I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs: Yworo claims harassment because of some user warning templates I put on his talk page. He made some edits, and I responded with the templates.

• First: Yworo edit 1; my response.
• Later: Yworo edit 2; my response.
• Even later: Yworo edit 3; Yworo edit 4; my two-part response. In my two-part response, {{uw-npa2}} is in response to Yworo edit 3.

Do you agree that there was merit to my responses, and that I responded coolly and calmly?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you asked to stay off their talkpage, and did you understand the request? There are millions of editors who could place a valid warning if needed and nearly a couple of thousand admins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if Yworo has banned Unforgettableid from commenting on his/her talk page but continues to post on Unforgettableid's [1] then it's not unexpected for Unforgettableid to post on Yworo's. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You both need to avoid each other then. And Yworo, you need to dial back the "pimping", "common sense" and the calling someone an ass. Seriously, you are asking for trouble and you accomplish nothing by this type of inflammatory language, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies.

I would like to try to avoid Yworo by avoiding editing the same pages as he does. But this would currently be difficult. He has lately been looking carefully into my past contributions, visiting various pages I have created or edited, and modifying the pages. Some examples of pages which I have created in the past decade, and he has touched in the past week, include: Alameda County Study, Linux conference, Scrabble variants, Go Home Lake, Desktop Developers' Conference, Linux Symposium, and List of open-access journals. Many of his edits have been helpful. But he has sometimes reverted my work without stating why he doesn't like it: example 1; example 2; I can provide more if you like. Do the reversions seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING to you?

About WP:HUSH: Does the policy create a posting prohibition if Yworo merely requests it, or does it only apply if I have been " placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' " on his talk page?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, you shouldn't unless you really have to, and if you really have to, you take extra steps to be respectful. This is just how you would treat someone in the real world, and Wikipedia is the real world. Policy quotes aren't necessary for this. Common sense and basic respect overrule policy. This is because they are the basis for the policies. The WP:Five pillars cover this, in particular #4 and #5. If people would just treat others here the same way they would if they were face to face and knew each other's real names, most problems here would go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair explanation. Thank you. Bumping thread for 5 days — dear admins: I wonder if you could please also respond to my question about Wikihounding? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting myself for this edit, which another user found to be inflammatory. There is already a hostile atmosphere there. Intervention in whatever form is appropriate would be appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the need for the strike. We aren't censored and people are free to express themselves in a variety of ways assuming they stick to the merits of the article. It isn't necessary that you or I like the phrasing. Sometimes discussions are heated, which is why you need thick skin if you participate in a collaborative project. The rest of it needs to go to WP:DRN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material.

Hi there. Recently, I came across Male Privilege and found it to be lacking encyclopedic quality. One section in particular, Male privilege#Male privilege in the U.S., had multiple issues: it is poorly sourced, appears to be a copy-paste from a college-student's essay with inline APA style citations and no actual references, and it solely covers the topic of Gender pay gap, without any sources clearly linking pay gap to the concept of male privilege. I attempted to delete this section, stating that it was inappropriate subject matter for the article, even if sources were found, because it belongs in the Gender pay gap article. I also erroneously removed primary journal articles that were used as sources, attempting to follow WP:RS, which was discussed on the talk page and I conceded that they should be re-added. Anyways, user:UseTheCommandLine, proceeded to revert all of the edits I had made, and then complained that I removed sourced (no it wasn't) content. She also still seems to fail to understand that inequality does not always mean oppression, and that a whole section on gender pay gap, which has its own article, doesn't belong, when it does absolutely, positively, nothing to demonstrate how it relates to male privilege.

When I proceeded to then go through the article, not removing any content, but instead adding inline tags on the material I wished to discuss on the talk page and remove or cite, User:UseTheCommandLine again reverted my edit, without first discussing on the talk page. She also went on to edit content that I had written on the talk page, which I find deeply offensive and also worthy of administrator intervention. It is not appropriate for another wikipedia editor to edit my signed content on a talk page. She appears to have reverted it, though refused to apologize, and decided to instead fork the discussion into a new topic because she felt the word "terrible" was too "hostile" (Essentially, "I don't like you, so I'm just going to ignore you"). I have tried to AGF through this entire thing, but frankly she has been violating WP:OWN the entire time by not allowing other editors access to the page, demanding that I run every edit by her before making them, and then making her own edits without discussion on the talk page first. She has a history of displaying this sort of behavior on the similar page, White privilege, which recently was locked for a week due to her edit warring, immature behavior, and inability to reach consensus with the other editors on that page. She appears to have a strong feminist ideology, which she has been POV pushing onto these two topics and possibly others for quite some time, without offering anything constructive. I would very much like to be able to edit Male Privilege so that it meets the basic criteria for encyclopedic standards, and I believe User:UseTheCommandLine has been actively opposing my ability to do so, not because I have violated any wikipedia policies, but because she has an agenda to push. Although there is a pending WP:DRN, which I started, I felt that her continued behavior following my request for dispute resolution has crossed the line into something an Administrator needs to be involved in.

