker's and Ray Blanchard's appointments to the DSM-V working group on paraphilias; they argued that Blanchard and Zucker and their colleagues are complicit in pushing unscientific and harmful theories that pathologised "commonplace expressions of sexuality and gender"; indeed, Zucker says that parents who allow their children to experiment with their gender expression are guilty of child neglect (and in one case, accused parents of a trans child of "being swayed by a transsexual agenda"). I'd be very careful before treating anything trans-related coming out of CAMH as anything more than a moralistic fringe theory; as the Spitzer controversy showed very clearly, this sort of theory wouldn't be tolerated were it to do with homosexuality (and really, Spitzer hedged his bets a lot more than Zucker does). I'm also very concerned by the diff to Karen Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that Jokestress has provided, as it shows that Cantor, at the very least, is not averse to COI/POV-pushing. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, are you stating that you don't believe that most children with GID cease to have GID before or by the time puberty starts and later identify as gay or lesbian? You only consider this a theory? If so, I think that there are studies outside of CAMH that have also concluded that GID in children usually ceases before or by the time puberty starts. I understand that the topic of GID in children is an especially sensitive matter, however, and I certainly don't mean to offend on that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also asking because I have some gay and lesbian friends who were gender nonconforming (or gender variant, whichever term is preferred), and they state that they wanted to be the opposite sex when they were children (again, this is only some of my gay and lesbian friends). Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the content of the science, it matches exactly the experiences of Flyer22’s friends (and as I summarized it in the above). Although the finding was eventually replicated by Zucker, it was originally reported by Richard Green (but who disagrees with hebephilia)

Green R (1987). The "Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality. Yale Univ Pr (February, 1987) ISBN 0-300-03696-5.

Regarding what Zucker says: It’s what ZUCKER says. Scientists are individuals, not a “them.” Prejudice is prejudice, even when the target group is not a demographic group. Although the temperature of the issues makes it practically impossible to discuss them, there are indeed issues on which I disagree with Blanchard, Zucker, Bailey, the DSM, or (lord knows) the APA.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not surprising, however, that someone with such a fringe theory works with people who have similar fringe theories; at that point, it stops being individuals acting of their own accord and becomes a systematic form of abuse (for a British example, look at the #TransDocFail campaign on twitter, which uncovered institutional abuses of transgender patients), and I can definitely see the parallels with homosexuality-as-mental-disorder from back in the seventies. To Flyer: I think some people sometimes no longer identify as transgender as they age, but in so much as some people no longer identify as homosexual as they age, and vice-versa. I have serious concerns with someone who uses a term straight from the porn industry in a scientific context without any display of awareness; for comparison, I don't think anyone who wasn't in porn has used the word "ebony" to describe a black person since Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, James and Sceptre, for your replies to me on those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This are best answered in reverse order. So:

4. Jokestress is right. Other than in the sexology articles, Jokestress’ record DOES and SHOULD so stack against mine. The problem is that edits need to be decided by their content and WP policy, but instead are being approved/opposed for any reasons but that: At first they would opposed if they seemed positive towards someone Jokestress disliked, then if they came from me personally (no matter what the content was), then if they seemed or could seem positive towards me (no matter who said it), then if they came from anyone who ever agreed with me (no matter the topic). The most florid example of this was probably at Peggy Kleinplatz: Jokestress first opposed my edits erroneously arguing that I was biased against the subject, but then switched to opposing the very same edit, now arguing that I was biased TOWARDS the subject. Neither was true; the only constant was that if the edit came from me, it was going to be opposed, the consensus disagreeing with Jokestress (but being accused, of course, of bias).

3. In the past four or so years, the pages I’ve edited the most have been: 1. List of paraphilias. The great majority of my edits have been exactly the same: reverting vandalism. 2. Sexual addiction. Not a single cite to myself. 3. Sexology. Not a single cite to myself. 4. Hypersexuality. Not a single cite to myself…

Moreover, as per WP:COS, it is perfectly acceptable for experts to cite themselves (within the usual constraints) including proportionate to their representation in the literature. These are the most cited works about pedophilia of the past 10 years. Of the 10,700 entries, my colleagues and I wrote 9 of the top 20. Anyone checking the pedophilia article will see, not that I/we are at all overrepresented, but that, if anything, someone has been very successful at disappearing us.

2. Incorrect. Indeed, I am not mentioned in any of those articles at all. As already noted: Most of the is opposition centres on what I allegedly say (and don’t), what I think (but don’t), and what I want (but don’t).

1. Correct. Franklin said/believes that, and it is perfectly reasonable to note it. But it is UNreasonable to have made it seem like it was much grander than that.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opinion - for what it's worth, I agree with what Herostratus said here - I am also afraid of Jokestress getting a hold of my real-life identity and undertaking real-life actions against me. I am further concerned that Jokestress might knows this, and initiates discussions like this one and comments like this one as a way of chilling the discussion and opposition. I don't think that ANI is equipped to deal with this; to truly understand my concerns, participants would probably have to read a lengthy article, and I doubt anyone wants to do so. If Jokestress does not realize the effect her comments have on other editors, then I am happy to have brought it to her attention. I hope she lets the entire topic of the real-life identities of other editors drop; they are irrelevant, as all pages are based on a summary of reliable sources - not editor opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is serious concern. There are real life consequences involved outside of the pedia, or at least the perception exists. I wonder if Arbcom should just address this instead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously very concerning. Has Jokestress continued to make these sorts of edits since they were brought up in this thread? Has she behaved in this way regarding any subject that would not be covered by the proposed topic ban (sexology and paraphilias, broadly interpreted)? If the answer to either of them is "yes", then I think we have no options beyond a trip to arbcom. However, if she hasn't then I'm still of the opinion that we should at least attempt the topic and interaction bans - if she abides by them then there should be no reason for her to interact with other editors in this manner (not that doing so is ever justifiable). There is little point in bringing a dispute to arbitration prematurely, as it makes the arbs more reluctant to accept a case if it subsequently does reach that level. While my opinion is that this is closer to requiring arbitration than I initially thought, I still think we as a community have a duty to attempt to solve it first. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opinion. Do others not see the pattern here? These editors like WLU publish or reinsert actionable libel about me, then say they are afraid of real-life consequences when I have their edits removed per WP:TPO and WP:Oversight. Is that logical? If they are afraid of me, why would they be aggressively attacking me and my reputation, to the point of exposing themselves to real-life consequences? Are they trying to get me to make a legal threat? Are they just trolling me in hopes of an angry response they can report here as threatening behavior? Are they trying to topic ban me for simply asking if they had undisclosed conflicts of interest? No matter what I do, even simply trying to defend myself from utterly outrageous accusations, they claim I am threatening them or disrupting the project. I can't believe some editors don't see what's going on here. Even though I am their current target, it's kind of impressive to watch how they operate. The alleged chilling effect I have as a scary threat to them or their "real lives" doesn't seem to be having any effect on their output here or elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't afraid at all and just don't like me or my tone? Maybe, just maybe, they don't want to collaborate with me in the productive way I have collaborated with tens of thousands of other editors on some of the project's most controversial topics, like pregnancy from rape, race and intelligence, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, etc.? Their falsely stating that I committed felonies seems more problematic than my encouraging them to disclose any conflicts of interest. Yet I am the primary target of sanctions. I am glad many edtors here see through this ruse. Jokestress (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WLU does not operate that way. WLU can be tough in difficult editing environments but does not play dirty. If WLU is wrong in what he says it will be a good faithed mistake or else mud has stuck to you that your opponents threw at you which is giving you a reputation bias. You have at times come across hostile Jokestress so at times you have done yourself a disservice. I do agree that the focus being solely on you is not fair as it is a complicated POV battleground and requires ArbCom to figure everything out.--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress, I consider the now-oversighted comments a minor inaccuracy and irrelevancy that distracts from the greater issue and concern, which is again the chilling effect that your comments can have on talk pages. Please realize that when you make such comments to me and Herostratus (at minimum) in the future, it will be very hard to assume good faith over them and will look more and more like you are attempting intimidation. We have good reason to worry about your possible actions, J. Michael Bailey's life was rather hellish for a long while, in no small part because of your actions taken in response to what should have been a minor scholarly debate. All you have to do is stop making them and the issue goes away.

I've never accused you of a felony, my contribution to what you call "libel" consisted of a single revert of edits you made to someone else's comments. That editor has since noted that their statement is inaccurate, and in fact could have been resolved without the need for oversight by indicating what the specific, and rather minor inaccuracy was - that the pictures of Bailey's children you captioned were from his homepage, not elsewhere. I was less concerned over the accuracy of the statement than I was over the change to another's comments.

If you never again bring up the issue of others' real-life identities again, I doubt I will have any further concerns as superficially your contributions to pages are civil enough.

I don't see this discussion going much further, so I will try to leave it be. Hebephilia requires a lot of attention as there are still many sources to be integrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, which "minor scholarly debate" made J. Michael Bailey's life hellish?

• When he orchestrated the live fucksaw demonstration, causing him to lose his signature class, making him a sexologist prohibited from teaching the Human Sexuality course?
• When he took images of elementary school-age trans children without their knowledge or consent and displayed them in a manner that provoked laughter and categorized their sexuality, causing a formal investigation which led to sealed findings and his resignation as department chair?
• When he claimed that he "found" that bisexual men are all liars, causing a media firestorm?
• When he claimed that being gay is "evolutionarily maladaptive," causing a media firestorm?
• When he claimed that screening for and aborting gay fetuses is "morally acceptable" and a parental right, causing a media firestorm?
• When he claimed that (hi Herostratus!) "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of pedophilic relationships does not yet exist,” causing a media firestorm?

Maybe what you consider J. Michael Bailey's "minor scholarly debates" are in fact some of the most controversial and deliberately provocative incidents in a discipline full of them? This isn't some poor widdle innocent victim. He's a professional academic troll. He gets money and infamy for doing some of the most outrageous and irresponsible stunts in his entire controversial field. He clearly gets off on stirring things up. Your desire to downplay his antics mirrors your own attempts to downplay your own antics in this case. You did not simply make "a single revert." You reinserted actionable libel over my multiple objections, then tried to get ME sanctioned as if I am the problem here. Your protests of innocence and claims of victimization may fool some of the people some of the time, just like Bailey, but taken as a whole, your style of interaction with me is a subtle, pervasive, and insidious form of trolling. You aren't scared of me at all, or you wouldn't be harassing me the way you do. You have an undisclosed COI in this matter that informs your editing on certain topics, but I can't even bring it up without being accused of "outing" you or "intimidating" you. It's a double standard in which you have the upper hand. You can make such claims about me due to my transparency and use of my real name, yet I can't even ask about your own personal motivations in editing this topic. I am prepared to outline on your problematic behavior in another venue if any sanctions are not applied evenly all around. Some methods of trolling, like yours, may seem "minor" to others, when they are in fact quite serious to the person being attacked (in this case, me). Having said all that, I have also noted that I believe we work together just fine when you are not trying to get rid of me via your little alliance and this silly drama. If you agree to stop playing little games as you are here, I am happy to get back to improving the article in question. Barring that, I call for sanctions all around. Jokestress (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress, now it appears you are trying to engage in mudslinging at WLU by insinuating that WLU is editing with a COI agenda. Please stop doing this. The only reason that WLU got involved with the hebephilia article was because I asked him if he could help as I knew he was a neutral editor with experience in controversial articles. See here,User_talk:WLU/Archive_10#Hebephilia..--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what Jokestress means by "many edtors here see through this ruse," but it was already clarified that "photographing people out in public in situations where there is no expectation of privacy is not illegal. Otherwise the staff of TMZ would all be behind bars." I'm not aware of any place where it's illegal in the United States. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's really unfortunate that Jokestress is bringing her campaign against Bailey onto Wikipedia. Whether Bailey is a good person or not, it's grossly inappropriate of her to be using Wikipedia to attack him. I'm too involved to be acting as an admin here, but insults like "professional academic troll ... He clearly gets off on stirring things up" etc. are close to BLP violations. Her posts above--using Wikipedia to launch attacks on living people--demonstrate nicely why a restriction is necessary. While she is certainly capable of productive editing, all the available evidence indicates that she's not capable of neutrality when it comes to Bailey and his area of study. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WLU dismisses his reinsertion of libel as "minor." He dismisses a watershed moment in transgender history as a "minor academic dispute." Neither are minor incidents. That is the point I was making. I know of no other way to make that point without presenting evidence. This has nothing to do with Bailey, and the only reason I have to bring it up at all is that he has been invoked about a dozen times here, including by you. If we are discussing ancient history, please take a look at James Cantor's POV edits at J. Michael Bailey (he was using the first of two fake names at the time), which reflect his extensive offsite promotion of Bailey [153] [154] [155] (removing reliable sources, POV edits). Neither of us have edited there in 5 years or so, but Cantor's entire Wikipedia edit history since then has been to promote himself and his allies and to denigrate those he dislikes. I have edited in nearly every area of the project without incident, with a focus on controversial topics, yet this same handful of people keep trying to get me sanctioned here through all kinds of gaming the system. I don't care who WLU is, but I find it highly problematic how he doesn't think he did anything wrong here. Mark, if someone said you committed a felony and doubled down with a claim that you would have faced prison time for cyberstalking [156], you would be within your rights to request those comments be removed. If WLU added the false accusation back after you removed it, I imagine you would not dismiss that as a "minor" issue. If he started bringing up some ancillary decade-old drama to justify his behavior, I imagine you would point out that what happened ten years ago does not change the fact that WLU had exacerbated a very serious problem this week. As I have said repeatedly, I believe an interaction ban applied evenly would probably suffice for starters, but anything more complex, especially the Cantor matter, should be determined at ArbCom. Jokestress (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no COI in this area, so any disclosure you make about my identity will be inaccurate. I therefore have no objections to you discussing what you believe about my real life identity. Feel free to do so with any interested admins or arbitrators, off-wikipedia if think that will avoid any chilling effect, or do so here, openly, if you prefer. Several admins know my real-life identity, among them Slp1 (talk · contribs) and Jmh649 (talk · contribs). I have no conflict of interested on this, or any sexology page.

But again, as I said previously - nobody's identity matters, sources do. I would much rather the discussion focus specifically on sources, a point I've made before. ANI is not the place to debate sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@Jokestress Regardless of the merits of your criticisms of/off-wiki actions against Bailey or the merits of Cantor's support for him, it's still inappropriate to be throwing insults around like you did above (i.e. "troll ... gets off on stirring things up"). Going forward, please do your best to avoid attacking sex researchers via Wikipedia. While editing sexology topics, it's Ok to to voice your disagreements with others' conclusions/beliefs, but personal attacks like the above should really be avoided. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Request Closure

This "incident" report has not surprisingly degenerated into content issues and sniping between some of the involved parties. I don't think anything new can be added and an uninvolved admin should sift through the comments and proposals and determine if a consensus has been reached.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not willing to make or imply any judgement about who's "right" or "wrong" in this dispute. But I do think it's blindingly obvious that Wikipedia is being utilized as a battleground in the continuation of a serious real-life dispute here. Undoubtedly, both Jokestress and James Cantor have much to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of sexology topics, but I think that at this point the best thing for Wikipedia would be to restrict both editors from any further contributions on the topic of human sexuality, and to impose a binding interaction ban between them. I recognize that this resolution is, on some level, unfair to at least one and probably both editors, but I also don't see a better way forward. We just can't afford to play host to this sort of acrimony. If the topic bans are adopted, they should be viewed as a pragmatic approach to a very complicated problem, rather than a punishment or indication of moral failing on the part of the sanctioned editors.

  I'm considering imposing the two topic-bans and the interaction ban, but would welcome any commentary on alternate approaches to resolve this unfortunate situation. Both editors would, of course, be free to appeal their cases to the Arbitration Committee, although I suspect that a formal ArbCom case would result in bilateral topic-bans (at the very least) after an additional 3 months of labyrinthine invective on the case pages. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this topic area fall under sanctions already?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right in your view MastCell that the focus of the drama seems to be James Cantor and Jokestress. I have observed problematic editing and/or behaviour from both people you mention. I can't figure out who is 'most to blame' and who 'deserves' or warrants remedies but clearly they both are continuing ideological struggles on wikipedia which is wearing the community down. My instinct is ArbCom is the best step due to the complexities involved and the long history and possibly because others may be problem editors as well but maybe your proposal is what is needed - my concern is similar to yours, whether one or both parties warrant this action. Something needs done, that is for sure. If topic bans are given I think they should be applied to both editors rather than one or the other like you have proposed.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)×2 re: existing sanctions: There are no relevant sanctions listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions. The only relevant entry at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions notes that User:DMSBel is "topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly", but have not edited since February 2012. It would therefore appear to be the case that no sanctions are currently in force in this area. The closest topic affected by sanctions would appear to be Abortion, but I have seen no evidence that this dispute is related to that one in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't see support for a TB for Cantor, so unless sanctions were in place I don't see how any admin could enact a ban unless sanctions were in force.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See my reply below. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Little green, the title of this whole discussion is under this section title - User:Jokestress_at_Talk:Hebephilia - so the conversation and remedies followed the section title and seemed to focus on one person and the whole conversation was biased/skewed towards a single individual when there are at a minimum two problematic editors on these articles. This is just a mess. Topic ban both or give a warning and final chance to both or else send to ArbCom to sort out and unravel the mess on these articles. That is what I think.--MrADHD | T@1k? 04:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

MrADHD, I had no reason to report Cantor. He was not primarily making the editing atmosphere at that talk page unpleasant, which is something you have similarly echoed. And, at the time, I was more focused on Jokestress editing others' comments; that matter has now been cleared up, as we know. But still, editors in this ANI discussion have looked at both sides, with comments expressing concern regarding both Cantor and Jokestress. Sufficient information painting Cantor in a negative light was also presented. But people have seen Jokestress's actions as more problematic. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I do think that a mutual topic ban would be better than banning just one, which is why I was trying to emphasise pretty much what you said, MastCell. While James' conduct IRL in relation to Bailey could've, to put it lightly, been much better (even with her explanation), I do also think that Cantor's professional conduct IRL needs a lot of work too. Both are importing their disputes onto the wiki. It's sad that this point has been lost because James' actions don't require the amount of understanding of the topic of transgender healthcare that Cantor's actions do. I do note that Cantor does, to his credit, divulge his COIs on his user page, his edits also seem to have the sense of lawyering the COI guidelines: for example, quite a few of his edits are relating to topics he and his colleagues (and maybe friends) have written on. On a broader point, I think our coverage of transgender topics needs a lot of work; I'm concerned with how our current coverage seems to be written by primarily cisgender editors with either no or questionable grasp of the topic. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By no means was I saying that a TB for Cantor may not be necessary, just (so far) there doesn't seem to be support for one. If you open such a request, I would withdraw my closure request.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"I'm concerned with how our current coverage seems to be written by primarily cisgender editors with either no or questionable grasp of the topic." - Sceptre. Yes, "but": "transgender" persons are not necessarily better in this case, since it's an extremely diverse bunch, and they tend to be as much obsessed as cisgendered persons by one or more of the theories (or "anti-theories"? lol!) that have been put forward in controversies relating to groups grouped under the "transgender blanket". It's a complex topic, and there's some interesting scientific research on it, but it's all a subject of hot contention.