Kindly, Rgambord (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: as this is now under discussion here I have closed the WP:DRN case as per DRN guidelines Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. I just read over Talk:Male_privilege#This_article_is_terrible. and it appears to me the editor may lack knowledge of some of the intricacies of encyclopedia writing. For instance, when you mentioned you wanted to remove the gender wage gap section because the source didn't discuss the link between that and male privilege, he or she didn't seem to understand this was problematic, which indicates they might be writing the way they would a research paper. The editor also seems to have opened two separate AN/I reports at the same time, including one on his/herself. Perhaps a bit of mentoring would help. Sædon^talk 10:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:UseTheCommandLine has decided to take an extended wikibreak. I would like to revert to my most recent edit prior to the beginning of the edit war, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&oldid=549106687 I am aware that this leaves the article POV (critical of the concept), but I intend to continue editing it to add more balance. I feel that the bad parts need to be cut out before I am ready to start adding in content; after some basic editing, I will attempt to find an interested editor on one of the feminism groups on wikipedia who will be willing to collaborate with me to provide a balanced and informative article. Also, I would like to request that User:UseTheCommandLine be blocked from editing this page, so that we don't end up with another edit war should she decide to return to wikipedia. I will attempt to collaborate with the editors on White privilege and Christian privilege to reach a consensus on how to format these pages. As I stated on Talk:Male_privilege, I also think the most neutral and encyclopedic thing to do might be to rename articles to: Gendered privilege, Religious privilege, and Racial (or ethnic) privilege. Though I do agree that white christian males enjoy a great deal of privilege in the western world, I would argue both that this does not adequately cover other regions of the world where these groups may be a minority, and also that white christian males experiencing privilege does not mean other groups or minorities do not enjoy certain privileges, and that those privileges aren't detailed in credible sources. I await input before I take any action so as not to further inflame the situation. Thanks! Rgambord (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it has been 24 hours since my previous edit. I'm going to go ahead with editing the page as I detailed above, and add this to the article's talk page. If any objections are raised, please notify me on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Thank you, Rgambord (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM at White privilege

Apostle12, despite having been on WP for many years, consistently breaks WP:NOTFORUM or WP:SOAP, and has just done so, again, at White privilege with these edits. This is a consistent, recurring pattern over that this editor engages in over many different pages. The list is far to extensive to delve into here, but these these examples might be sufficient to establish a pattern. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I should also mention that I have many, many times called this behavior out as WP:SOAP, which seemed to be the appropriate guideline, though perhaps in retrospect WP:NOTFORUM might have been more clearly applicable. Mea culpa. But in no case was the response anything other than a flat denial of violating any of WP's policies, either in spirit or letter.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I read the first diff and I'm not seeing what you mean by WP:NOTFORUM. He seems to be clearly discussing the article and proposing changes.--v/r - TP 12:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with TParis. Seems to be using sources to discuss the merits. He is sharing some personal experiences but acknowledging they don't belong in the article. These are controversial topics, and I don't see fault in his attempts to discuss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the mention of sexually transmitted infection rates is clearly off-topic. Honestly, I'm tired of the thinly veiled racism he displays at every turn. So, fuck this place. I'm gone. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So based on your new user page, I'm guessing that in "UTCL Land" that folks who do not explicitly agree with your viewpoint are racist and sexist? Clearly your POV is beyond ranges that allows collaboration and open discussion. The user is trying to discuss statistics. Statistics do not tell racist stories, they don't tell any stories. It's what you interpret from the statistics that can become racist. Discussing the topic, even proposing to discuss it, is not automatically racist and sexist. But that's beyond your alarmist and extreme viewpoint so what's the point of trying to reason with you?--v/r - TP 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior dispute at Male privilege Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material. Rgambord (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgambord. Looks to me from the edit history like you were the one in the wrong removing masses of sourced material from male privilege under flimsy (probably POV-driiven) pretexts. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will make two last posts before commencing my wikibreak. This will be one of them.

If you have any doubts as to whether I an simply a WP:POVPUSHer, or whether I can WP:AGF and come to consensus even on contentious topics, then I urge you to review my edit history. It will speak for itself, either reinforcing the judgement you have clearly made about me already, or, I hope, undermining that preconception.

I have tried my hardest to listen and operate within the stated boundaries of policy. I have asked for help, I have asked for input on my behavior, and have not found it forthcoming. For instance, I have had a request for editor review up that is as-yet unreviewed, that has been there since my third or fourth month of editing. I have been diligent in my attempts to become a better editor.

But this is all a moot point. I happen to edit sometimes at topics which some people take offense at. I have a thick skin, but have been accused, upthread, of needing to be moreso. This is dismissive of the very real and corrosive effect that a hostile editing environment has on the fundamental goal of WP, to produce an encyclopedia. Tone matters. I try and give every possible opportunity, when faced with a hostile environment, for everyone, myself included, to ratchet down a hostile tone. And then I go to noticeboards, which by and large have proven to be less than useful in the face of concerted POVPUSH.

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paolo Freire

My last edit for the time being will be at Talk:White privilege pointing to the discussion here. I will also note that another editor there who has in the past been quite critical of this concept has taken Apostle12 to task for the statement I reference in my initial posting. I do not expect to edit at WP for at least 3 months, if not longer. I have found many people here to be intelligent and good hearted, but I have no time or inclination to continue dealing with racists, sexists, or trolls of any stripe. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking on the cabal, brother! 'luck. Basket _Feudalist 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, you opening this thread makes you part of that hostile environment. You are having an effect on another editor that is hostile. Do you want to try again with them in a way that is more welcoming to their POV?--v/r - TP 16:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. The "POV" expressed here (for example) by Apostle12 (talk · contribs) is racist. Why should we be more accommodating to people who use this site to express racist views? Perhaps I'm alone on this one, but it seems to me that the problem here is that our articles on racial topics are being heavily edited by people with racist views - to the point that other editors are being driven off. We're pretending that UTCL is the problem, and demanding that he be more "accommodating" of people who say things like:

If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men... Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior. ([2]).

People here talk endlessly about WP:CIVILity. Here's what civility actually means in the real world: it means that racism isn't acceptable, and we don't ask people to "accommodate" it. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen.Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. This isn't the kind of POV we should be more accommodating of, and suggesting we should be shows one of the many problems with Wikipedia. AniMate 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, in the above quote box you have artificially, and I believe disingenuously, compressed my statements, eliminating anything that does not support your erroneous premise that what I wrote is racist. For the record, here is what I wrote:

This article (Criminal black man stereotype) fails adequately to address some unfortunate realities.

I and other family members have been the victims of violent crime on a number of occasions--both on the street and in our homes. On each and every one of these occasions, the perpetrators of the violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, rape) have been black males. When I look at the statistics for violent crime in ANY large American city, black males outnumber any other group as perpetrators of violent crime; this disparity becomes even more striking when one looks at the percentage of violent crimes committed as compared to the percentage of black males in the population of those cities.

The "criminal black man stereotype" exists, not for historical reasons, and not because of racial prejudice, but because black males commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes--in other words the stereotype is NOT wrong. In the private sphere, I am committed to judging all individuals based on what I can learn of their characters; in the public sphere (on the street, for example) I do not have the time or ability to discern character, therefore I cannot afford to give unknown black males the benefit of the doubt. If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior.

It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

It might be accurate to call me a pragmatist when it comes to considerations of race. It is not accurate to call me a racist, and in fact my own heritage is multiracial. Apostle12 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This edit, isn't. As for that edit, I continue to hold that discussing racial stats on racial topics, although controversial, is not racist by itself. Apostle12's error was in adding in his own personal commentary and mixing it in with claims of statistics. My suggestion would be that Apostle12 should remove his personal remarks and fill in the blank spaces with links to these statistics he is referring to. Other than that, a warning to Apostle12 maybe that he is stretching good faith. Except for pedophilia, I haven't seen blocks for editors having opinions. I've seen blocks for racist actions, I've seen blocks for racial slurs, but I've never seen a block because an editor (on a topic about crime based on race) made a comment that was personal and contained racial remarks. Hell, we have neo-nazis editing around this place and the topic has been brought up a few times of Nazi or national socialist (however the name ends) userboxes on user pages. Thanks to all the worthless "yeah me too" comments that added nothing of substance but edit conflicted with me x3--v/r - TP 18:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But TParis, it is indeed racist. The worst kind of racist original research: the cherry picking of (unsourced) statistics purported to dispute the existence of "white privilege", culminating with claims about the high level of STDs in African Americans. Do you not see that something here does not compute here?

And I am sorry about your edit conflicts but actually, showing that there are several admins who disagree with the way this has been going down is extremely important. Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the differential outcomes (white people v people of color) I referenced, S1p1, could be interpreted as complimentary with respect to African Americans, some not--I offered no such interpretation or analysis. My point was merely that so far the White privilege article has cherry-picked differential outcomes that could plausibly be linked to privileges that white people enjoy. My point is simply that many such differential outcomes do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege; I believe some relevant discussion should be included in the article.