For some idea of the complications in improving articles falling within the general conceptual framework of "gender/transgender", I did a minor analysis of the articles that appear to relate to the topic back in Talk:Transgender back in July 2011… re: Organization of articles relating to trans* topics on Wikipedia - bonze blayk.

PS: Contra Flyer22 above, making "an honest mistake": I identify as a pre-op transsexual, not "transgender" (which has become understood to cover a huge number of trans* types?). Except… that's how my therapist categorized me, when she was saying I am "obviously transgender", and qualify for surgery? She has 30 years experience in the field. Look, when the terminology is this confused… all discussion on the topic is going to be confusing! - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a general comment; when there's a serious discussion about how we refer to Brandon "won Hilary Swank an Oscar" Teena, it shows something's up. I've also been accused of POV pushing by wanting to refer to unquestionably out people (e.g. Laura Jane Grace) by their preferred identities. I think there's a thread on Wikipedia that seems to disregard trans voices, even if published in RSes, in favour of institutionally transphobic systems such as the press (see: the Leveson Report, c. page 666) or the medical industry (see/News search: #TransDocFail). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the misidentification on my talk page, Bonze blayk. As you noted, the term "transgender" is broad. I couldn't refer to you as any other trans-identity when I didn't know which you go by. Maybe I saw your identification before, but forgot. I'll remember from now on. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thinking on it more, yes, I have seen you identify differently than by the term "transgender," once describing yourself on a talk page as "a largely binary-identified trans woman." But I obviously didn't know that you never identify as simply "transgender." Again, sorry for the misidentification. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that Jokestress should be topic-banned at all. Cantor, possibly but someone more versed in the subject area should review his contributions and see if they remain COI and promotional of fringe views and supporting his coworkers. Jokestress has been willing to try to keep all that promotional and fringe content in check, and not always successfully, and she has relied on Wikipedia guidelines and including NPOV and reliable sourcing to do so. It would be to Wikipedia's detriment to lose her in this area in any way. That's why I also question an interaction ban specially if she is outnumbered and outmaneuvered as it seems like this entire thread demonstrates. I do wonder if an Arbcom review of this topic area might help or if this is another candidate to fit under the current fringe theory arbitration restriction? Perhaps Jokestress could comment on how much of this is fringe that Cantor et al are editing under? That might prove to be a way forward in resolving this. Insomesia (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Insomesia, you ask an extremely complex question. "Hebephilia" is questionably fringe (I'd consider it fringe) but its coverage on Wikipedia as it stands is unquestionably promotional. In 2009, Cantor and friends at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) began promoting the inclusion of "hebephilia" in the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Some of the reasoning included data gathered using a penile plethysmograph, a controversial erection-measuring device that is not allowed in most criminal trials, because, like the similar polygraph, the data is open to interpretation. Medical and legal experts quickly raised serious concerns about the proposal. Some of the most notable medical and legal experts weighed in against the concept, including Richard Green, Charles Patrick Ewing, Charles Allen Moser, Allen Frances and Michael First. Frances and First, editors of the current version of the DSM, the DSM-IV-TR, wrote an excellent overview of how their version was misused in law, and expressed deep concerns that adding "hebephilia" would make things even worse. Many notable psychologists also weighed in, including Bruce Rind and Karen Franklin, the latter of whom has a good summary of the controversy here. Richard Green said, "Diagnosing hebephilic behavior as mental disorder brushes aside common patterns of psychosexual development, sidesteps cultural influences on sexuality, ignores historic precedents, insults much of Europe and elsewhere that legalizes sex with 14 year olds, or younger, and attempts to insinuate psychiatry as an agent of social control." Legal and scientific consensus is unquestionably clear that this should not be in the DSM-5. However an "activist minority in the mental health field" continues to press for this in other places after badly losing the DSM-5 battle. Cantor and Legitimus are part of the minority who disagree with consensus, though only Cantor is identified as part of the "activist minority." Is it fringe? Maybe. Are they promoting the minority view on Wikipedia out of proportion to the medical and legal consensus view? Absolutely. Jokestress (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, regarding what Legitimus believes, I point people to the Stagnant discussion of the Hebephilia talk page where he stated: "I also do need to mention that I have no opinion on whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder. This is another reason why I have stayed out of the debate. Though I don't think it's fair to favor certain professional's opinions who have never actually conducted any primary research in this subject area and appear to have financial and/or political stakes in opposing this. I am more interested in adding information about the term (and/or very concept) in an investigative capacity. The principle (whether called 'hebephilia' or something else) undeniably exists among criminal profilers and other members of law enforcement for use as a way to classify sexually-based offenders, though the actual motive that drives a criminal towards this population varies. For now I'd rather wait for the other parts to get sorted out." Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MastCell. I have to tip my hat to you. This is an intimidating issue, and I admire your chutzpah in taking it on.

I have no reason to contest people who say that they have been following my edits, and I don’t think there is much point (or interest) in reviewing them. In my defense, I would instead emphasize my pattern over time: Soon after joining WP, I discovered that openness would be the best policy (even if it typically worked against me); so, I changed my name to my real name. When I started receiving feedback that it would be better mentioned on relevant pages, I began posting it…even multiple times on the same page. When edit wars erupted (mostly with Jokestress), I swore off the relevant pages, posted the pledge that’still on my user page and unbroken, and did what a good Wikipedian should do: I walked away from the conflict, just as I walked away from the talk:hebephilia conflict when Jokestress arrived. After someone suggested to me that when producing a BLP of someone I know, I should submit it to RfC instead of creating it directly, and that is exactly what I am now doing (RfC/Robin Wilson (psychologist)). As perusing my talk page will show, my input to sexology pages remains repeatedly requested, not pushed.

I do not pretend that I will ever be able to convince every person in every situation that they will approve of my every edit. But if my record above does not demonstrate that I am and have always been open to community input, then I do not know what kind of record might.

Regarding little green rosetta’s observation (and forgiving myself my self-interest), I also was not perceiving support for topic banning me. I appreciate that consensus is not voting and that minority argument can be superior to a more common argument, but this was what I was perceiving: (I have no opposition to anyone moving themselves as they prefer, and I apologize in advance if I have miscategorized anyone.)

Topic ban Jokestress

ВикиT1

Carrite

FiachraByrne

FishBarking

Formerip

Herostratus

Legitimus

little green rosetta

Mark Arsten

Skinwalker

Thryduulf

WLU

Topic ban Cantor

Insomesia

Kim van der linde

Topic ban both

Hell in a Bucket

Sceptre

Arbcom

Andrea

bonze blayk

MrADHD

Although there have been calls for topic banning me, multiple editors specifically excluded topic banning me as a solution. Therefore, to answer MastCell’s question, an alternative might be to separate the discussion of topic banning me from that of topic banning Jokestress.

— James Cantor (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't really do "voting" here, mate. This sort of tabulation of results is not just "not useful", it's harmful. - 124.168.72.151 (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading through everything here, I'm actually for Topic/Interaction banning everyone invovled at this point or sending it to Arbcom. I think to do otherwise is really shutting one side up through the ban. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This IP opposes a ban on Jokestress, and an interaction ban would be worse as one of them would end up with pseudo-first-movers advantage. Send it to ArbCom. - 124.168.72.151 (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Topic ban for both, although I feel Jokestress is more the serious issue here. Since there is no real indication they have been interacting anywhere else, the only point in putting an interaction ban in place would be to prevent interaction at a different topic. There is no reason that cannot be done at a later time if the negative interaction continues once they have left sexology. (Oh and while 'not a vote' etc, given this has spanned three subsections, the above table is at least a guide to which way the discussion has gone. I am sure the closing admin will read all the relevant comments.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone summarise for me the content of an argument for a topic ban of Cantor because, beyond assertions, I'm failing to see anything substantive in the discussion above. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The following is culled from a report prepared by someone else, so I have not double-checked it. You can pick any edit Cantor has ever made at random and have a 95%+ chance of hitting promotion of himself and allies or denigration of critics. James Cantor has been written into the bodies of Wikipedia articles at least 11 times; 7 by Cantor, with 5 of those anonymously as "MariontheLibrarian." Citations to James Cantor have been added at least 68 times; 45 by Cantor, with 39 of those as "MariontheLibrarian."

Partial list of Cantor's additions of himself to Wikipedia:

• Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse (as James Cantor) [157]
• Pedophilia (as MarionTheLibrarian) 3RR ([158][159][160]), [161][162]
• Sexual_Abuse:_A_Journal_of_Research_and_Treatment (as James Cantor) [163]
• Chronophilia (as James Cantor) 2x [164]
• Courtship_disorder (as James Cantor) [165]
• Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse (as James Cantor) [166]
• Hebephilia (as MarionTheLibrarian) 7x[167][168]
• List_of_paraphilias (as James Cantor) [169][170][171]
• paraphilia (as James Cantor) [172]
• Pedophilia (as MarionTheLibrarian) (3RR,6x[173]6x[174]11x[175]), 3x[176], [177] 2x[178][179][180]

Partial list of Cantor's additions of CAMH to Wikipedia:

• Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology (as MarionTheLibrarian) [181]
• Sexual_Abuse:_A_Journal_of_Research_and_Treatment (as James Cantor)[182]

Partial list of external links to CAMH, Cantor, etc.==

• Andrea_James (as MarionTheLibrarian): Off-wiki criticism (as Cantor) cited on-wiki (as MarionTheLibrarian)[183][184][185]
• Androphilia_and_gynephilia (as James Cantor) [186]
• Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology (as MarionTheLibrarian) (anon blog, considered a fake) [187]
• Catholic_sex_abuse_cases (as James Cantor) [188]
• Cross-dressing (as James Cantor) [189]
• Debate_on_the_causes_of_clerical_child_abuse (as James Cantor)[190]
• DSM-5 (as James Cantor) [191]
• Hebephilia (as James Cantor) [192][193]2x[194]
• Paraphilia (as James Cantor) [195][196][197][198][199]
• Pedophilia (as James Cantor) [200]
• Penile_plethysmograph (as James Cantor) [201]
• Ray_Blanchard (as James Cantor) [202]
• Sexological_testing (as James Cantor) [203][204]
• Sexology (as James Cantor) 2x[205] 2x [206] 3x[207] 3x[208]
• Sexual_addiction (as James Cantor) [209]
• Transgender (as James Cantor)[210]
• Transvestic_fetishism (as James Cantor) [211]
• Transvestism (as James Cantor) [212]

Please note this does not include edits by his sympathetic proxies and is a vanishingly smalle fraction of his promotional activity here under the guise of "expert retention." If this goes to ArbCom, I will prepare an more detailed list of the self-promotional/POV-pushing activity of this single-purpose account, including sympathetic proxies like Legitimus, WLU, etc. Jokestress (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm failing to see anything significantly problematic in these additions and before posting them here you should have reviewed them to see if there was anything pertinent in the above diffs to an argument for a topic ban. For instance, correcting the article on the journal which he edits Sexual_Abuse:_A_Journal_of_Research_and_Treatment to include his own name as editor rather than the previous holder of that post is an appropriate amendment of the article. Posting such a diff is irrelevant to any would-be argument for a topic ban and, despite the above, this is an argument which I'm still failing to see materialise in any substantial sense. His additions to the paedophilia article were enormous improvements to that article and bear strong evidence, as if we didn't already know, that Cantor is an international expert in this field. Moreover, an article on this topic that didn't cite the research of Cantor and his colleagues at CAMH, as already observed, would be significantly unbalanced. If Cantor is citing his own research or that of this colleagues in sexology or related articles that is only problematic if one could show that those additions were undue; the mere fact that he has added his own research is not in itself an argument for a topic ban. And yes, expert retention is or should be an important factor here if one considers the state of some of these articles prior to his additions. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I am unable to devote much time to this at the moment due to work commitments and would likely have ignored Flyer22's disruption if I didn't think I was going to get railroaded in my absence. Cantor's adding himself throughout the project seems problematic to a number of editors above, given the controversial history of CAMH. These controversial opinions take a lot of time to explain, because it requires people to step back and look at how sexological terminology perpetuates systemic bias. I suppose the best examples of problematic activism are the additions and promotion of many neologisms proposed by CAMH. They are based on highly problematic conceptual frameworks. Cantor/CAMH hold the minority view in regards to a number of these conceptualizations. The majority of medical and legal experts believe his point of view has far-reaching legal and ethical ramifications that could lead to a host of problems.

• "Euphilic" (one published instance in sexology, made up by Cantor [213], added by Cantor to list of paraphilias) [214]
• "Hebephilia" (competing definitions, competing views on reliability and validity, opposed as disorder by medical and legal consensus, promoted heavily by CAMH/Cantor)

• summarizes proponents including adding his own work, omits opponents
• removes summary of outcome not in his favor, removes reliable source of his rival
• downplaying that these were proposed, using terminology that subtly reifies the concepts

• "Pedohebephilia" (same as above)
• "Ephebophilia" (same as above)

In addition to promoting concepts created or advocated by CAMH, he has actively tried to suppress a number of competing concepts. The one that comes time mind is a competing model to the CAMH conceptualization of sexual orientation, androphilia and gynephilia. CAMH uses the term in an age-based conceptualization, to mean attraction to adult males and adule females respectively. Experts are well-aware that, like "hebephilia," there is an academic debate in sexology about using the terms as preferable alternatives to homosexual and heterosexual, especially when applied to intersex and transgender people. CAMH is among the last holdouts in using the term "homosexual transsexual" to describe trans women attracted to men, Cantor has used the term extensively and defends its continued use. Rather than acknowledge the well-known debate which he surely knows about, Cantor attempted to have the entire article deleted and subsumed under sexual orientation. The AfD is instructive in his methods and tenacity:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia

Again, this is extraordinarily esoteric and nuanced, and it's difficult to explain in a venue like this under time pressures. What seems perfectly reasonable editing by Cantor to a casual reader is extremely problematic to the majority of experts in the field. Very few people who have not spent a lot of time following these controversies is going to spot the manipulation at hebephilia. If you sent this article as written to 10 sexologists, I am sure a significant majority would take issue with how this is presented on Wikipedia.

If I had more time, I'd give an expanded overview, but this is probably all I can do today. I become available again after 5 February, but I imagine a decision will be rendered by then. Jokestress (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with much of that; however, sexology appears to at times become a battleground off-site. Has it become so on-site? What is the relative weight of the competing theories? How do we address that? The problem with COI is not just intentional slanting but unintentional also. Are there mediator types perhaps in Project Psychology, who can address these issues? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the relevance questions, I'd be looking for evidence much more recent than 3RR problems in 2008 and similarly old additions of relevant external links. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantor seems to declare a COI re: hebephilia here, but then reverted content addition by Jokestress here under NPOV, which is somewhat worrying. In general, he seems to be editing on a fine line between "expert" and "COI editor", and the article Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could do with a check over by someone unaffiliated with Cantor but with more knowledge of medicine than me. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever this dispute is discussed, the key issue is the perception that James Cantor edits with a conflict of interest. So James, I'd like to ask whether you're willing to agree not to make any edits directly related to your employment or your close colleagues, or their or your own theories. I see you have two COI pledges on your user page, but they list specific articles. If you could extend that to any article where you might reasonably be seen as promoting your own ideas or those of your close colleagues, it would help a lot to put this to rest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in principle, yes. That was the spirit in which I made my user page pledges. In practice, however, I believe that that would quickly devolve into warring over whether any given case counts— James Cantor (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But an editor having a conflict of interest because he or she is editing topics they are experts on doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't be allowed to edit those topics. We have editors at WP:MED, who were notified of this ANI discussion, and who are experts on certain medical matters and therefore edit articles directly related to their employment. We shouldn't ask editors to not work on topics they are experts on, especially since it's often great to have experts, unless they are inappropriately editing with their conflict of interest; that's the issue -- whether or not their COI editing is appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of expertise, but of editing to advance one's own theories, which shouldn't happen unless (perhaps) there is truly nothing controversial about them. In this case, it does seem that minority theories in sexology that stem from James and one or two other researchers at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto are being promoted in a way that is arguably UNDUE. This is one of the reasons we have the COI guideline; it's a test of whether one's own ideas really are notable enough for inclusion, in the sense that, if they are, someone uninvolved will eventually get round to writing about them.

For example, James created Gynandromorphophilia in August 2012. We already had an article on that subject at, first, Transfan, then Attraction to transgender people, so Gynandromorphophilia is arguably a POV fork. According to MOSMED, we are supposed to use "the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I searched for this term on PubMed, and at that time found only two examples: a paper by the inventor of the term, Ray Blanchard, a close colleague of James at CAMH, and one other from Hungary. I asked James at the AfD for other examples of its use, but there was no response. The article was kept, but it seems to be a clear example of editing to promote a little-used term (and the perspective associated with it), with the result that Wikipedia is causing the spread of it, rather than merely (or also) reflecting that spread. If James would agree to stop making edits like this, I think the dispute would probably end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up/expanding on your thoughts. It obviously appeared to me that you were requesting that Cantor stop editing topics he's an expert on simply because he has a COI on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the gynandromorphophilia page is a perfect example of my NOT advancing my own theories. MOSMED does indeed prefer the technical term, and I knew that there existed two such terms, gynandromorphophilia (by Blanchard) and gynemimetophilia (by Money). So, not only was I sure to create both stubs, I was careful to ensure they were verbatim. I'm hard pressed to think of a more neutral approach. It was not until Jokestress AfD'ed the one associated with Blanchard, that I started to expand it. Jokestress then AfD'ed the other one. Only the Blanchard stub survived. FWIW, reading the AfD for gynemimetophilia may be illustrative.— James Cantor (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

James why didn't you simply create the article under the title Gynandromorphophilia and gynemimetophilia? That makes the most sense to me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One minor clarification: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia was closed with no consensus, so anyone is free to renominate or open a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just adding here that my post above wasn't in any way a criticism of your closure, Mark. The numbers weren't in favour of deletion, and it's not clear the arguments were either. I didn't vote delete despite my concern, because I wasn't sure. And I didn't want to have to do a lot of reading to become more informed about it, so I just let it go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, that was one of those tough to close Afds. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And even if the AfD had closed with consensus for keeping the article, anyone of course would still be free to renominate the article for deletion or to open a merge discussion about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom Redux

• On second thought, I think that this dispute is best referred to the Arbitration Committee. Given the depth of feeling all around, and the length of time that this dispute has festered, I doubt that any solution unilaterally imposed by a single admin (e.g. myself) is going to stick. Nor (selfishly) do I want to be the "policeman" for this topic area going forward. I've read Dr. Cantor's and Jokestress' responses to my proposal (both on-wiki and off-wiki), and I acknowledge both of their concerns about its fairness.

  I think there's a lot to admire in the contributions of both editors, and I've long been on record as advocating greater involvement by real-world experts on Wikipedia. I also understand the depth of feeling provoked by this topic area - it's one of the most deeply personal subject matters imaginable, and I don't think that there are any easy solutions to the underlying conflict here, between the academic freedom to voice unpopular views and the personal freedom to define one's own sexuality rather than have it defined for you. There was probably a time when I would have waded in further, but that time is long past, and I would suggest forwarding this dispute to ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I endorse the above analysis by MastCell. This matter requires a depthy examination and I think the structure at ArbCom is better suited to handling it than AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This is a case requiring cool heads if there ever was one. MastCell's first attempt at a quick resolution is appreciated, but this should really go to ArbCom. I'm not holding my breath for their level of coolheadedness after the Jclemens and Elen of Roads sagas, but it's a slightly better forum than drive by votes at ANI largely from editors who previously had a conflict with one or the other of the two main editors involved in this. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Can we leave the digs at retired arbs out of this? I think the discussion is contentious enough as things are. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Neither seems to be actually retired. Voted out of office is not the same thing. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) The more detail that gets posted here, the more I'm coming around to the view that arbcom is where this needs to be and that now is the time that it needs to be there. I think this discussion has been productive in the sense that if a request for arbcom was placed now it would be more likely to be accepted than it would when the thread began. Arbcom will not (and I suspect could not even if it was empowered to and wanted to) sort out the content issues. It would only deal with behaviour preventing the community sorting them out. Jokestress is undoubtedly part of the problem, and I don't see a way out of this that doesn't involve her being topic banned. James Cantor seems to be trying hard to avoid problems caused by conflicts of interest, he isn't perfect (but nobody is) but sniping at him doesn't help anybody. I'm less convinced though that others aren't warranting of sanction too. To use a visual analogy I see Jokestress' involvement as a large (but probably well intentioned) dinosaur attacking the editors of this topic, with some others stepping over the line while trying to defend themselves and others. At the same time there are a small number of small yapping puppies also attacking. If we remove the big dinosaur, it is possible that (1) the puppies disappear, unwilling or unable to attack without the dinosaur or (2) the puppies grow up into big dogs and take over where the dinosaur left off. In scenario 1 the defenders, in the absence of anything to defend against may either (a) settle down to quiet constructive article work or (b) freed from the dinosaur go out and attack. In Scenario 2, those defenders may (a) just be in the same position they are now, or (b) they may be the more powerful and turn into the attackers. If we remove the dinosaur and get 1a then everything is hunky dory. If we get anything else then it might be that picking off the big dog(s) or overzealous defenders is something we as a community can do to allow the content discussions to happen and get resolved; or it might be that we then need to hand it to arbcom saying "we tried, but it didn't work". Alternatively we could go to arbcom now saying "we could try doing something ourselves, but we don't think that we would solve the problem". At this moment I don't know which I think is better. I appologise for the temporally incorrect nature of my analogy. I know dinosaurs and dogs never hunted together. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Spoilsport. Seriously though, can you or someone more knowledgable than myself move this to a sub-page and set an archive date on this ANI? This thread is getting huge and looks like no end in sight. Think of the poor browsers.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Endorse sending to Arbcom. If this were only a content dispute mediation would be in order but there are such swirling issues of on-site/off-site battleground, personal attacks, academic reputations of living people, COI, what to do when the ostensible assertions of a topic area appear to some to be personal attacks in themselves, NPOV issues, etc., that a one administrator or AN/I vote fix seems unsuitable. Instead, this calls for in-depth examinations of edits and page talk, measured against policy and the good of the Project, to clear the ground. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, so who's going to do the paperwork and file for a case? (Not it) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• James should probably first be given the chance to extend his COI pledge to any article directly related to his work and that of his colleagues (broadly enough construed so that the dispute ends). If he feels that isn't a reasonable request and would prefer ArbCom to deal with it, then okay, but it makes sense to offer him the option. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Pratyeka abusing admin power

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

---

Pratyeka (talk · contribs)

User:Pratyeka became an admin back in 2003, back when RFA was a lot simpler. On more than one occasion, Pratyeka has restored pages that had been deleted via AFD without without any discussion or fixing the issues with the page, instead acting within his own opinion. Observe Hack Make and Nemerle were both deleted via AFD after the discusions ended with a delete consenus, see (WP:Articles for deletion/Observe Hack Make and WP:Articles for deletion/Nemerle. Despite this, Pratyeka restored the pages without a DRV or addressing the problems. He also restored Coral Consortium which was deleted for being a copy right violation with the comment "please identify the specific section(s) infringing copyright, as IMHO this article is actually useful and unique". The fact that he used the phrase IMHO, clearly shows that he was acting based on his own opinion and ignoring policy. Pratyeka also has restored many articles that were deleted via PROD without fixing the problem such as OMAPI. While technically, that is not an abuse of power, it is not a good use of it either. JDDJS (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

pratyeka and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but have you tried to discuss this with the editor at all? Aside from the ANI notice you've never edited his talk page, and the instructions at the top of this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" so was there a discussion somewhere else that I'm just not seeing? I'm not saying it was proper to restore them (though one of them happened over two years ago), JamesBWatson already commented about this on prat's talk page, and unless the activity continues, is there something else you think should be done that JamesBWatson hasn't already done? - SudoGhost 21:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost - there wasn't any discussion between JDDJS and Pratyeka, but other editors have raised the issue on Prat's talk here. m.o.p 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that (after responding), but it seems like the issue was already taken care of before it was brought to AN/I. I guess what I'm getting at is that other than what admins have already done, which is to discuss it on prat's talk page, what is it an AN/I discussion is supposed to accomplish? I think at this point the only thing that would really happen is for others to go "hey that was wrong, don't do it again", and that's already happened. Unless it continues after that I don't really see a huge need for anything else. - SudoGhost 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What's required is for Pratyeka to say "hey that was wrong, I won't do it again".—Kww(talk) 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that at all but AN/I can't do that for him. - SudoGhost 22:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To correct JDDJS's opening statement here; there was a DRV in the case of Nemerle, and the deletion was overturned, so Pratyeka isn't in the wrong there (though the language used to undelete - "Clearly notable within the global computing community. Deletion misguided. Apologies" - doesn't sit well with me, as it's citing an opinion when it should just be following process).

However, bringing back Observe Hack Make is what I'm concerned about, due to the fact that Pratyeka did not re-create the page with solid sourcing or attempt to improve it; he just restored it (using admin rights), again citing "Very large/well known, serial, hacking event. Awaited for over 3/4 years. Not crystal ball/advertising." as his reason. I, for one, don't believe administrators should be using their tools to do things they could do as editors; nor should they use their tools to step around community consensus. m.o.p 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on Pratyeka's talk page as well. I'm concerned that an admin appears to be using their extra buttons to undo community consensus that they disagree with (I'm looking specifically at Observe Hack Make in this case). It would certainly be helpful if Pratyeka would agree to refrain from using the undelete option when he personally disagrees with the result of an AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nemerle deletion was overturned at DRV NE Ent 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The actions regarding Observe Hack Make were clearly inappropriate. The more frightening thing to me is that the discussion at Prateyka's talk page makes it clear that he doesn't understand that he isn't permitted to unilaterally overrule an AFD and has to go through DRV like everybody else.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

...indeed. To be very blunt about it the reply made by Pratyeka to the original query on his talk page about the Hack/Make undeletion raises serious questions in my mind as to whether he has the required understanding of policy to be an admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Had this been a personal conflict between the two of us, I would have discussed this with Partyeka first. However this is not a personal issue; this a case of an admin using his power against consensus. About Nemerle, originally I thought that he restored before the DRV was started, but it turns out he restored it in the middle of the DRV, which is still an abuse of his power because he did not wait for the discussion to end, and it does not appear that the DRV even influenced his restoration at all. JDDJS (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's still preferable to discuss the with editor on their talk page first -- maybe they'll agree with you and agree to change their ways. Never know until you try. NE Ent 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• If DRV was like it is now, recreation of the article could have still been in process to allow people to !vote at the DRV. This was not the case, but recreating something during a DRV (if you follow the proper steps) is not necessarily an abuse of the mop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But he did not follow the proper steps. He clearly just disagreed with the consensus so he ignored it. JDDJS (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Notice how I was replying to "an abuse of his power because he did not wait for the discussion to end," by stating that waiting for the discussion to the end is not, technically, required. I also noted that this particular case was not in line with policy... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

James B Watson just started discussion at 2100 UTC and an ANI thread is opened at 2146 UTC? Too quick, give the guy a chance to answer before we start heating up the tar. NE Ent 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, User:Wtshymanski bought this up on his page over a week ago. He responded that the deletion was in error, which is a clear indicator that he doesn't know that there is a limit to his power. JDDJS (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the discussion on his talk page started at 14:27 UTC, 15 January 2013 [215]. And the response to that [216] clearly indicates that there is a serious problem here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that prat hasn't edited in 6 days I think maybe JamesBWatson's comment should have been enough for the moment; one person saying "I disagree" is one thing, when another person steps in and says the same thing it becomes a different situation. If prat continued to assert it was fine or continued the behavior it would be one thing, but what is AN/I going to do that JamesBWatson hasn't already done? - SudoGhost 22:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He should have his admin privileges revoked. He obviously does not have enough understanding of policy at the moment. He should be allowed to reapply for adminship if he demonstrates that he know has the proper knowledge of policy to be an admin. JDDJS (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen what it takes to desysop someone, and if you opened the AN/I discussion just to try to get him desysopped I'd say the chances of that happening as of this moment are pretty much zero. If he continues to restore pages like that that would be another story, but at this point desysopping is unlikely. Given that (to my knowledge) this isn't some recurring issue that he's been warned about before, a warning that this isn't acceptable behavior is the most I see happening. That warning should certainly happen, and indeed already happened before you opened the AN/I discussion. The only thing I see that needs to happen is that prat needs to acknowledge that this isn't acceptable, and not to do it again. - SudoGhost 22:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It would take more than this to desysop. I hope he acknowledges the problem and stops. Should he choose not to externally acknowledge the problem but stop anyway, nothing much is going to happen. The only path from here to desysop is to refuse to acknowledge and to continue doing things like this.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We should wait (a little while) for a response. If he demonstrates he understands, and won't be doing it again, no problem. If not, his judgment can't be trusted wrt recreating any articles and we can ban him from recreating any deleted articles. Presumably, he'll abide by that - if he doesn't, desysopping should take five minutes at ArbCom. He needs to actually address the community's concern. You (plural) are answerable to the community, whether you personally like it or not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you as to what should happen: a clear statement that he doesn't understand that what he has done is wrong should be enough to take action on. I'll stand by my prediction, though: unless he continues after this warning, not much will actually happen.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, a clear statement that he doesn't understand should certainly prompt action, but so should ignoring the community's concern. You are answerable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't not responding to this ANI be the same thing as a "clear statement that he doesn't understand that what he has done is wrong"? JDDJS (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He already has clearly indicated that he doesn't view what he did as wrong.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That was before he had the benefit of reading the views expressed in this thread. Give him time to consider his position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that it is a serious problem when admins clearly do not understand policy. As I said in my opening statement, this is not the only case of him overusing his admin tools. The only reason why he became an admin in the first place is that RFA was a lot simpler when he became an admin, all you had to do was be around for awhile and have some useful edits. He certainly would not pass a current RFA due to his lack of policy understanding. JDDJS (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am an inclusionist. Deletion is a last resort. It's shocking to see so much discussion about something so simple as restoring an article that clearly shouldn't have been deleted. Having said that, it's true that I joined Wikipedia a long time ago. I have not followed all of the policies' development, as I don't have time. But before assuming I am all out to get your policies and overturn your important bygone misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus' (one could almost say: "by self-appointed '(temporary) ministry of truth' committees", but I should probably avoid that), I'm just going to be honest and say that I make all edits in good faith, including this one. It occurs to me that if half of the effort bickering about this undeletion and policy could have been used to enhance the very valid article, then we would all be wealthier. I am going to go further and state something slightly obvious, which is that the notion of 'consensus' for deleting an article in Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways. Given that it's imperfect, given that some of us have been around and proven we are net contributors in good faith, what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge (I have been involved in the 'hacker' community since ~1995) if you can't press the undelete button for a huge and well known event, attended by loads of famous people (as mentioned during the restore!), that given it's quadrennial frequency it's fair to say is about to occur? I regret to say that for some time this will be my only opportunity comment on this discussion, as I am exceptionally busy and largely offline with travelling in the wilds of Zomia (behind the Great Firewall of China) before Chinese New Year. If you would like me to comment further, please post to my talk page and allow a few weeks for a response. Thanks for your collective understanding and apologies if anyone got their feathers ruffled. Also, thanks for your support SudoGhost, even though we don't always see eye to eye (re: recent issues on Bitcoin!), it's certainly a meaningful gesture. With the hopes that nobody is offended or upset, we can all get back to adding and editing useful and historic content: peace and love to all in the new year... prat (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. Considering the edit a bit more, I think as well as giving a resonable case I was also working to the 'be bold' policy. Now please relax and sorry if anyone involved in the mistaken deletion was upset by the undelete. Sometimes we are all wrong. In this case, the deletion was wrong, though the net effect (discouraging the article to grow too far until close to the event) is probably a reasonable outcome for all. PLUR. prat (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Using your admin tools to restore an article deleted via consensus at WP:AfD based on your own personal belief that it should not be deleted is so not on. Venues for contesting deletion are as available to you as they are to any other editor. How many times do we try to explain to non-administrators that having the tools and being an admin is "no big deal", only to have you completely use them out of process to further your own personal agenda? It's unacceptable, and if it happens again I will support any request that your access to the admin buttons be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pratyeka should have gone through DRV, as overturning consensus by fiat is not what adminship is about. Reyk _YO! 01:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion

In a move that belies my exclusionist underpinnings, I've undeleted Extreme transaction processing. The article would appear to be complete crap in my eyes, but I can't see a G6 deletion as being even remotely justifiable.—Kww(talk) 06:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Goodness. That should not have been deleted. This should go to ArbCom (if someone gets the guts to actually file...) --Rschen7754 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh dear, that was a shockingly bad deletion. And yes, if nobody has started an ArbCom request when I'm done with my paid work for the day, I'll be happy to do it - assuming the consensus is still going in the same direction it is now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Was this a bad deletion or a page move from Extreme transaction processing to Extreme Transaction Processing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the timeframes, it was a bad deletion followed months later by the creation of a similar article with nearly the same name.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal that Pratyeka be banned from undeleting deleted articles

• Support as proposer. Clearly he can't be trusted to perform that task in accordance with community consensus and policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support He refuses to admit that he did anything wrong by ignoring consensus, and does not show any indication that he won't do it again. I feel that he should be completely desyposed, but I will settle for an undeletion ban. JDDJS (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Overkill. Concerns have been raised ... if he continues to undelete stuff in the future then we can talk about bans. It's not like he's going rogue blocking editors or FPPing articles or getting in protracted pissing contests with editors... on the scale of wiki-crap, undeleting a sketchy article isn't very high. If he hasn't had major issues in eight years it's unlikely he'll be doing significant damage in 2012. NE Ent 02:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all overkill. Personally I feel that it is not enough and that he should lose all admin rights. He has used his admin powers to completely bypass consensus and has refused to admit any wrong doing, giving every indication that he will do it again. JDDJS (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support and send to ArbCom. Prat's comment that he is an inclusionist does not help his position. I'm a deletionist, and were I an admin who deleted articles arbitrarily, I would drawn, hung, and quartered, with my body parts being sent for display to the four corners of the WP empire. He is given the bit as a trust, not to make his own decisions to override the community. The comment that the deletion was made "in error" shows that he has no idea of limitation by community consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The arrogance of the statement he left above is staggering. Anyone who declares their own judgement overrides consensus shouldn't be an admin. At the very least he should not be allowed to delete articles, especially because he admits he isn't up to speed on policy. Performing controversial actions right before taking an extended break is extremely poor form as well. AniMate 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the tree. Looks like the problem is resolved.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you please elaborate on that? The problem is that he refuses to abide by community consensus. That problem has not been resolved. JDDJS (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to know also. He just said "misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus'" and "what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge ... if you can't press the undelete button...." Where does this show any intention on his part of abiding by community consensus? The problem is definitely not resolved. As a matter of fact, the more I think of this, the more I believe that he should be de-sysoped. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He said it was a mistake, and I'm willing to AGF that it was a mistake.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he never said that it was mistake. In fact, he has said the complete opposite, and that consensus was a mistake. JDDJS (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, he said the deletion by the community was a mistake, and that his action in undeleting the article, without DRV or consensus was proper. If you can show me where he said that he made a mistake, I would re-consider my position. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely misread the statement above where I thought he was claiming he made a mistake. I will strike my !vote.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• You know, it's really not clear to me ANI can "topic ban" an admin from undeleting -- that's kind of a mini-desysop and that's reserved to ArbCom and the stewards and maybe Jimbo if decides to be the founder again. NE Ent 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI clearly has that authority. We can topic ban anyone, or for that matter, site ban them.GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a resolution from the Foundation that disallows the community from constraining the behaviour of an editor, please bring it forward. I'm not aware of one, so suggest we proceed under the assumption that community consensus applies when it comes to constraining the behaviour of individual users. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support - It's clear from the above that Prat has no clue when it comes to Wikipedia's deletion policies, instead repeating his accusations (to the point where they could be considered personal attacks) of "mistaken deletion" above and mainitaining that he has done nothing wrong, and claiming that based on his "expert domain knowledge" he knows better than we do about how things should be run. This is not the kind of person Wikipedia needs as an admin. At all. Admins abide by community consensus and policy, they are not autocrats pulling strings "because I think this is how it should be done". Frankly if I didn't know better I'd be half tempted to call it some form of elaborate trolling, as I find it nearly impossible to believe that anybody who has been around the Wikipedia community for the length of time he has could possibly hold such views as he espouses above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support Report to ArbCom given the arrogance shown in the response above, and the insistence that he was right to overrule consensus unilaterally. In my view, admins who abuse the tools to enforce their own opinions over the consensus of the Community, and then insist it was fine for them to do so, should be instantly desysoped. Anyone who said in an RfA today "I intend to use the tools to overrule the community when I disagree with consensus", would be snowed out. Admins who not only actually do it, but then go on to defend their actions and insist they have the right to do it, should be shown the door. Unfortunately, the community doesn't have the balls to put in place a proper means to get rid of rogue admins, so I'll have to settle for this topic ban instead, at least for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, on further reflection, I think a ban on undeleting is not sufficient, because this is not specifically an undeletion problem - it's the classic "arrogant old school admin" problem. Both here and on his Talk page, Pratyeka continues to insist on his right to use his admin tools to override community consensus when he thinks it's wrong, even after reading this report here and reading the comments on his talk page. Unless we get a commitment to change that, we need his admin tools removed - maybe an admonishment from ArbCom would convince him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ARBCOM -- Can the community ban an admin from using the bit at all? If so, it's the same as removing the bit. Are we saying the community could do this, or is this "partial ban" fundamentally different? I'm actually okay with letting the community remove the bit by subject ban, I just don't think it is in alignment with our standard procedures and I think everyone should realize exactly what the ramifications of this might be in the long term. I'd suggest sending this to ARBCOM instead. In any case, isn't AN a better location for this discussion? Hobit (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not taking the bit off him, I believe that's something only ArbCom and Jimbo can do. We're telling him not to use a part of it. We don't need ArbCom's permission for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what's unclear to me. Are you saying we can't desysop as a community, but we can ban someone from using the bit and block them if they do? That sounds very strange. As if we are subverting the intent of letting Arbcom be the only place for desysoping. I'd personally support an RfC allowing the community to do this (though I'd say it should be at AN, not ANI), but feel such an RfC should happen first. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support for ArbCom, partial ban, desysop, you name it. I don't mind admins ignoring all rules, but no one with this attitude toward collaboration should have the bit. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor has made some declarations on his user page specifically regarding article deletion, which goes precisely to the matter at hand. Given those declarations, and his above comment, I think it is reasonable for us to constrain him from undeleting. But he seems an intelligent and decent chap, and I see no reason whatever to assume he won't be responsible and valuable in his use of admin rights outside this very narrow area, so think it would be overreacting to desysop. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's not just an undeletion problem - he is openly insisting that (as an admin and expert) he has the right to overrule consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. I don't know. I do know we should give him time to absorb what's happening here, and reflect. This is a paradigm shift for him and, for me at least, paradigm shifts take at least a day or so. Go slowly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure - there's still plenty of time for him to agree never again to use the admin tools to override consensus or against policy (eg to reinstate copyright infringements - see "Possibly even more serious" Starblind comment below). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support undeletion ban (and desysop if necessary). It's one thing to have strong views that aren't necessarily supported by the community, it's another thing entirely to use sysop powers against community consensus. Any admin candidate at RFA threatening to ignore consensus would be quite rightly SNOWed out to the tune of gales of laughter. Admins exist to serve the community, not oppose it, and anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be an admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If this proposal passes, and he undletes anything again, I'm sure the consequence will be a SNOW five minute desysop at ArbCom. For that matter, if he demonstrates a disregard for policy or consensus in another area, I expect the result would be the same. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom Yes, it was bad, but to topic ban an admin from performing any action in the toolset would be a significant shift in community consensus. --Rschen7754 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To expand upon my comments, I don't trust him to delete anything either. And I don't trust him to respect community consensus. That makes him unfit to remain as an admin, in my book. --Rschen7754 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. (Totally uninvolved editor here - just happened to see this). The adoration for process expressed in the comments above explicitly and implicitly is what is killing WP. Arbcom? Desysop? Ban from undeleting? For this? Please. LIke Prat says, if the energy spent on this was spent on improving articles, most deletions would not be required. Obscure articles of poor quality has to be one of our least important problems. So if some of them are rescued where is the harm? And in many case there is benefit. We need more editors who behave like this, not fewer. Kudos to Prat! --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's say you're a new editor, while I've been here since 2005. You write an article. I delete it and give the reason as "I've been here a long time, so I know best." Are you ever going to come back? Didn't think so. Actions like this damage the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen a diff of Pratyeka performing any out of process deletions and, per his talk page response, it seems hardly likely an "inclusionist" would do so. How is an undeletion going to drive away new users? NE Ent 13:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Possibly even more serious than it first appeared: Looking in the logs I've located at least one case where Prat apparently knowingly undeleted copyvio material, saying it was "useful and unique". Okay, I think I'd support taking this to ArbCom as it's quickly gone from bad to worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • JDDJS actually included Coral Consortium in his initial post. It was cleaned by User:Geitost and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2011 January 21. WP:CP regular User:VernoWhitney RD1'd it. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support- per Andrew Lenahan. Reyk _YO! 04:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Concern I morally support this. I worry about the process. I don't think that Arbcom needs to be involved, and I think this is well within power of community consensus. I'm just not sure that a drive-by at ANI is sufficient. RFC/U perhaps?—Kww(talk) 04:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No. That would be throwing unnecessary delays and bureaucracy in the way of community self-government. There are two proposals here: undelete ban and desysop. There is a very clear consensus for the undelete ban; that is obviously the very least that needs doing. And we don't need a big long RfCU to do it, just because he's an admin. Desysop is up to ArbCom. They may ask us to run an RfCU but, assuming Pratyeka doesn't change his stance between now and then, they're just as likely to take the case for desysop on the evidence in this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently pratakaya is on holidays with intermittent internet access, and so will probably not be doing anything objectionable in the near future anyway. So there's no rush to do anything immediately. Reyk _YO! 05:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Echoing comments by Boing! said Zebedee and others: This user's actions and explanatory response are unacceptable, and even alarming. They amount to a dismissal of community consensus and established process, and threaten the foundational integrity of the project. Given the extraordinarily high standards and cross examination that we currently subject RfA candidates to, this kind of roguery (there, I said it) must be stopped in it's tracks. This applies to all users, admins and otherwise; both vintage and new. We're all accountable to the community and to the project for respecting the same set of policies, guidelines and established consensus. No one is special. - MrX 05:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've been concerned about Pratyeka ever since last summer, when the discussion at Talk:Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#CIA_Reference_Justification indicated a lack of understanding or regard for BLP policy and synthesis. At the outset of that discussion I had the impression (via the "Wikipedia administrator" tag on his first signature) that he was trying to use his admin position to force an inappropriate synthesis into a BLP. Acroterion (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  That Obama thing certainly does show a very poor grasp of BLP policy of and Synthesis, which is disturbing in an admin - though as long as he doesn't use the admin tools to act in those areas, I don't think it's a cause for action. However, the "Wikipedia administrator" tag clearly looks like an attempt to intimidate and to imply that his opinion is somehow special, and I see that as unacceptable behaviour - as a one-off, it wouldn't warrant action, but it's all adding up to an unacceptable attitude in an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That was how I felt at the time: it didn't involve direct use of admin tools and Pratyeka didn't habitually edit BLPs so I let it pass. I mention it here as additional evidence of a poor or obsolete understanding of basic policy. I didn't catch on at first that I was explaining policy to an administrator: I thought I was dealing with a newbie. I only noticed the tag about halfway through. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support - Given the response, I do believe something needs to be done. I feel that prat's response was less than ideal, and if there's an indication that this behavior is going to continue that it needs to be addressed. However, I also feel that if it is ArbCom who typically desysops someone, something more than an AN/I discussion should be used to say "we can't desysop you, so we'll ban you from using the tools instead." It gives the impression of subverting the actual process, although I know that's certainly not the intention. On the other hand, I think that my thinking is at odds with WP:BURO and WP:IAR, at least on some level. If prat makes some sort of acknowledgement that an admin cannot ignore community consensus and resolves to refrain from doing so in the future, then I see no need for this sort of topic ban. Short of that, however, something should be done, and for lack of some better alternative, I would have to support this, though not with a high degree of comfort. - SudoGhost 05:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If he's willing to abide by consensus, then all will be well. If he continues with his "LOL consensus" attitude that he's blatantly and brazenly displaying, he's a rogue admin and needs to have the bit stripped ASAP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd say that an 11th-hour apology at this point (which hasn't actually happened anyway), would just be a desperate move to keep the tools. He's already made his true feelings on the matter incredibly clear, that he's above consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and request desysop. --Nouniquenames 05:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support not for the singular incident, but for the statements made above that indicate an attitude towards established Wikipedia policy that I find incompatible with being a good admin. Let me be clear, it is fine to a) make an occasional mistake or b) hold an opinion contrary to consensus. However it is not OK to deliberately and knowingly take actions which one knows to be against consensus policy, and then act as though the rest of the community has to accept it. If he had merely expressed the opinion, or had merely had one or two bad undeletions, I wouldn't support this at all. Neither by itself means much, but the fact that the undeletions don't represent an error, but rather a deliberate attempt to circumvent established norms merely for to further one's own opinions on the issue at hand, and without regard for the opinions of the greater community at large, that is incompatible with the use of the admin tools. An admin should be willing to use their tools without regard for their own opinions, or at the very least, to refrain from using them where community norms differ from one's own opinions. The fact that that didn't happen here (and not the substance of the opinion itself) is why I must, with great regret, support the proposed sanction. --Jayron32 07:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom Obviously there is support that he is not trusted with one part of his administrative duties, and if that is the case, ArbCom is where you direct concerns about him not using the tools anymore. We do not support RFAs on the basis that we take their word to not use a tool a certain way or that they promise to refrain from blocking/deleting/protecting. If he is trusted with the tools, then so be it, but he can't trusted with 2/3 of it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• ArbCom -- The user explicitly stated he undeleted articles that had undergone AfD because he believed they shouldn't have been deleted and consensus is just a silly little thing. Sysops aren't "super users", they need to ascertain and implement the community's consensus, not override it with their own views. Salvidrim! ✉ 07:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Most folks here are taking a prior restraint view of undeletion. In fact, admins can and should undelete things that are fixable, in the process of fixing them. DRV doesn't exist as a necessary stop, period. Now, the fact that this should have gone to userspace or an incubator first before remaining in mainspace unchanged is really the only structural issue I see here, and one that's quite correctable. Fact is, if he hadn't had the bit and had just restored a deleted copy from a mirror somewhere, it would have been G4'ed and he would have gotten a notice of that, and that's about it. You want to know why there are so few people willing to be admins? Look no further than how badly a single incident has been blown out of proportion. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I find this oppose disturbing, considering that one of the AFDs closed with "Consensus argued that the subject had not received coverage which would have demonstrated notability via GNG". That's not fixable. --Rschen7754 08:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's absolutely fixable - how many young actors have had early press-release-and-a-headshot articles deleted for lack of notability, only to land a notable role and get a new article later on? Subjects that are not notable at deletion can become notable later - it's the whole premise of WP:USUAL, for example. But undeleting an article because "Subject became notable when he did X" is not the concern here. The undelete here was done because the admin specifically and explicitly disregarded the "self-described" consensus. He did not fix the article, did not update it to show how the subject had since become notable, did not remove the potential copyvio (or link to show that it was not copyvio), he just restored it. And I don't know how that is justifiable - as Jclemens correctly notes, a simple repost would have been G4'ed out of existance with all speed. Jclemens is correct, admins are able to undelete articles at will - but only for cause, and only in such a way as to address the concerns that got them deleted in the first place. Acting as an admin super-vote after the fact is not acceptable, and it seems that that is what we're looking at here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and Refer to Arbcom to consider stripping his admin status. Violating WP:Consensus after a clear procedural determinantion of the community's opinion is, IMHO, a very serious breach of the community's trust that comes with the responsibility of being an admin. Taken together with his restoration of copyvio material and his self-declared position, IMHO this editor should not be allowed anywhere near an admin's toolbox. Roger (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• We're far too quick to jump to straw polls on ANI these days. Prat has been informed that the community doesn't support his use of the tools to support his position on the deletion/inclusion spectrum: it is to be assumed that he won't do it again now that it's attracted broad community attention. There should be no need for a formal topic ban here. Talk of ArbCom or a desysopping is extreme at this point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Can you show us where he has accepted the community's feedback or given any indication that he won't do it again? It looks to me more like he's saying "Fuck you community, I'm in charge and I'll decide what's deleted and what isn't". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  "It is to be assumed" because it's the only sane response. If he carries on regardless after the heat of a big ANI thread (which is far higher-profile than the previous incidents, so far as I can see) then future corrective action should be uncontroversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, leaving aside the slur on my sanity, I think it is far more reasonable to assume that he means what he says - that he believes that as an admin and "expert" he has the right to override consensus when he thinks it is wrong. And to me, that is not reason to assume he is going to do the opposite of that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Prak's sanity, not yours. Apologies for any confusion there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Hehe, np - my misunderstanding -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom and let them decide. Admins, in my opinion, should either be free to do everything, or free to do nothing, they should not be partially topic banned from certain tasks they can't be trusted with. GiantSnowman 09:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support desysopping, and/or sending to arbcom. Unfortunately the community can't do it itself yet. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom We just had another admin who ran away when told advised the he was time-and-tme again screwing up the deletion process and their response was also "yeah, so what" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is way too soon to call for a de-sysop. He's here for 1 undeletion, not multiple, and do remember IAR is just as much policy as AFD.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom - not just one undeletion, but a deletion that shouldn't be made, editing through edit protection without making an edit request for another Admin to do or deny (at least that seems to be what happened at Bitcoin). It's part of a pattern. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have realised this couldn't happen. I am still not at all convinced that this editor should be a sysop. We are supposed to handle them responsibly and this isn't happening here. I'd like him to say what he plans to do with the tools if he does keep them. Admins who rarely use their tools should probably resign them - others may disgree, but we are given the tools to do a job and if we aren't doing it then we don't need the tools, and disuse makes one rusty at using the tools. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• While I would support the proposed restriction if it were either that or nothing, a user who cannot be trusted with the whole admin toolset should not be an admin. Given the shocking statement above on his contempt for the community consensus and established process, this should be send to arbcom for consideration of desyopping. KTC (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Arbcom As Dougweller has pointed out, this is more than one event. I'm not at all convinced that he truly understands the problem. I think Arbcom is the place to go for this because ANI doesn't have the authority (as far as I can tell) and as Prat's away a bit they can hold it ready till he's back to defend himself. And yes, IAR is a policy/rule the same as any others, but if the community feels that a decision taken under it was wrong, then there must be some method to undo it, and if necessary stop it happening again. GedUK  13:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. Good Christ, if I make one mistake am I gonna get desysopped? The problem isn't in the undeletion we're discussing (which was bad and which should be reversed, as consensus here seems to indicate). The problem is that an admin had the chutzpah to tell the ANI crowd that he was right and their self-described consensus was wrong. And it made us MAD. Holy shit, this guy thinks he's in charge? But sending this to arbcom, polishing up the pitchforks, setting the torches ablaze? Guys, what the fuck? Consensus is clear that his undeletion was a mistake - great. So if he continues to undelete things against policy, THEN you send him to arbcom and let them do the necessary. A proposed case describing this incident would properly be closed out, at most with a motion from the committee directing Pratyeka to fucking be careful next time kthx. "What prior dispute resolution was attempted" "...Did you see how he talked to us?" isn't gonna fly at arbcom. If Adminship is a big enough deal to get so angry about it, it's a big enough deal to take the time (here!) to discuss properly. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pratyeka made a boo-boo has been a very very bad admin A whole boatload of folks have pointed that out. As thumperward has already pointed out, the most likely outcome is he won't do it again cause, let's face, who wants the grief? This penchant for demanding editors done a sackcloth and publicly sing a kommós isn't healthy. See also Editors have pride. NE Ent 14:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not know if our hand must be that heavy and if we must club him into submission here; yes, he made a mistake, and yes, he stood by his decision. But I cannot bring myself to really see bad faith in what he was doing. And I think UltraExactZZ and NE Ent are spot on. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support desysop (either through banning him from using any admin tools, or by taking him to ArbCom for a true desysop). He hardly uses the tools, but when he does, he often does so incorrectly, and has indicated that this is deliberately and that he doesn't care about consensus (and, by extension, about our policies). Just take a look at his latest logged admin tools actions (editing through protection is not logged thus, so that aspect is not included). To find 20 items in his log, we have to go back to 2010, and many of these aren't admin actions but moves or uploads that anyone could have done. This includes dubious but not necessarily wrong decisions like restoring Edgware Walker (which should be taken to AfD as the documentary may be barely notable, the person is not notable at all, and the article is very poor) and OMAPI without any improvements[217][218], four deletions of his own incorrect creations (Wushun man, Kusanda language, Kusanda people and Afghan War Diary), restoring a deleted copyright violation at Coral Consortium without even contacting the deleting admin or discussing this at the talk page of the article, an out-of-process G6 deletion of Extreme transaction processing, and the overturned restoration of Observe Hack Make.

So in over two years time, he has made two undeletions or prodded articles of very low quality and without making any improvements to them, four deletions of his own mistakes, 2 clearly incorrect undeletions and one clearly incorrect deletion. Coupled with his reply in this section, I see no reason at all to let him remain an admin any longer, as he is clearly in his admin actions a net negative. Fram (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, in view of the consensus here, I have prepared a case for ArbCom at User:GregJackP/ArbComm/Prat. Please take a look at it and let me know if I need to make any corrections. GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the consensus here is actually just to prohibit him from undeleting articles. If you do take it to Arbcom, the deletion of Extreme transaction processing is just as troubling as his undeletions.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know it's not a straight vote, but I've just done a quick count and I see 26 in favour of sanctions of some sort, with 17 of those supporting desysop/Arbcom, and 7 opposing any sanction. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do anything until it is clear what the community wants. As I noted, I support both a topic ban on deletion and desysop, but there's no particular rush on my part. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, as it stands, I think there's easily enough support for an ArbCom request - and your draft looks pretty good for starters. But I would support leaving it over the weekend as there's really no rush. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a full ban on delete/undelete and desysop (via arbcom). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to make a point here. Several instances in where Prat either clearly abused his admin power or stretched the limits of it have been bought up. However, nobody, not even the people that are defending him, have bought up any instance in where he used his admin status to do something exceptionally good. While prat has made many useful edits as an editor, as far as I know, he has not made any exceptional edits as an admin. He also is not a very active admin. This is the very reason that RFA is so hard now. It stops people who might be useful editors but not useful admins from becoming admins. So, to summarize, what would the community actually lose if he is desysoped? JDDJS (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Another little piece of its humanity. NE Ent 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support When I first discussed this with JDDJS before he brought it to ANI, I was only aware of the one incident with Pratyeka (concerning Observe Hack Make). However, since Prat's reply on this page, I have no choice but to be extremely concerned; not only has he broken policy, he seems to defend his actions and acts like he's done nothing wrong. I could understand a slip-up and an apology, but standing adamantly by your mistakes as if you're the victim isn't advisable, and I don't think I can trust somebody like that with the sysop tools. m.o.p 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for request to Arbcom to de-sysop, and require a new RFA if he wishes to continue as an admin. I do not think a requirement to refrain from undeletions is enough. The original incidents do not concern me so much, but the unapologetic attitude shown in the response above, with the assumption that he is entitled to override AfD, restore an article because it "clearly shouldn't have been deleted" and dismiss formal deletion discussions as "your important bygone misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus' " shows an attitude so far out of line with current expectations of an admin as to be unacceptable. If he is going to be out of contact, Arbcom can certainly choose to wait for a response before taking action, but the issue should go to them now. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Arbcom request Looking at Arbcom's history, I see the cases of User:EncycloPetey and User:SchuminWeb as admins who retired/stopped editing after concerns over their adminship were brought up (they both ended up being desysopped by Arbcom), so there's that precedent. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:03, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support, support sending to arbcom if that's what people feel is best. I may be a little unique here, but I'm actually less concerned about his? belief he can unilaterally override consensus (which is still a concern) and more concerned about the fact he seems to think it's okay to undelete copyvios. Yes as far as we know this was only done once, and it was quite a while ago but I also see no admission from him it was a mistake which he won't be repeating. We already spend a lot of time trying to find copyright violations and for those used to dealing with such things they know there are still a lot more we aren't finding. It's rather concerning then when one has been identified, an admin thinks it's okay to just undelete it based on their personal opinion. (I can't see the old version nor can I do an old internet search to see whether a simple search or just checking out the links inside would have confirmed it was likely a copyvio.) From what I can tell [219] they didn't even ask the deleter (who was semi active Special:Contributions/Cobaltbluetony) or list it as a possible copyright violation on the copyvio page. Luckily it was found fairly fast (within 4 weeks) and no one else wasted their own time on editing the copyright violation it after it was undeleted (other then the person who re-identified it) but I still consider this unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it is blatantly obvious from his actions and comments that user is not suited for privilege to undelete articles, and it is also questionable if he is suited to be admin at all.--Staberinde (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and send to ArbCom - Undeleting around AfD instead of taking something to DRV is administrative abuse, plain and simple, and I would favor immediate detooling. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to archive this sub-thread but please get the closing statement right.

Support community tool restriction

1. User:Anthonyhcole
2. User:AniMate
3. User:Jayron32

Support community tool restriction and referral to ArbCom

1. User:Nathan Johnson
2. User:Roger
3. User:KTC
4. User:Staberinde
5. User:JDDJS
6. User:GregJackP
7. User:The Bushranger
8. User:Boing! said Zebedee
9. User:Someguy1221
10. Andrew Lenahan
11. User:Reyk
12. User:Nouniquenames
13. User:Nil Einne
14. User:Fram
15. User:Carrite

Support tool restriction but question the community's right to restrict an admin's tool use behaviour, or whether ANI is the right venue

1. User:Hobit
2. User:Rschen7754
3. User:Kww
4. User:SudoGhost
5. User:Ged UK

Support referral to ArbCom without commenting on tool restriction

1. User:Salvidrim
2. User:Shadowjams
3. User:Bwilkins
4. User:KoshVorlon
5. m.o.p
6. User:JohnCD
7. User:Canuck89

Oppose community tool restriction on principle but support sending to ArbCom

1. User:Moe Epsilon
2. User:GiantSnowman

Oppose tool restriction and desysop

1. User:NE Ent
2. User:Born2cycle
3. User:Jclemens
4. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)
5. User:Ultraexactzz
6. User:Lectonar

Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Vote counting does not capture the totality of the discussion and inappropriately pigeonholes editors into positions why may not accurately represent their viewpoint and is inimical to the Wikipedia consensus model. NE Ent 12:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more accurate than the previous close. --Nouniquenames 15:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that, Ent. If anyone's unhappy with their pidgeon-hole, they're free to correct. I haven't closed, and I haven't based my non-existent close on counting. The first close involved vote counting, and mis-counted. It read in part:

The participation in the discussion has slowed, with support roughly split between the topic ban, and either opposing all action, or supporting a review by Arbcom, which in most of such comments is an implicit oppose to the ban.

If the closer of this thread intends making declarations about the community's freedom to constrain the behaviour of admins, may I point out this comment from arbitrator Salvio giuliano? Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pitchforks down

Can we please wait a day or two, for Pratyeka's next response, before taking this up with ArbCom? We have nothing to lose from that. It will give him a chance to reflect on and absorb what's happening here. And, depending on his response, may save everybody a lot of time and trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He's said he's away for a while now, and any ArbCom case would have to be delayed until he is able to comment (and he's not going to be misusing the tools while he's not here), so I'd be in favour of delaying for a couple of days. It sounds like he's not going to be available to comment over the next couple of days, mind, but it can't do any harm to give it a go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed this section, and have filed the case. I did leave a note that he was out of touch for a couple of weeks and requested that ArbCom wait for him to get back before taking any action. GregJackP Boomer! 01:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider withdrawing the ArbCom case for now (If you run it by Sarek, who is the only respondent so far, you can probably just blank it.) It would be better, in my opinion, if we (and prat) spent more time deliberating and considering the facts, and ideal of course if we had a chance to involve prat in more dialogue before handing it to ArbCom. Some people do change with sensitive engagement. We may have a more useful result all round, and take up a lot less of everyone's precious time, if we make haste slowly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objection, I just wanted to address that one particular point for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know that I can do that. Only ArbCom members and clerks can remove cases once they have been filed. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done it, and if the clerks or ArbCom have a problem, they can restore it. If you leave a link to this thread in your edit summary, that should answer any queries. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not finding things with two hands and a flashlight

I find myself quoting Andrew Shepherd again. People, there is not a direct run from the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents to Requests for Arbitration. There's a notice in a box at the head of this page that says this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pratyeka is still all red linked and inviting, and it will prevent those big old arbitrators from taking the standard line of turfing you right out of RFAR on your collective ears with the usual So what did you actually do to resolve the situation, using the very processes that the community has constructed for giving mass feedback to one person on issues of that person's use of the MediaWiki toolset, before taking this avenue of last resort? question.

There is a second box at the head of this page that points out that discussions here are archived after (currently) 36 hours. Again, the sensible course of action is not to hold a discussion like this on a noticeboard that by its very nature is not constructed to deal with things that involve waiting for an editor who is Away From Internet for a period of days. User talk:Pratyeka is not exactly full, either.

This isn't the first time that a whole bunch of people have leapt right over RFC from AN/I and expected a poll of little more than 24 hours on a rapidly-archived noticeboard to be the sensible parallel to week-long discussions elsewhere. Nor is it the first time that a group of people bang on about what Wikipedia policies and practices are, and how others should follow them, but nonetheless themselves collectively fail to find Project:Requests for comment/User conduct with both hands and a flashlight. This time, I'm speaking up to get people to do things right. You all (supposedly) know where RFC is, and you all (supposedly) know what arbitrators always require as a pre-requisite to any such case, and will probably require in this instance. So do things right, for goodness' sake!

Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well said. NE Ent 12:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Calling for desysop when an RfA would run for 7 days tells me some people are rushing to the conclusion and don't let other evidences surface. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is a rush to skip RFC because there hasn't been sufficient efforts yet to resolve the dispute, and thus, an RFC would not be certified as valid. If anybody wants to approach the subject and invite him to my talk page for a conversation about their complaints, I would be happy to host a discussion among the relevant parties. This venue, ANI, is not very well suited to resolving conflicts. It's just a bunch of driveby feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Not making sufficient efforts to resolve the dispute beforehand is a reason that things get turfed out of RFAR, too. So it would be really very stupid to be skipping over RFC for that reason. The course of action that isn't stupid is of course to make those efforts, beforehand. Only two people, out of all of the above, have even participated at User talk:Pratyeka. I applaud your offer of your user talk page. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think you're quite right, Uncle G, at least according to the way things currently work. But my view is that things currently work badly, there is too much bureaucracy, and that an admin openly stating that he is not bound by consensus should be grounds for instant desysop - with the possibility of appeal. I also think that there should be a community desysop process - but we've never achieved anything in that direction.

  My feeling is also that RFC is another big bureaucratic waste of time. It's entirely voluntary, and will only achieve anything if Pratyeka volunteers to abide by the rules. But if he's going to do that, then we don't need an RFC - he can just say so here, or on his talk page, or at the ArbCom request, and it'll all be over.

  Anyway, the current bureaucratic excess is what we're stuck with, and so far it's looking as if ArbCom are unlikely to accept the case. So my thoughts now are that we should wait for Pratyeka's return and see what he has to say - we can show him this ANI and ask him on his talk page. If he agrees to follow the rules, we're done - but if he doesn't, RFC will achieve nothing more than filling a checkbox on the bureaucracy-lovers' charts and it'll have to end up back at ArbCom anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It's a bit rich to be talking of "bureaucracy lovers" when the whole issue here is that someone ignored processes. Either Pratyeka gets to ignore the processes as much as the complainants are also trying to, or the both of you have to follow procedures. Again, you are assuming from the outset that a mass of people expressing their opinion to Pratyeka, at User talk:Pratyeka or on the still-redlinked-and-inviting Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka, is somehow not going to change Pratyeka's mind. On the contrary: That is how, by discussion and persuasion, our community has decided to work. Negative feedback comes from the community as a whole, via user talk pages, third opinions, and requests for comment. It isn't imposed by a 24-hour straw poll on a rapidly-archived noticeboard for administrators handling "incidents". Community norms, and the negative pressure against people that enforces community norms, are a community thing.

    It's saddening to see you not seeing that what's been done here is in fact the timewasting excess of bureaucracy: a pointless and wasteful round trip through RFAR where I and (supposedly) everyone here knew ahead of time what the arbitrators would say (because we know that they require people to make the proper efforts at dispute resolution beforehand). The problem here, and the true reason that things currently work badly, is not excess bureaucracy, as you mischaracterize dispute resolution. It's a collective unwillingness to edit User talk:Pratyeka and to make a simple bluelink at Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka amongst people who (supposedly) know that those are the right first steps with their views.

    The collective inability exhibited here, by editors who (supposedly) know all this, to do things that are a lot simpler to effect than an arbitration request — and to find RFC with both hands and a flashlight — is saddening. This is the right thing to do; and in a situation where the major complaint is You didn't follow SD/AFD/DRV procedures! the complainants should all better be setting a good example themselves by following dispute resolution procedures.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Sure, I agree it looks like RFC is the way this thing is heading, as that that is "the proper way", and I'm not surprised that that's the way the Arbs are leaning - but I'm quite entitled to express my opinion that the current "proper way", which involves everyone repeating themselves in yet a third forum, is full of wasteful baggage. I reckon the best way forward is to leave it to Dennis or Casliber to have a private word with Pratyeka when he gets back and see where that gets us - if that works, then there will simply be no need to go any further down the bureaucratic road. But I do agree with you on one point - this discussion here is itself a waste of time, so I will take my leave of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• A RFC is pointless in a case like this, where it would just be a necessary form to file before the thing would go to ArbCom anyway. --Rschen7754 07:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is a problem with your expectations that you are always doomed to fail, not with RFC. Try beginning with the expectation that a mass of feedback from a lot of people on xyr user talk page and at RFC will change Pratyeka's mind, instead. Community norms are community enforced, and you are the community. So bring in your third opinions to User talk:Pratyeka. Do your long list of "support"s on Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka. Do things right, especially when your complaint is that someone else didn't do things right. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• It would be so helpful in a case like this—an admin who's barely used the tools and who was admin-ed when four !votes could make an admin—if we could just call for a fresh RfA.  davidiad { t } 09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want him to re-run RfA, then just ask him on his talk page - if he says no, an RFC will make no difference, because it has no power whatsoever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're right ... and it a stupid thought anyway, as an RfA under these circumstances and in the recent RfA climate would simply be a resignation with a crowd.  davidiad { t } 09:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Here is my prediction coming true: Of the 7 arbitrators who have declined so far, four (NuclearWarfare, SilkTork, Salvio giuliano, and Carcharoth) have explicitly mentioned RFC, and a fifth (Newyorkbrad) has echoed the rationales of two of those four. I repeat: You are banging on about someone else following procedures, you all (supposedly) know that you don't do this on AN/I, and you all (supposedly) know where Wikipedia:Requests for comment is. Do things right. How can you collectively be so unable to start a simple RFC? Or even to join in the discussions at User talk:Pratyeka? If you have strong views on these uses of the tools, why aren't you conveying them to Pratyeka? Go to User talk:Pratyeka. Put up Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka. Do things right, and follow procedures yourselves. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Casliber and Dennis Brown are willing to have a chat with Pratyeka when he's back online, if their schedules permit, exploring with him his views, his current skill set and his readiness to conform to the current norms. They'll then report to ANI the results of that dialogue. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent - that sounds like the best way forward -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Talk to the bloke and try to persuade xem first. In addition to the above applause, I also applaud the two of you for being the only two people who went to User talk:Pratyeka. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, I went there too - and from the tone of the discussion already in progress (utter unrepetantness exactly as above - "I don't have to listen to your silly 'consensus' because WP:ILIKEIT and I know best") saw no point in further timewasting there. I suspect others thought the same. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto. GregJackP Boomer! 00:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Realistically, what's your goal: a desysopped admin, OR an admin who understands policies. If, in the process of the RFC, the admin clearly expresses a) their errors, and b) proper understanding of the policies that they have broken, AND c) shows signs that they will improve on those issues and their recognition that they need to be responsive to the community, then we have a win-win situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, if we really want to be realistic, we have to look and see what outcomes are plausible. If Pratyeka doesn't want to change, then no amount of talking with him or RFCing is going to do anything, and we'll be right back here in a month or two. Might as well save the time and effort and get it over with. --Rschen7754 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Since the previous two conferences in the Observe Hack Mack series, Hacking at Random, and Hackers at Large ended up with articles we'll just create the article in six or seven months. Might as well save time and effort and restore the article now. (This where we realize the not following procedure to deal with an admin not following procedure is just a bit inconsistent.) NE Ent 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In mythical man month author Fred Brooks gives the example of managers thinking if a woman can give birth to a child in one month, they can hire nine women to get a child in on month. Similarly, there's a mythical editor intervention concept that if n editors unsuccessfully addressed an editor on a talk page, n + 1 editors won't be effective. Back when we had an WQA I often observed that the more distinct editors that relayed the same message the more likely it would be to take effect. It's best to address non-troll/vandal editors first on their talk page, even if some other's got there before you did. It might work, and if it doesn't you can make a definitive statement that it didn't rather than a speculative statement that it wouldn't have. NE Ent 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like n editors have failed to make the case, so perhaps 1 editor will be able to - that's what I'm hoping. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This ANI thread and arbcom comments may be far more convincing then any editor could. "Gallows" have been set up for everyone to see, he needs to be completely delusional if he doesn't get that now only "right answers" can save him from quick desysop. Although even with right answers it may remain questionable if he can actually regain trust.--Staberinde (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My comment is actually wrong. The n editors here at ANI have not failed - as Pratyeka is away, we simply don't know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) and Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) have agreed that one or both of them, schedules permitting, will talk things over with Pratyeka when he returns. Perhaps we could leave this for now and await their comments after that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Rigged votes/WP:MEAT violation

Please help. The article MUD_trees was nominated for deletion, but the votes were rigged by "MUD" owners who listed their MUD on the page, as you can see on their forum here: http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/tavern-blue-hand/5287-defense-all-muds-our-genres-noteworthiness-being-questioned-16.html EternalFlare (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Even as a non-admin close, this wasn't a controversial interpretation of the discussion that took place, and while several of the comments were plainly canvassed there were also multiple comments from established editors which expressed the same sentiments. You could ask for it to be relisted at WP:DRV on the grounds that it was a NAC unduly influenced by cancassed opinions, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have requested that the user involved in the closure re-nominate the article for deletion for multiple reasons. It should be noted that Sue Rangell (talk · contribs) has been advised on at least 2 occasions this month to be exceptionally careful with their Non-Admin Closures. I will not make any recommendations regarding how we can improve the AfD closures as I am one of the ones who has previously complained about their NACs. Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think she can just revert her closure, and then relist. I've suggested it to her. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you do that, Hasteur? Would you have done the same if it were an admin? I can't imagine any sane editor, admin or not, would not come to a "keep" from that discussion. There seems to be a recent trend of "OHMYGOODNESS NAC MUST SCREAM" that is both counterproductive and highly unpleasant. It's a solid keep. Get over it. Trouts to EternalFlare for bringing it here and Hasteur for encouraging such nonsence. --Nouniquenames 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And you should know that there's a certain threshold that users need to be warned to not do dumb things. So, please don't make it about me... Hasteur (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing dumb was done in the AfD close, though. The threshold was not met. --Nouniquenames 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Have to completely disagree with Hasteur's actions here. The NAC closer had not participated in the discussion, and the discussion was such a landslide of policy-based keeps (with one option to "keep or merge") that it was one of the snowiest possible closes - exactly the type that NAC's are for. Why in any deity's name you would bust their chops for the right close based on all evidence is beyond me. Seriously Hasteur - give your head a little shake, please (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The link in the OP clearly shows meatpuppetry going on. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's really an obnoxious thread to read. Textbook meatpuppetry and apparent lynchmob efforts made to harass and out the original nom by a crew of conspiracy-minded forum dwellers who seem to find the rules here inscrutable. Asking Sue Rangell to re-open her NAC was certainly appropriate but she seems to be on strike due to the recent loss of her rollback privileges (or maybe she's just taking a WikiBreak™, who knows). So I think DRV is the best move. Given the participation in the AfD I wouldn't bet on a different outcome, but the AfD was clearly tainted. -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) While I agree the offsite canvassing (seemingly resurrected from the same thing in 2010) is rather unfortunate particularly given some of the comments there, it seems to me that's largely separate from the appropriateness of the NAC. From what I can tell, most of the people there were fairly established wikipedians, so I don't think there's reason to think the closer missed anything that an admin wouldn't have. And I don't think there's any suggestion the closer came from the forum. Now that the off-site canvassing has been brought to light, we could revisit the closure itself, but it seems to me even with the canvassing, there's no way a delete is coming from that so the options are either keep it as keep, relist or close as 'no consensus'. If people feel this is worth considering they could open a DRV or ask the closer about it (but again it doesn't imply the closer made an inappropriate close). The only other thing is whether we have to do anything about the canvassing particularly in light of some of the comments. I would say no, since it seems they now accept canvassing is not acceptable even if they don't all agree with it. And if anything does come from the threats we can take action about those then. Similarly, if the harassment continues, we could look at what, if anything, we can do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's sensible, Nil Einne. Just for the record we should note that EternalFlare had recently (on January 27) been charged with sockpuppetry at this declined SPI (without an accompanying user talk warning). I'm still assuming good faith in all the actors at this point, but certainly if this rises to the level of harassment then steps will have to be taken to curb it. -Thibbs (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

SPA at Dale Bozzio of the unconstructive kind

At Dale Bozzio, there's been some disagreement, to put it mildy. The Master (talk · contribs), an editor with around 200 article edits and few interests outside of the Bozzio article, has been edit-warring for quite some time now with the clear intent of removing as much material as possible. They do have in interest in inserting material, material that was deemed problematic at the BLP noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive165#Dale_Bozzio, and note that while Malerooster wasn't opposed to inclusion if the sources were deemed reliable, no such verdict was ever sought at the RS noticeboard.

If you look at The Master's edits you see what it is that they want, and while it is true that the article can do with improvement, edits such as this are unwarranted: it removes factual material that while unreferenced is hardly controversial in any way. Now, on the other side we have Doc2234 (talk · contribs), who is probably a fan, and who has in the past asked me for advice. Doc at least tries to improve the article, and the accusation (more in a moment) that they're turning this into some fan page misses the mark by a pretty wide margin.

As for that accusation--well, the cat came out of the bag in The Master's latest comment on the talk page: This article is basically a hagiography of a former singer in a one-hit-wonder band written by a bunch of guys who had crushes on her after seeing her in the "Words" video. That note, a blatant personal attack disguised as a rant, was the straw that broke this camel's back, which is why I bring this here: The Master cannot seem to work together with other people to improve this article, they have no interest in improving any other article, they are edit-warring and editing against consensus, they resort to personal attacks, and they obviously have an odd interest in this particular article--in short, they are not here to improve the project. I propose that The Master be topic-banned from the article and its talk page, broadly construed--to include Zappa-related pages, for instance. Disclosure: I've never seen the "Words" video, I don't know that I know that song, and I don't think Dale Bozzio is my type. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hello? Duke game is over, people. Back to work. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess everyone realizes that your accusations are without merit. I deleted content that was unsourced. Should people now be topic banned for deleting unsourced claims from a BLP? And why didn't you attempt to discuss the deletions before rushing off to ask admins to topic ban me? You should be admonished. The Master (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • We've discussed this many times. Was there some special need for me to discuss your insulting message on the article talk page? How 'bout I slap an only warning for personal attacks on your talk page? Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • FWIW: The Master (who had a somewhat troubled past here already) discovers Dale Bozzio in November 2012, adding content about a conviction for animal abuse, not longer after finding their calling as a cat defender. True advocacy: The Master has had no interest here in music, musicians, or anything like it. *Addendum: The Master was a different user before, with more interests than just Bozzio. I don't know how exciting that is and how relevant here; details can be gleaned from the history of their talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Second time I'm asking this: I deleted content that was unsourced. Should people now be topic banned for deleting unsourced claims from a BLP? Are you just going to ignore that and keep commenting on contributors rather than content, as you yourself are violating WP:NPA? I find it telling that nobody but you seems to have a problem with my edits at that page. Is there a reason you're so interested in presenting the subject in the best possible light? Or are you just dragging this to the drama boards because of your dislike for me in general? Again, your claims and accusations are pathetic and laughable. The Master (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm uninvolved, so I'll jump in. Frankly, it's hard to like The Master's style, but Drmies is pretty combative too. The cat stuff is a tossup, since the sourcing looks weak and you can make a case for WP:UNDUE. The deletions of material are questionable... is there no way to find sources for her released works? I can see why no one wants to comment... this is a mess. I am not sure sanctions are called for at this point, though I can see why Drmies brought this here. One possible solution: is there a mediator in the house? Jusdafax 08:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Jusdafax, this has been going on for a while now. If there were agreement at the BLP noticeboard that the cat is a toss-up (sounds like animal abuse to me) I would have had no problem with its inclusion. But it seems pretty clear to me that The Master, since he didn't get his way that time (and I'll be the first to say that there wasn't a resounding consensus for its exclusion), is taking it out on Dale Bozzio in as many ways as he can, removing inoffensive and uncontroversial material from the article in a manner that is disruptive. Doc seems pretty frustrated with it and I am too. And what about that talk page comment? How is that not a personal attack? Drmies (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've sourced the basics, which took about an hour because my typing skills are lacking. BLPs deserve every bit of attention we can bring to them but the sources were easy to find, and plentiful, so I'm thinking removal was a bit hasty. Tiderolls 11:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I would like to comment. I have not had much time to devote to Wikipedia over the past couple of weeks. Please allow me to put my thoughts together and upload my view of this, this evening if possible. Thanks. Doc2234 (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Tide, I am very impressed with your work on the article: thank you so much. If The Master promises he can simply leave the article alone, I'd be happy enough and we can close this thread. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If the claims have been sourced then fine. But unsourced claims will continue to be removed from this and from every other article in which I notice them. The guidelines say that unsourced content can and should be removed, not that people should wait until sources are found. Saying that it's wrong to remove unsourced content is 100% incorrect. The first thing you did was to call me a SPA and claim that I have "few interests outside of the Dale Bozzio article", both of which are patently false personal attacks. What I promise to do is continue removing unsourced content or content sources to unreliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Nice use of the passive in laying down the law. No, our guidelines don't say that all. Your edit history is pretty indicative of your single purpose here (so, neither false nor a personal attack), whereas you have no proof that I'm a male person who watched some video in the 1980s and let that guide my edits (that was a pretty silly remark you made on that talk page and says more about you as an editor than about your intended target). Your promise, though, should be tempered with a bit of knowledge of our guidelines: there is no imperative to remove unsourced content. If you wanted to be a productive editor, you'd help source content. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
          • • Three comments and I’ll be as brief as I can be (I know that I tend to get long-winded):

1. The personal attack comment left on the Dale Bozzio talk page here referred to the writers of the article as “a bunch of guys who had crushes on her”. I think it is worthwhile to point out that contributors to the article include at least four adminstrators and a number of editors who have substantial knowledge about the subject. The body of administrators and editors who have edited this article is composed of both men and women.

2. Concerning deletion of content, there were 22 edits performed by The Master that either deleted material or set the stage for deleting material over a 2 month period – heavy activity from one user for this page. Both sourced and unsourced material was deleted, including a sourced statement in the Frank Zappa section that was reviewed by the Frank Zappa WikiProject in the Dale Bozzio help requested section here and re-added here and once again deleted here. Could admins please review this information and render an opinion on whether it should be included? Thank you for your thoughts.

3. My sincere thanks to those who have spent time to re-add information back into the article. Doc2234 (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Audition date website link

Special:Contributions/Iamrakeshh has added a non/notable/below standard site's link in a bunch of article's external link section. Manually reversion will take time! Can an admin quickly revert all edit using any tool (if there is any)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think I've cleaned out all of his/her link spamming now. --—Wasell^(T) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a tool for this that can be used in extreme cases - Special:Nuke. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nuke only does articles created, as opposed to mere edits ... at least last time I checked. Mass rollback, maybe ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly what's needed then is Special:EditShatteringKaboom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User came back, started mass spamming again, I reported to AIV, user is now blocked. Werieth (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Short term block proposal: User:Danjel

There's arguing to make a point, there's arguing for the sake of arguing, and then there's just plain arguing with everyone whether or not they agree with you. Such is the disruptive and boggling behavior of User:Danjel.

See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche various users have commented on Danjel's behavior:

• Epeefleche - "wikihounding" diff
• bobrayner - took exception to refactoring and edit-warring over his comments first revert second revert third revert bobraynor takes exception
• TP - 'Borderline WP:IDHT' [220]
• Starblind - "Well past WP:IDHT" [221]
• Kww - "disruptive" [222]

I first came into contact with the user at the article All Hallows' School where I was attempting to create a resilient content solution which would satisfy all the concerns of inclusionists and deletionists and thus remove all boilerplates for sourcing with an absolute minimum of loss of information. I met with procedural objections diff], a behavioral warning based on my interpretation of content policy,[223] further argumentation past the point where I've indicated a desire to disengage,diff a warning of impending problems for me in the future in the context of Epeefleche's AN/I and RfC/U, which I construed as a threat,diff and various modifications of responding editors at the RfC/U in addition to responding to views on the title page instead of the talk page which seems to indicate the user thinks they WP:OWN the discussion. It seems like there is a building consensus that this user is being disruptive and cannot be talked with constructively. I thought I would provide diffs of my own aggravation with the user and provide other editors with an opportunity to do the same. Recommend a brief block to chill out and let the RfC/U on Epeefleche focus on constructive improvements for that editor without Danjel's behavior being the focus of it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-admin) I think it's rather nice of you to propose a short term block, ClaudeReigns. Looking at Danjel's behavior and past comments, I'm inclined to agree with Starblind from Epeefleche's RFC - Well past WP:IDHT; and in my opinion, borderline on WP:STROLLER, and a considerably longer block. He needs to become a honey badger, settle down, and let it go. Essays do make sense sometimes. Fish^Barking? 22:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Since TP disagreed with Danjel on the RfC/U, Danjel tried to get TP recalled; that's a classy move. I'm trying to avoid getting sucked into another lengthy discussion with danjel, which is not something that I enjoy and it doesn't seem that danjel enjoyed it either, so I won't reopen the disagreement between Danjel and I; the comments are out there on a couple of pages for all to see, hopefully it's over now. I think many RfC/Us tend to start out noisy and then become calmer; maybe in a few days that RfC/U will calm down somewhat. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You take your opponent in a discussion to ANI. Then, as evidence of his problematic behaviour, you point to the subjective comments of an individual defending himself at RFC/U and people who are strongly defending that person, their friend. You then selectively WP:CANVAS those individuals who have opposed my position at the RFC/U to come to this thread (diff, diff and diff) presumably to sway this discussion in your direction also.

As additional evidence, you provide things like this [diff, where you felt "threatened", because I told you (fairly politely, I have to say, because you were rambling) that you can't ask for scanned copies of references. Besides that you set a weird WP:DEADLINE of 24 hours (diff, instead of just removing content that you were challenging, per WP:BRD, as I suggested at diff), and that you were being a bit WP:POINTy ("if you can" at diff), your work at All Hallows' School was good (and I acknowledged so at User_talk:ClaudeReigns#The Citation Barnstar). Even so, you then argued first with User:Bilby, and then with me about whether a source is valid if you can't see it (see the diff at the beginning). In fact, that whole discussion (at User_talk:ClaudeReigns#Fran Bailey) is an exercise in bizarre.

And it appears that, despite your claim to consensus, there is a movement away from such edits. There is now a footnote at WP:V ([Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-3]]), although it was edited in after the beginning of the RFC/U, so I have chosen not to raise it at the RFC/U until it's clear that the behaviour is still ongoing. The footnote states:

When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified.

...In this case, the deletion is large scale, there's no other efforts to improve the material, there seems to be a concentration on particular material (regarding Middle Eastern subjects), there are frequently already acceptable citations in the text, there was little to no attempt to communicate any concerns (besides "d per tag" and so on). I am one of those "some editors" who object to such practices. Therefore the RFC/U is completely legitimate.

In regards to recalling TParis, I note that you've decided to only link to part of the discussion. I actually assumed that Kudpung was a friend and could therefore mediate between us. I later stated that I wasn't looking to recall (diff). In any case, I wasn't aware that questioning an admin's actions and exploring recall (even if I were) was against any policy?

No evidence has been supplied of any policy or behavioural issue, except that I am in opposition to ClaudeReigns' friend. So, besides that I'm an opponent, and a healthy dose of delusional paranoia (threats?), there's not much more to respond to here. This is an attempt to silence an opponent and nothing more. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I later stated that I wasn't looking to recall And yet you brought up fact that TParis can be recalled in your very first sentence. Recall has to do with mediation how, exactly? --Calton | Talk 01:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I presumed that Kudpung was friends with TParis because he is listed on TParis' recall page. Don't you think that if I were interested in recall, I would have approached any of the other admins also? Even so, would you like to direct me to the policy or guideline that forbids anything relating to admin recall? I've asked ClaudeReigns, but s/he's not forthcoming either. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The point which you are missing -- or avoiding -- is that you mentioned recall in your very first sentence, and yet we're expected to believe that it's irrelevant. That fact that you didn't -- or haven't -- approached other admins is irrelevant.

..would you like to direct me to the policy or guideline that forbids anything relating to admin recall? Would you like to point me where I made, suggested, hinted, or waved vaguely in the direction of that suggestion? Take your time. But still, that bit of Wikilawyering tells me that yes, you are thinking of recall. --Calton | Talk 08:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"delusional paranoia" - careful with those personal attacks there, tiger. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what should I call it when a user interprets threats on the basis of, for example [diff]? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that. Do not speculate on the mental states or motivations of other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In Danjel's world, we are with few exceptions insane. And I have a furry white cat in my lap. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can the user state in a non-sarcastic and utterly serious tone that my work will continue unimpeded by he or his high school students at the conclusion of this affair? I would find it highly assuring and a welcome departure in tone. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a single instance that your work was impeded by me or any of my high school students? Didn't think so. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, a clear olive branch is rejected in favor of contention. The user refuses to offer the assurance. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am accused of WP:CANVAS violation in this discussion by the responding user, Danjel. WP:CANVAS states that supplying notification is appropriate "On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior)." I have interpreted this to mean that in mentioning those users and requesting the diffs for their statements, I am right to attempt to ascertain if their statements were appropriate. If those deciding this matter deem my action in doing so inappropriate, it should be explained to me. If however my actions are appropriate, it should be explained to you. Beyond that, I have no need to argue the point. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support block, and provide additional evidence: You've mentioned several other editors who Danjel has locked horns with. I'd like to add my name to that list. As a result of an AfD of Middle Harbour Public Schools, he not only went after Epeefleche, but me as well, accusing me of incompetence because I didn't see eye to eye with him. Not willing to let sleeping dogs lie, he went ballistic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chili burger, calling it a "clusterfuck", accusing other editors of being Cabals and Meatpuppets, and turning it into some sort of personal indictment against me, while repeatedly referencing Middle Harbour, even though Middle Harbour and chili burgers have about as little in common with each other as any two articles on this Wiki. After Chili burger was closed as keep due to overwhelming consensus to do so, he almost immediately started a pair of ill-conceived merge discussions, then continued mudslinging against me and others so quickly that the merge discussion had to be speedily closed to prevent WWIII. All the while, I tried telling him to cool off; his response was to delete my overtures as vandalism. It's blatantly clear that Danjel has problems with accepting consensus, and with those who disagree with him, with this ridiculous action against TParis being the last in a long line of examples pbp 01:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PBP's comments above should be taken with exactly one grain of salt. He has previously dragged me here on no less than three occasions for much drama here at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#User:Danjel, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel and [[224]]). No diffs of any policy violations, certainly no diffs of his telling me to "cool off" (noting, as is discussed in one of the archived threads above, that he has previously been told to stay off my talkpage ad doesn't). No evidence nor policy issues brought up, so essentially a worthless post. In fact, the whole post is suggestive of the WP:COMPETENCE issues I (and others) have previously raised in the previous ANI threads. It's not surprising that he has come out in support of Epeefleche though. I had, actually, been pleasantly surprised to see no comments from him (up to now, alas). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is about you. You've just corroborated what I said: that you can't get along with me, and that you not being able to get along with me has resulted in three ANI threads before this one, ones in which only you were advancing incompetence claims. You're making an absolutely wonderful case for your ability to get along with others And as for the "no diffs" argument, I blue-linked a discussion where you commented more than 30 times. That's more than enough diffs pbp 02:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So if this is about me, and discussion should be limited to me (and my actions and so forth), should I now count on you to strikethrough your comments about me at the RFC/U wherein the subject is Epeefleche? Didn't think so. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I do see as legitimate the issues raised by Claude, Starblind, BobRayner, TP, KWW, Fishbarking, Callton, Bushranger, and pbp -- above and in the above diffs.

And the diffs just scratch the surface of the battleground created by Danjel. For example -- one might look at the discussions with AN/I-closing sysop TP here. And the parallel discussion here.

Or one might look at the reverts at the RFC. Until today, I had not looked at the RFC for many days. Now, going through the edit history I see that it has been a battleground littered with squabbles between Danjel and other editors who saw things differently than he did.

And his edit history shows that he is singularly focused on this course of action; it is the bulk of his editing for the past days -- I wonder whether this focus of his is perhaps not in the best interests of the project.

And, as I just added mention of at the RFC/U, his hounding of me has continued even during the RFC. Even after input to him at the AN/I, and from the sysop who closed it, and from others. He does not seem to be inclined to listen to it.

I would appreciate an interaction ban being placed on Danjel, given all the evidence linked to at the RFC and the above, so that he stops following me around the Project. This has gone on for a year, is disruptive, and continues despite all manner of community and sysop input.

As to the block proposal -- I'll, at least at this point, not comment, and leave it for others to decide whether that is appropriate or not.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right! The RFC/U has been quite squabbly! It's good to know that you have friends. Meanwhile, there were 3 other editors, who have also expressed concerns and you haven't even vaguely attempted to address them. Nor will you. Because the purpose of this, just like the purpose of the squabbling over there, is to allow you to evade responsibility. There's not much else to say. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're including me among Epeefleche's "friends", you need to dial back the persecution complex. I'm actually sympathetic to your view -- if you're going to go to the trouble opening the edit window to delete something, why can't you be arsed to do a quick check, at least? -- but you're doing yourself no favors here. --Calton | Talk 09:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not counting you among Epeefleche's "friends". I think that there's a distinction between his "friends" and people who are just commenting from a considered opinion. Compare, for example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by Blueboar and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by Kww (even if he does think I'm re-adding unreferenced material, which is wrong) with virtually every other post on that page. For a further example, see the baying for blood that is occuring down below. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Block (for now)/ Support Interaction Ban I am completely underwhelmed by the arguments that User:Danjel has made at the RfC/U in question. The issues raised are either non-violations or trivial nitpicking, and the proposes remedies are unjustified and unreasonable. Community consensus seems to be that the problem here is Danjel, not EF. I think that in trying to impose his views of how other editors should act, that Danjel has lost sight of what our ultimate purpose is: to build an encyclopedia. All of the rhetoric and piling on of claims and counterclaims by Danjel have only served to waste more and more time. Danjel has not convinced the community, his mind will not be changed and the RfC/U is going nowhere but downhill. Unfortunately, Danjel appears utterly unable to deal with EF in civil fashion. The world of Wikipedia is more than large enough to allow enough editing space for both editors, and an imposition of an interaction ban on Danjel with any of EF's work should be enough to keep the peace here. In the event that an interaction ban does not resolve the issue and Danjel is instigating further conflict, a block might well be justified. Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally get what you're saying, but in light of what pbp is saying about his interactions, and the issue of what I construed as a veiled threat, (now more clearly substantiated by php's observations) it seems likely there will be another user who will have to deal with this. I am not saying an interaction ban isn't a good idea (I actually didn't know that was an option - sounds great) but I would still be concerned if the RfC/U will be closed constructively with Epeefleche receiving helpful advice focused on him alone, (otherwise it truly was a waste of time) and that other users would not fall victim to idle hands. This behavior doesn't just magically stop when Epeefleche isn't around. Epeefleche is not the trigger. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I decided to follow my own logic. A search bears out another warning about wikihounding from two years ago, totally unrelated to Epeefleche. Here's another accusation of wikihounding which danjel took to AN/I last year, also unrelated to Epeefleche. If one person says it, it can possibly be blown off. If two people say it, perhaps cause for concern. If three people say it, perhaps it's true and pattern behavior. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Did you click through to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Jayjg_accusing_me_of_wikihounding? Where is my name mentioned? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another of Epeefleche's supporters, Hasteur, has started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE. I look forward to being mentioned at WP:AN3 and WP:AC by the end of the day. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Block - For what it's worth, while I do personally understand Epeefleche's intentions in removing unsourced content - (I tend to do the same!) - I will not understand nor condone what seems like borderline character assassination against an editor who has had good-faith intentions - although, may have misrepresented them at times. A temporary block against Danjel isn't going to fix the somewhat grey-area that is: preserving unsourced material vs. removing it. Danjel has knocked heads with a number of editors — as has probably everybody else here. Mentioning things such as a supposed violation of WP:NOSHARE and a recall against TParis (which he specifically mentions isn't a recall) are just examples of cherry-picking, and that won't get us anywhere. A block seems punitive at this stage, and frankly, we'd be going back to square one. I would encourage Danjel to take a step back from this, reflect on his behaviour that he has engaged in with other editors, and perhpas think of a possible solution. I also a Support a self-imposed Interaction Ban between Epeefleche and Danjel's contributions - temporarily - until the issue is resolved. I believe that both editors are mature enough to put aside their differences, once the issue has diminished. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block We dont do chill-out blocks, or block an account to reinforce a point. Before blocking is considered it would be worth trying other solutions, and the main suggestion I'd have is for Danjel to step back from the RFC/U about Epeefleche, and accept the outcome when it is done. (Personally, I agree with his basic premise, that removing easily sourced content is less than ideal behaviour, and doesn't really help the project - but in the end it is well within policy). In regard to his interactions with ClaudeReigns, there I think things might be being misrepresented a bit - ClaudeReigns didn't exactly act in the best possible manner in regard to All Hallows' School, either, but all of that seems like a done issue, and not worth pursing on either side. If there does need to be action, an interaction ban between Epeefleche and Danjel doesn't seem like an unworkable idea, and is certainly worth trying before we turn to something more draconian. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block completely. In fact this is a totally unnecessary AN case. "Teacher, teacher, Johny hit me because I pulled his hair!" per this discussion over 15 hours ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I appreciate the support for an interaction ban on Danjel. Not only here, but expressed overwhelmingly at the RFC. The basis for banning him from interacting with me is that, as demonstrated, he has been hounding me. Even after being warned by a sysop not to hound me. As recently as this month. And he has hounded me even this week, during the RFC. There is of course zero basis for placing a ban on the person being hounded. We don't place restraining orders on people who are the victims of inappropriate behavior. But rather on the perpetrator. To do otherwise would be like placing a restraining order on a person stalked by Robert John Bardo. That would simply be bass-ackwards.

Finally, the interaction ban placed on Danjel should be permanent. Danjel's focus on engaging me in this manner has persisted for a full year. Without signs of abating (just the opposite, as seen by the AN/I and RFC just this month, followed by his hounding this very week). And it started on a completely unrelated issue. It's a big project. Let him engage others. There is no need for him to have the ability to come back at a future time to engage me, and what others have referred to as his IDHT approach does not support the view that he should engage me in the future. It's been one year. Enough is enough. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the hounding, there is a current RFC/U on your behaviour, and you cry foul when the initiator of the RFC/U checks and notes that exactly the behaviour that has been called into question at the RFC/U is still continuing? From WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases." Unless you're suggesting that you have, in fact, stopped the behaviour (in which case I'd quite happily shelve the RFC/U), and that this diff (fixed with an easily found source at diff) isn't actually a continuation of that behaviour (i.e., that easily sourced content is indiscriminately deleted without any attempt to source it, as mentioned in the background of the dispute, the first paragraph at the RFC/U, and then, because you continuously ignore that point, restated again later at diff, which you have continued to ignore in your later posts)... Wait. Hmm.

Let's face it: this is an attempt to avoid criticism by silencing an opponent rather than actually responding to the problem at hand. The feeling at WP:V has changed, and this is abundantly evident in discussion (Wikipedia_talk:V#Returning_to_a_possible_footnote_for_the_.22Burden_of_evidence.22_section and Wikipedia_talk:V#Bot). Yet, has your behaviour changed? Nope (diff, fixed with an easily found source at diff, although the article still needs a lot of work from someone who knows more about it than I). Seriously, how hard is google? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Danjel — you've made the point in your prior post as to why an interaction ban is necessary, banning you from interacting with me. Even after all the above-indicated input to you at the AN/I, RFC, and by sysops on talkpages, you continue to hound me this very week. Follow me to a page that you never edited. Where I made an appropriate edit. Revert me. Again disparagingly label my appropriate edit "disruptive." And again leave a misleading edit summary. You, as you have done before, restore it without any refs—though this time you repair that violation of wp:v quickly. And when you discuss it above, you still have an IDHT attitude. A year of this is sufficient.

As to WP:HOUNDING, of course that is what you were doing. And your following me around the project -- still, one year after your perceived slight on a completely different issue -- to revert my appropriate edit, disparagingly and inappropriately term it "disruptive", and leave a misleading edit summary is of course not permitted by wp:HOUNDING. Which says:

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.... The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

Frankly, if one reads the policy, your behavior is strikingly parallel to what the policy seeks to protect editors against. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block — This appears to be an attempt to silence an editor on one side of a dispute, by the other side of the dispute. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal interaction ban proposal

Alright, I've been mostly silent here at ANI, it's time I make my case. I originally became involved as an (uninvolved) admin closing an ANI thread about Epeefleche on 17 Dec 12 22:08. The close said clearly "No evidence of a policy violation...The burden is on Danjel to find a source for the content." However, I also added, because folks mentioned it in the thread, that "On the other hand, Google takes all but a few seconds and is worth the effort." That was a summary of the thread. On 14 Jan, Epeefleche started a thread by Danjel where he was threatened with a block for removing content. Danjel got involved making the same accusations he did at the ANI thread which close out of his favor. I explained that he misunderstands that ANI close if that's what he took from it. He then said that what he took from it is that I place the burden on him to Wikistalk Epeefleche edits (which he also 'rejects'). At the time, and still, I felt it was a serious enough concern to specifically address the Wikistalking. I also tried being sympathetic to his cause and I specifically explained what his misreading of WP:V was here. Finally I recommended he seek change at WP:V which he rejected. That he has managed to get a footnote since then doesn't mean we completely ignore what is actually written doesn't change the course of events up until now nor is a footnote of equal weight to the policy contents itself. After this, I joined in the RFC/U and consider myself involved from this point on out. I at no point have used my tools, the only admin action I have ever taken was closing the ANI thread before I was involved.

Here is my proposal: I don't like one sided bans. I think the disruptive behavior is on Danjel's part. In rejecting the consensus at ANI and opening an RFC/U, Danjel has ignored the community's consensus in favor of his own. He accuses others of being friends with Epeefleche and has been throwing around accusations of canvassing (he retracted the first one quickly but made the others afterwards). He has accused me of violating WP:INVOLVED here. He has redacted others comments at the ANI and ignored RFC/U instructions to make retaliatory threads after viewpoints he disagrees with. Danjel's actions have been completely without policy support, as has been explained to him. His actions have been irrational and frankly annoying. I think Danjel should be under a 6-month interaction ban with Epeefleche. He should no longer be allowed to comment on Epeefleche's enforcement of WP:V. But as I said, I dislike one-sided interaction bans. Let's not leave room for Epeefleche to antagonize him either. I propose that Epeefleche stay out of Danjel's primary topic area of high schools. That should limit the overlap in articles. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 15:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose as this would restrict Epeefleche from an area in which he has done nothing wrong or anything against policy. If person A commits a crime against person B, you don't toss them both in jail just because. That's madness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify, do you support the other direction?--v/r - TP 16:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• I do think this would be ideal if both sides would agree to it. I can't agree with Epeefleche's actions, though they can be justified as being within policy as written (but not as intended IMO), and Danjel is just running way too hot (though I tend to share his views). I do think a one-sided ban would be too easily gamed. As a second choice, an interaction ban (no editing a page the other has edited other than AN, ANI, pump, etc. and there the would avoid the same discussions) would perhaps be another reasonable outcome that shouldn't really bother E. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the part about Epeefleche staying out of high schools, support the rest: Epeefleche shouldn't be banned from school-related articles just because Danjel kicks up drama. pbp 21:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support in part; Very strong oppose in part. The facts are well presented by TParis. But of course, as Starblind points out, there is zero basis for restricting me (in an effort to be even-handed, between the person hounding and the one being hounded) from an area in which I have done nothing wrong or anything against policy. As Starblind says eloquently: "If person A commits a crime against person B, you don't toss them both in jail just because. That's madness."

  What I do support is the ban on Danjel.

  But it should at this point be permanent -- this is not a passing matter. It has gone on for a year. Danjel's activity at the RFC and on assorted talkpages this week shows that the obsessive disruption has only increased, and become an even-greater percentage of Danjel's focus as an editor. And -- and this point cannot be stressed enough -- Danjel's posts even in this string, following all the input that TParis and others have given him on talkpages and at AN/I and at RFC, as well as Danjel's wikihouding me this very week, all militate in favor of the ban being permanent.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hounding again today. And now, again, today. Danjel followed me to a deletion I made of unsourced material that had been tagged both in April 2009 and February 2010. He followed me to an article he had never edited. And hours after my deletion, he restored something close to what was stated in a fraction of the deleted, tagged, unsourced material. While deleting some text himself, without acknowledging it. Though he added a ref, he labeled my removal of the uncited text "disruptive". He misleadingly wrote in his edit summary: "Undid revision 535205260 by Epeefleche (talk) - revert disruptive removal of text)". Just as he had in the above instances.

First, his edit summary was again misleading. His was not a complete undo of my revision. Not even close, if you look at the 2 edits. He added a ref, and touched only a small part of my edit. Second, it was again inappropriate for him to label my edit disruptive—in contravention of all the feedback given him. Finally, this is yet another example of him wikihounding me; to this very day. One year after this started. Ignoring all manner of sysop and community feedback. Danjel has today demonstrated once again why an interaction ban on him will be required.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So you suggest that I should have added my ref, and left the rest of the text (which was problematic for other reasons) in place? Because it's either delete everything or keep everything, right? Rubbish. The key difference that is becoming apparent between you and I is that will consider the text, whether it's appropriate and whether it's source-able, and only keep that information that is. On the other hand, you just delete everything, whether it's of encyclopedic value or not, whether it's source-able or not. How can you possibly argue that it is better to remove all information than to keep the information that can and should be kept? THAT is why your edits are disruptive, and why your attempt to silence criticism and discourage (or prevent) repair of your edits is not in the best interests of wikipedia. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal as well as addition of material takes judgment, and discussing the possibility of sourcing leads to attempts to source it which may or may not be successful, and whose success of failure usually determines the outcome. Vigorous discussion at challenged material at afd or elsewhere is helpful, not harmful: otherwise it make it all too easy for someone with an agenda. (It is incidentally not true that most or all school articles are deleted at afd--almost none of them are, they are instead redirected; and I think it equally unconstructive to bring them for deletion in the first place as to try to keep them as articles. What we need is these two editors discussing the issues, not each other. Any ban should be addressed to that. It is usually better to discuss the issues at an afd than to directly challenge what some other person has said, and this would go a long way to reducing conflicts between them. The effect of preventing them from working on the same pages would be to give undue preference to the first mover, and in this case, consider the afd and content work, that will almost always be Eppefleche. It's no secret I usually oppose Epeefleche's views at afd , but I often oppose Danjel's also. I'm not sure I can devise anything better than to suggest that they never use each other's names or refer to each other directly or indirectly. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • DGG - A ban of any sort is not usually issued because of valid rational criticism. It is issued because of disruptive behaviors. Have I not adequately illustrated disruptive behaviors by Danjel? If so, he should be under an interaction ban to prevent more disruption. Let the RFC/U continue it's course, it's leaning Epeefleche's favor anyway. But do not allow the disruptive WP:IDHT behavior to continue.--v/r - TP 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The clear partisan nature of this "proposal" is stunning. So, what, Epeefleche has the opportunity to edit every article on a school and the result is a de facto ban from editing the articles in which I have an interest. To say that this is disproportionate is an understatement. That, together with the fact Epeefleche is unwilling to restrict his own editing in any way from the articles that he knows that I edit make it pretty plain that this is just and only an attempt by TParis to silence opposition. WP:V has changed (and Epeefleche's behaviour has continued). There are several more editors posting to the RFC/U. Epeefleche's side has noticed that things aren't going their way so they're getting more shrill. So, we have te fact that several editors have opposed such a one sided ban even before the proposal was put, and the fact this thread originated with a degree of canvassing on ClaudeReigns' part (noting Epeefleche's known history of canvassing discussed above), and the outrageous attempt at harassment by piling on AN and ANI reports (that TParis continued below; by the way, you ARE WP:INVOLVED, the outrageous onesidedness of your interactions here and at the RFC/U is proof positive of that)... Well. There's nothing more to say. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please explain your rationale for pointing out that I am involved. Have I used my tools in any way? I was uninvolved when I close the ANI, you made me involved by your behavior which I've responded to against your favor. You say WP:V has changed. How? The relevant parts that I explained to you are still part of the prose and all you've achieved is a footnote. WP:V hasn't changed, it now includes a minor viewpoint is all.--v/r - TP 02:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you're willing to show that a minor viewpoint (that is now starting to get represented at the RFC/U almost equitably with what you consider to be the "majority" viewpoint of WP:V) is "disruptive", such that their concerns should be completely ande prejudicially ignored (which is inarguably what Epeefleche is doing), then... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Which "inarguably" Epeefleche may have been doing for the week you've had the change, but you've been explicitly doing for two months since the ANI. Do you have any self-awareness at all about your own behavior? The accusations you make are pathetic and have been committed by you 10x worse than Epeefleche and yet you hound him instead of yourself. It's disgusting how you've been behaving.--v/r - TP 13:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Partly per DGG, but also from my familiarity with the attitudes of the concerned editors. Epeefleche is in no way innocent of disruptive editing, and although I collaborate well with Danjel on school articles, I have known him to get hot-headed on occasions. There is no such thing as a 'one-sided' interaction ban, it takes two to tango, and I suggest, per this discussion (for anyone who has still not bothered to follow the link) that they informally concede to stay out of each other's hair. If not, we'll end up loosing one valuable education editor and allowing another to continue to make unchallenged, possibly disruptive edits, and who needs to learn that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Role account used by User:Danjel

I wasn't aware this was already being discussed, my apologies.--v/r - TP 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since Danjel has brought up the matter that he has used his students as an argument against Epeefleche's actions, I feel it's relevant to point out that he is using a role account named User:MrJuddsStudents in violation of WP:ROLE. This account should be blocked.--v/r - TP 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC) That is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE. - Bilby (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed.[225] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:BotKung

I've blocked the bot at BotKung (talk · contribs), see also comments at User talk:Jutiphan. Anyone can unblock it once it's fixed and we are confident this won't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you just used the standard block interface, but you should probably disable autoblock so the operator doesn't get caught in it. Legoktm (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled autoblock. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never done this before and didn't even think of the consequences for the operator. I wish all blocks had to have a stop button! Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good one, cheers! Basket _Feudalist 13:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ankit.S.George

In recent days, multiple new user accounts have been making changes to articles such as Boxing, promoting a character named Ankit.S.George as some kind of Indian business magnate or boxing superstar. I have reverted most of the changes but the trend seems likely to continue. Can anything be done? . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A CU has blocked a boatload of accounts and I have semied the article for a month. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mikemikev again

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for one month. Mathsci (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• 220.126.137.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev

Mikemikev seems to be even more disruptive than usual. Could an administrator please block this ipsock? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio. Mathsci (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Weird and inaccurate information repeatedly inserted in reference on Elastic Therapeutic Taping.

Elastic therapeutic tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not know who is inserting this information so I cannot notify them. I am notifying whoever is reading this that the product and medical technique known as Kinesiology taping or Elastic Therapeutic Taping was not invented by Komp and Mazza. The patents cited in the early edits were for a different product, sold currently as Kendall "Sher-Light" tape. This has been going on since the summer of 2012 and it is hard to continue to assume good faith, as at some point this person or discrete group of people had to have read the patent materials they were citing. At least I would hope so. Here is a link to the tape they developed. It is a different tape.https://www.medco-athletics.com/Supply/Product.asp?Leaf_Id=85910 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonTigerMom (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The who in question seems to be User:67.168.206.47. However, I don't think this is the right place to discuss the matter. This probably should either be brought up at Talk:Elastic therapeutic tape or you could try communicating with the IP as this seems to be more of a content dispute. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of this particular issue, the article needs more attention. In particular, it had a so-called 'history' section full of promotional claims. As none of these complied with the relevant policy, WP:MEDRS, I have deleted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's weird ... the "history" deleted was appropriately sourced (they weren't medical statements, they were statements explaining how this particular unproven medical "stuff" came to be so popular), and several MEDRS tags on medical claims which did need to be sourced to secondary review sources were removed. Whatever. I'm (undeniably) a fan of MEDRS, but when it's misapplied, folks end up (wrongly) irritated at the guideline. That means either allowing medical claims from journal sources when secondary reviews should be used, as well as disallowing lay sources when they are appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There were no sources 'explaining how this particular unproven medical "stuff" came to be so popular' - for that, we'd need a source that actually explained it, rather than sources that it was seen at the Olympics, was used by Lance Armstrong (I'll not comment on his reliability as a source), and was used at Wimbledon and the EUFA championships. Find a reliable source that says it is popular, rather than trying to prove it by synthesis. Incidentally, there seems to be some confusion in the article as to whether it refers to a particular brand of tape, or to 'elastic therapeutic tape' in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

TWFanmily and User:Ellielouux

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

---

Resolved

 – speedy deleted. Hopefully that ends it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Today, new editor Ellielouux (talk · contribs) created the article "TWFanmily". This article is about the fanbase of the group The Wanted. I've been able to confirm the existence of this term to describe the fanbase [226], but the article as created by Ellielouux is a jumble of unreferenced, highly non-neutral text. The article was prod'ed by User:Scientific Alan 2, but Ellielouux unprod'ed it a minute later. I then turned it into a redirect to The Wanted (where the fanbase isn't even mentioned). I then posted to Ellielouux's talk page explaining what I did and why [227]. Ellielouux continues to revert changes to the article. Some other eyes, please. Ellielouux has been notified. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• User:MrX tagged it for speedy deletion. I turned it into a redirect again, and tried (hopefully not in vain) one last time to explain the situation to Ellielouux [228]. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• And again Ellielouux reverts. I'm done. Another set of eyes please. Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• It's been speedy deleted now, but it really should exist as a redirect. Oh well. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Boldly recreated as redirect. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

A concern about the article about Walid Shoebat

Walid Shoebat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article says that CNN accused Walid of being a fraud. It leaves the matter there without further remarks. However, Walid provided an extensive response to these accusations. Why were these not included? The author included the criticisms of a member of CAIR. However I have heard that at one individual was actively involved at some level with Hamas and they were convicted of a crime for this. Would someone please look into this matter further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.154.115 (talk • contribs) 2013-01-28 22:33:29 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia. Edit the article. Source your claim. Be prepared to discuss.--WaltCip (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Or, rather: Find a better and more trustworthy source of information than "I have heard.". Nail down the actual facts of the matter using people who check their facts, who have good reputations for accuracy, and who have properly published their information. Read Talk:Walid Shoebat#This might be one of the worst written articles on Wikipedia and the rest of the talk page. Then and only then turn to editing the article. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pe de Chinelo

Pe de Chinelo's name has appeared several times on AN and ANI. He was on the verge of being community banned, but was closed as no consensus. More recently, he returned as Althemise (talk · contribs). He has continued his disruptive modus operandi in film-related articles ([229], [230], [231]). This last round of sockpuppetry is the last straw. Can we have a block on him? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

He's also taunting on blocking him via edit change notices. Behavior is disruptive with or without the SPI issue. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I've pretty much had enough of Pe de Chinelo's antics. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

He's violated the three-revert rule at The Hunger Games (film) and God of War (video game), and probably some other pages I've missed. This needs some administrator attention as soon as possible... Never mind, I'm just gonna AIV this. He's resorted to simple vandalism now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

He's blocked for two days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the block should be made indefinite. If he's really the sock of a blocked user, there's no good reason to keep him around. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I recommend extending the current block to indef. User clearly has no intentions of editing within the spirit and policies of building this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Kudpung's recommendation is accepted given the last half dozen or so edits and summaries. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton continuing violating topic bans despite previous blocks

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has again violated topic ban of creating new articles here. Castle Meyenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been discussed many a time at ANI such as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_-_violation_of_topic_ban where he got a 60 hour block.

the ANI topic ban is here for indefinite ban of article creation. this continuing testing of boundaries and community consensus is worrying.

I seek administrator assistance to take appropriate action. thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, he violated his topic ban. It does not appear to be a copyvio (though it's unverified). But it was two weeks ago: a block would be punitive. A block may be right according to the letter, but I'm not feeling the spirit. I'm curious to see what other admins think the "appropriate action" is here. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A block. The policy isn't clear on this point (at least I didn't see anything about it), but I don't see why blocks for violating bans can't be imposed "late". Otherwise, we have the odd paradox that just because a violation escapes immediate scrutiny, the editor gets to violate the ban with impunity (see that? a form of punitive). In all fairness, if you look at Richard's block log, you'll see that an earlier block was shortened by User:Good Olfactory because the violations were "over two weeks ago". Obviously, my view is not necessarily shared by some. The only other remedy I can think of is to delete the article he created (kind of like reverting the edits of a banned user).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I know, and I find it difficult to defend RAN. If someone blocks him he certainly had it coming (and I'm familiar with his block log--I think we go back a couple of years...). I like your fancy semantic footwork, Bbb, and I don't see how I can really oppose a block, but I don't like it. I wish RAN would come by and say "OK I'll abide by the ban", which is why I left the note I did. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• I saw Drmies' comment on Richard's talk page. However, the user has already been blocked twice previously for violation of the topic ban, and also has an impressive block log. This is either IDHT or CIR, but something needs to be done. I think a longer block this time would be appropriate, perhaps one month. This would not be punitive, but preventative from constantly breaching the terms of his ban . It would serve to demonstrate that he needs to understand policies and that the terms of his topic ban may not be flagrantly disregarded - in previous ANI some users advocated an indef site ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • True, Kudpung, true. Then again (spoke the devil's advocate), it's only one small article, not a hundred or thousand of them... Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I had my own run-in with Norton when he inserted too much material in the CBS Records article about an unrelated CBS Records entity. I made that article a DAB page as a result. The talk page is a mile long thanks to what he did. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how that's relevant here. Let's not have all editors air their grievances and past disputes with RAN: there aren't enough blade servers in the world for that. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest a mentor situation may be best here. This editor seems to contribute a great deal and much of the content is perfectly acceptable and sourced. Perhaps if he had a 3-6 month period where a few others reviewed proposed moves/creations before they happened it would be a win/win for all? Insomesia (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pre Wikipedia:Blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", emphasizing in the Purposes and Goals section that "Blocks should not be used: ... as punishment against users" and that "Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." The terrible incident of creating a stub happened two weeks ago. There is no imminent danger, damage or disruption, and nothing is happening at present. Any block here would be punitive and unjustified by the actual damage done to this encyclopedia. A statement of the sort "If someone blocks him he certainly had it coming" is advocating for a block as punishment, in clear violation of policy. Recalibrating the topic ban would be a far better idea. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alansohn, I fail to see why you'd cite me to say what you want to say (unless you missed the part where I didn't block him and obviously don't wish to block him). Rightly or wrongly, he might get blocked, and if he does he should have known it was a distinct possibility. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If Richard wants to change the topic ban then he should approach the community first not sneakily create an article and hope no one finds out. "There is no imminent danger, damage or disruption, and nothing is happening at present" yes for editors without such a ban, but topic bans were agreed and in place, this is like a good behavior bond and misbehaving during the period of it. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

@Alansohn, I think you're missing the point here. Both Drmies and I could have summarily blocked Richard for disobeying a community consensus and it would not have been punitive; but we didn't. It would have been preventative - prevention against disobeying the rules. That the creations may not have been toxic is irrelevant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I get the point 100%. You could have summarily imposed a punitive block. You didn't because you recognize that it's wrong. Probably because there is absolutely no evidence of any imminent harm to Wikipedia, as the terrible incident in question occurred two weeks ago and didn't happen again. Even in Texas they don't send people to prison on a preventative basis, certainly for misdemeanors, as it's both illegal and accomplishes nothing other than to piss the person off and make him more likely to commit further crimes. It doesn't work any better on Wikipedia, even when admins confuse the meanings of "punitive" and "preventative". The proposal to work on mentoring RAN with the goal of weaning him off the block may actually achieve the result of improving the encyclopedia by rehabilitating an effective editor. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Even in Texas they don't send people to prison on a preventative basis, certainly for misdemeanors, as it's both illegal and accomplishes nothing other than to piss the person off and make him more likely to commit further crimes" Laws in Texas is not relevant here. As i said the infraction here is part of a larger pattern of non-compliance with ANI decisions and shows disrespect to the ANI process. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point, Alansohn. He had a topic ban imposed. Violations of topic bans result in blocks. He violated his topic ban. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can see the merit in both sides of the argument. On one hand, blocking now after several weeks seems punitive, especially since the article in question is only a crappy unreferenced microstub and not a copyright violation. On the other hand, what power do bans have if people can ignore them with no consequences? Reyk _YO! 05:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• If an editor breaks their topic ban, and there are no consequences, then what's the point of a topic ban? What's the point of anything? GiantSnowman 09:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• There's no statute of limitations on enforcing topic bans. RAN was banned, in part, from creating pages due to his tendency for them to have been lifted from copyrighted sources. That's disruptive, and actively dangerous to Wikipedia, whether it was yesterday or three months ago (arguably worse the longer it's left, in fact). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change topic ban to mentoring situation

This editor seems to contribute a great deal and much of the content is perfectly acceptable and sourced. Perhaps if he had a 3-6 month period where a few others reviewed proposed moves/creations before they happened it would be a win/win for all? Insomesia (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's much easier solved by sending them through AfC, for instance. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's see what the user thinks would work as well. I just think they have proven ability and interest and we should try to find a way to make things work for all. Insomesia (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see his response and a willingness to admit a mistake here and move on. he has no expressed no desire to date to being mentored or a desire for the topic ban to be removed. obviously he is welcome to ask for this. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will volunteer as a mentor if y'all want to go this route. Richard has really been run over by a truck for no good reason, he's a highly productive content-creator and a huge net positive to The Project. Having somebody stare over his shoulder a little and bitch about his preferred form of footnoting may or may not be useful. Richard is actually NOT a current copyvio problem, in my estimation, but "trust but verify" is probably the way most people want to play it with his material... Carrite (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This presumes also that Richard is amenable to this and that he agrees to exchange frank emails with me off-list. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

good idea, Carrite. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that too - thanks, Carrite, for volunteering. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO is not necessarily the issue but disregard for ANI decisions is. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disobeying authoritah should never be the reason, in itself, for any actions here - we should always be considering the underlying reasons behind any sanctions that might have been imposed, and trying to work out what would be the best overall result for Wikipedia when deciding how to deal with sanctions-busting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

RAN's indicated over and over that he won't abide by any community decision that he doesn't want to. This isn't Cool Hand Luke. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If he gets a mentor (and preferably someone who doesn't feel that being topic banned for creating many, many copyright violations is the same as "being run over by a truck for no good reason"), extra care should probably also be taken to inform him of the continuing problems with his file uploads. Note that, before his text-based CCI investigation, he already was the subject of a file-based CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. Looking at his recent file uploads, I notice two files recently uploaded that have been deleted for violating the fair use criteria, and others that are probably going the same way. He e.g. uploaded both File:James iredell ss.png and File:SS James Iredell.gif, both using an incorrect FU template ("To illustrate person at peak of their career", "Subject of image is deceased"? It's a ship!), but with the latter not being used on any pages. Then there is File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg, which was made before 1923, but without any evidence that it was "published" before 1923. If it wasn't, then Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works makes clear that this is a copyright violation. Oh, and note that in addition to the above mentioned page, he also created Mechanics Arts High School, a disambiguation between two things that don't have an article. Fram (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Violate topic ban, get it lifted and replaced with handholding from an editor who disagrees with the ban anyway. Yeah. This isn't a remotely serious proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the mentor idea. I do have some concerns about Carrite as that mentor (see bus statement), but I think it would work if RAN is willing and Carrite realizes this is going to be a lot of work and responsibility. For the record I firmly believe there were serious and significant copyright issues with RAN but a large chunk of identified "too close" cases were overreach. I'm unaware of any significant copyright issues from RAN since the those issues were first identified. Assuming that's correct, I think a mentor is a good way to go. Hobit (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• A mentor would be fine after the block he should be receiving right now is over. I don't think that Carrite is the right editor to mentor him, for reasons made clear above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What's up?

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

---

Am I the only one who can't get scripts and collapsible thingys to work or is it a site-wide problem? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of that, but the best venue to get a problem like that fixed is at WP:VPT. They'll probably suggest bypassing your cache or something along those lines. Ryan Vesey 04:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It worked! Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Undo some moves please

A month or so ago, I meant to indefinitely block the already temporarily blocked Bigh Whigh (talk · contribs) for socking, but neglected to do so. I fixed the block, but he moved a couple of pages before I was aware of him. I don't know how to undo page moves. Thx! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I only see one move, of the article on partial-birth abortion, and there are no deleted contributions. Did you meant some other username? And why can't you undo the moves? It looks like they'll be simple Special:MovePage/Late termination of pregnancy tasks; is there something I'm missing? I'd rather not move anything myself until I know better what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To undo a page move, you just move it again back to the original - if there's a redirect it'll warn you and as an admin you can force the move over the redirect. But one thing to be wary of is that if you tell it to move the talk page too and there's a redirect for that, it can fail and leave you with the page moved and its talk not. When there have been redirects, I've generally moved the page and the talk separately. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hari7478 and Mayasutra, round 2

Moved from WP:AIV

Mayasutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed a large section along with the references - diff[232]. His edit summary was "deleted disputed section/see ANI pg". But ANI never rules on content. The admins in ANI didn't refute the contents in this case at all. They didn't even discuss it. That being the case, this user(Mayasutra) removed a well sourced section without consensus/discussion giving a false edit summary. Even another admin questioned Mayasutra's vandalising deletion here - [233]. User:Mayasutra is still defiant. The page(Vadakalai) has a General Sanctions template, according to which admins have right to impose discretionary sanctions for such vandalising deletions with false summaries. Also, Mayasutra has been very abusive in talk page discussions - see below for his abusive comments, planned edit wars, and flaming edit summaries:
[234] - Mayasutra's comments - "As for the genetic/anthropological/blah blah assumptions you make; each of them including misquoting sources to support your half-baked assumptions of racism......for Dispute Mediation from which you chickened out...."
[235] - Mayasutra's comments - "So what am going to do is delete all the trash you put into the article. If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree....Good luck."--- This comment proves beyond doubt that Mayasutra planned an edit war.
[236] - Mayasutra's edit summary - "Expecting editwar, admin intervention..."-- Mayasutra indicated in the edit comment that he knew he was edit warring.
Please consider all these factors - Deletion of a well sourced content without dicussion, by giving a false edit summary(that deletion was even questioned by another admin as mentioned above), abusive behavior in talk pages, orchestrating edit wars to get things done. Mayasutra portrayed such behavior in pages having "Discretionary Sanctions"(template can be seen under the talk pages of Iyengar & Vadakalai). Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already responded to the allegation above here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=534843722
Additionally, EdJohnston has already closed the edit war chapter by warning both of us (Hari7478 however, deleted that from his talk page). So now the pending issue is misquoting sources. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

---

I haven't looked into this whole complaint, but AIV is only for simple/obvious cases, which at a glance this appears to most definitely not be. I'm moving it here in the hopes that we can settle things between the two of them this time. They're both doing a rather bad job communicating, but I see them both as potentially constructive contributors, so why don't we see what we can do to sort this out before one or both of them gets blocked. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

---

PinkAmpersand, i request you to read the whole complaint please. Sadly, it appears most admin are not willing to read thru the whole issue. The issue here is misquoting sources. Hari478 has passed off his own ethnicity / race theories by misquoting sources. And he needs to explain them and also explain why he is doing it. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

At this point, this looks like more than just a content dispute, so it does appear to be relevant here. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this IS a content dispute. However, it pertains to falsifying and misquoting sources. Hari7478 is playing the silent tactic again. Just as he did with the mediation process. That is, he is choosing not to respond to the ANI notice on misquoting sources. To top it, he has reported me for vandalism. Which means, he is using wiki admin to protect his position of misquoting sources. I expect wiki admin to intervene and ask Hari7478 to respond to each of the 4 issues raised (on misquoting sources). Until he does so, his content cannot be allowed on the Iyengar page and on the Vadakalai page. I hope admin Qwyrxian (who so far appears to be protecting Hari7478 in this regard) will also accept that unless Hari7478 explains why he is misquoting sources, his (disputed) content should not be allowed on wiki pages. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

In event that Hari7478 does not respond (and chooses to stay silent on misquoting sources), admin must make a decision and disallow all his disputed content from all wiki articles Iyengar, Vadakalai and Sri Sampradaya. I would like to know, how much time is admin going to give Hari7478 to respond. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

European Alliance for Freedom

This article has been subjected to: polemic edits, edits removing sourced content, a series of single purpose and/or conflict of interest editing accounts, and refusal to communicate on the part of the the editor(s?) attempting these changes. I could ask for page protection, but it would fix nothing. This has been going on for two weeks now. See article's history. Some help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also be aware that the current version of the article is a copyright violation of this primary source. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reverted, warned a few users, and submitted a SPI case see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eurallfree Werieth (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster removing content from article with no consensus.

For a while now there has been a discussion over at Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute whether to remove a section ("International position"). Following an inconclusive and still ongoing RfC the most fervent editor in favor of its removal (Wee Curry Monster) went ahead and unilaterally deleted the whole section[237]. I reverted him [238] noting he did not have consensus to do such a thing and he reverted me [239]. Once again I reverted him asking him to please abstain from incurring in such disruptive behaviour[240], he immediately reverted again[241]. I will not revert him a 3rd time as I see this as merely a ploy from Wee to get me blocked. I ask any editor/admin here to please stop by the talk page and see that the discussion was ongoing between a number of editors on how to improve the section (Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#International_position_-_Compromise) when Wee decided to completely delete it without waiting for the response from any other editor[242]. By the time I answered his threat to remove the section (less than five minutes later) he had already removed it[243]. There is even a report open at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Establishing_Weight_and_Due requesting comments on this issue. Wee opened it himself but did not care to wait for comments from other editors.

This is not acceptable behaviour. I took Wee to ANI not a couple of weeks ago after he refused to stop moving my comments around in the talk page and now this. I note that if it was a new editor behaving like this, it would have been blocked without a doubt by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 January 2013‎

That does indeed seem to be in breach of WP:BRD and suggests a WP:Battleground and WP:OWN mentality. Not to mention that it seems to violate WP:3RR as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The outcome of the RFC is clearly in favour of removing the section. The subsequent discussion is largely User:Gaba p spamming the discussion with tendentious comment to frustrate the consensus that clearly emerged. Did you even look at the talk page discussion? Its full of tendentious argument by User:Gaba p.

The whole purpose of posting at WP:NPOVN was attempting to follow WP:DRN. There won't be any comment at WP:NPOVN as User:Gaba p employs a well worn tactic of spamming any discussion with reams of tendentious comment.

WP:BATTLEGROUND, hell yes, User:Gaba p likely a sock puppet of User:Alex79818 is turning every discussion into a battleground in exactly the same way User:Alex79818 did. There is a WP:DUCK quacking with a megaphone here.

As usual he gets in first making a load of unsubstantiated allegations, selectively quoting diffs that don't support the claim. Really this is just another example of abusing process in an attempt to chill the dicussion and frustrate progress. The threats of instigating threads at ANI are often using to intimidate, his entire conduct displays a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Please can I have an interaction ban, I've had enough of this guy WP:HOUNDing me. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the obviously contentious nature of this, why wouldn't you ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RFC and avoid some of the drama?Ravensfire (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, [244] I tried, though I think I mistook User:Irondome for User:Ironholds. (No comment on User:Irondome is meant by that.) Even though both are clearly uninvolved I was accused of canvassing for doing so by both Langus-TxT [245] and Gaba p [246]. I am accused of misconduct at every turn by those two and really its just WP:HOUND. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaving a request at WP:AN/RFC might have been a better option. It's a lot harder to be accused of picking someone when you can't. Ravensfire (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I really do appreciate that, as although an experienced editor I was utterly unaware that noticeboard existed. I'm not the only editor who has commented that a consensus to move forward existed. User:Irondome also commented at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute that we'd agreed a way forward that involved removing this section and working up a concise summary in talk based on new material he provided. See Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#What is going on?, I can thoroughly understand his frustration, I do wonder if the drama is purely for well drama's sake. It seems to me and others Gaba p is deliberately obnoxious to stoke up tension. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that despite being told not to accuse people of lying by multiple admins at ANI two weeks ago, Gaba has persisted in making such accusations, at first replacing the word "lying" with "making an untrue statement": [247][248][249][250][251] but by the end he no longer bothered: [252]. You may also note in some of those that he directly accuses editors of bad faith and of vandalism and threatens to take people here - another thing he was told not to do last time around as it only raises the temperature.

I asked him to stop twice [253][254] and he has declined to do so. It is clear to me that Gaba has not learnt a thing from the last ANI.

Gaba's behaviour in this discussion has essentially been a filibuster, a matter of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It should be no surprise if Curry Monster or anyone else loses patience when an editor makes the same already-refuted argument over and over, who is repeatedly abusive and who insists that no objection to his argument has even been made, despite its having been made repeatedly and detail. Kahastok talk 19:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, I asked User:Hohum for a sanity check as I repeatedly explained the same point. And as I note above I was under the impression there was a consensus to move on. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Example I repeatedly explained an approach to judge weight [255],[256],[257],[258],[259],[260],[261],[262],[263]

User:Gaba p repeatedly claimed I hadn't [264],[265],[266]

User:Hohum provided the same explanation [267].

User:Gaba p thanks him claiming I hadn't [268]. I did ask Hohum for a sanity check, as he provided an identical explanation. The same explanations were provided by User:Irondome, User:Kahastok, User:Apcbg etc.

You'll note in talk, the frequent reference to a straw man, that I was claiming newspapers were not a reliable source and if my approach to WP:WEIGHT were applied there would be no wiki content. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had enough of this editor accusing me of being a sock puppet. He's been doing so for a full year now. Last year he accused me of being a sock puppet of account User:Alex79818 and an admin quickly blocked my account. Wee knows this other editor identity (User:Alex79818) in real life. This prompted me to give away my right to anonymity in WP to an admin to reveal that I am not that person. The block was immediately lifted but Wee has kept on accusing me of being a sock puppet. Every chance he gets he has done so, like the last two ANIs that had to be opened on account of his behaviour: 1- breaking the 3RR[269] and 2- moving my comments around[270]. In both of them he kept on accusing me of being a sock puppet and in both of them I offered to any interested admin to reveal once again my real life identity as a sign of good faith. He was told at the last ANI to drop the accusations but apparently has no intentions of doing so.

Wee was topic-banned not long ago for his disruptive behaviour in Gibraltar related articles[271], he is doing exactly the same now with Falklands related articles (the two disputed former colonies of the UK)

The first ANI that involved both of us concluded with the admin proposing a topic ban for both of us. As a sign of good faith I embraced the proposition[272], he on the other hand lashed out at the admin saying: "like a lot of content editors before me I can just turn round and say fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here"[273] and went of to "retire" (he never did retire and it only took him two weeks to be back editing Falklands related articles). Everybody looked the other way, nothing happened.

Editor Antidiskriminator came to the talk page to comment on the opened RfC and had this to say about Wee's behaviour: "I am afraid that your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus."[274]. He apparently took no notice of this.

For how long can he act this way without any consequence? Would this incredible amount of patience be shown to a newcomer editor? Why would he be allowed to circumvent to processes everyone else in WP respects? The last two ANIs ended up with a slap on the wrist for this editor and now here we are back again. It's just not fair. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Check the link for my comments rejecting the AfC

Mehere Karand article Basket _Feudalist 17:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why this is here - what admin action is needed? Looks like a perfectly reasonable AfC rejection to me. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah thanks. I thought it might be worse than just a badly written article; that it have been an attempt at placing imaginary- spoof- facts in the 'pedia. As I said, a google search brings up nothing about the man, the tribe, the sources, or their books. But I didn't want to officially report it until a more experienced editor or admin had had a look. Basket _Feudalist 18:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Oversight is always good, but it's best to ask a seasoned AfC editor rather than post on the board. FWIW, administrators aren't necessarily better at judging content than "regular" editors. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but I agree with the OP; I did try to confirm sources but I can find nothing not only about the books but about the tribe itself; even if there's a language issue you'd have have expected something to appear, either about the subject, the book, even the authors; especially as the claimed sources are reasonably recent and one of them is supposed to have been published by Harvard UP and therefore should be in English. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind! -so no further action necessary? It has already been rejected anyway. Basket _Feudalist 19:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hehe, not anymore: I deleted it as a blatant hoax. Those books, they don't exist. The website goes to a Swiss dance ensemble--if it is connected to the article, it's spam. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)