With respect to original research, I am a stickler about that. If I were to create a section within the White privilege article discussing differential outcomes that do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege, I assure you that impeccable sourcing would be included. Apostle12 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your very statement here shows that what you are doing is the epitome of WP:OR. Here and elsewhere you are discussing the truth or otherwise of "white privilege" using your own arguments (in this case cherry picked statistics). If you want to create a section about differential outcomes that do not fit into the conceptual framework of white privilege in the article, then you need to find sources about white privilege that discuss precisely that. If it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims.Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that "if it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims." I assure you that any section I write will be based entirely on RS. Many of these sources, some of which already appear in the article, caution against over-reliance on the white privilege conceptual framework and point out the limitations of this framework. My original comments had to do with UsetheCommandLine's proposal to change the first sentence of the lede, which I generally supported. My only objection was that the first sentence not include a reductive list cherry-picking those topics where the impact of white privilege might be plausible. So I spot-lighted a few examples of differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible. Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking my rule already. You say you've seen people blocked for racial slurs?

While I'm here, two points.

1. statistics are not immune to criticism or judgement simply because they are numbers. statistics can be collected in a biased way, or presented in a racist manner. taking statistics out of context is a big red flag for this, which is exactly what this editor was doing. It was not in any way germane to the discussion about the content of the article.
2. you seem to be suggesting that goint to DRN or ANI is prima facie evidence of hostility. that seems to imply that my options when dealing with hostile editors are either to tolerate them, or to leave. why, then, do we even have a noticeboard, if it is not to have some kind of enforcement mechanism for acceptable behavior?

I also want to call attention to the other filing about Male privilege, above. It seems to be to be mostly the same issue.

I am seriously gone now, for real, no takebacks. olly olly oxen free. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis Actually, I think much of what you wrote here is pretty worthless, and if you're concerned about edit conflicts, the "worthless" messages were posted 8 minutes apart. That's hardly a deluge that would stop you from replying in a timely manner. As for your reaction to the original complaint, it looks like you only read the first link, which I agree is the least problematic. However the other three are, each relying to some extent on Apostle12's real world interactions with scary black people, are problematic. Looking at those three along with the edit that MastCell brought here make me distinctly uncomfortable about this editor's interactions in race related articles. A block may not be in order, but a topic ban certainly may be in his future. I get that you are apparently super sympathetic to Apostle12 for some unknown reason, but I think a firm clear warning about keeping his personal life and personal opinions about other races off article talk pages is much more helpful than the hand-holding you've been giving him here.

And for the record, I worthlessly agree with what Slp1 wrote above as well. AniMate 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still with TParis. The comments may be unintentionally inflammatory (and worded awkwardly, note the last of this comment admitting it was a stereotype), but some saw the Pound Cake speech in a similar light. Anytime someone has an opinion on the culture surrounding race, they are treading on thin ice, but not the same as racially motivated vandalism either. Was it insensitive? Perhaps. Was he intentionally claiming one race is inferior to another? I didn't see it that way. Like TParis, I think he is pushing the boundaries a bit more than he should, and maybe more than he realizes, but when discussing statistics and race, this is always a risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Animate, for more nonsense. Anytime a sensitive topic is approached from an unpopular viewpoint, labels are thrown out. Pause for a moment and consider that maybe fear of unpopular opinion has contributed to bias in the popular direction. I'm going beyond the topic of racism here, whether it's religion, sexism, racism, sexual orientation, politics, you name it, there are degrees of opinion. Folks are too quick to draw a line and say your one side or the other. It's a load of crap. If Apostle12 has actual statistics to refer back to, they should be discussed in the context of those articles. If not, then he's as you describe him. But until you know which one it is, hold your labels. The correct response, from UTCL to Apostle12, before coming here should have been "Hey Apostle, put up or shut up." Instead, UTCL ran here to scream racism/sexism because their viewpoint is not being explicitly agreed to. That is what makes Wikipedia hostile. Has anyone yet asked Apostle to show us what stats he is referring to? Hell, we're being accused of being hostile to Christians, Pagans, and atheists at the same time because no one stops to think they should have to get along with whatever labels they can come up with to throw at the other person.--v/r - TP 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisI couldn't disagree with you more. He's cherry picked statistics to make a point and has made several really inflammatory, completely unhelpful or encyclopedic remarks about black people, from how often he and his family are victims of crimes by black people to his college girlfriend who lived across the street from the Black Panthers. Not only are his actions completely inappropriate, they also make for a hostile editing environment. For someone so interested in editor retention, I'm surprised by your reaction here. UTCL hasn't behaved perfectly by any means, and I would advise all involved to kick this up the ladder of dispute resolution as it may be to complex or a noticeboard. In the past, surveys have shown that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. Dismissing a report like this and minimizing the actions of someone who appears to be pushing a racist POV does nothing to make this an environment any minorities would enjoy participating in. Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you.

@TParis Ironically, I received a couple of edit conflicts while trying to post this reply. I'm tempted to characterize what you wrote as nonsense, but I don't think that's going to be helpful. Also striking out where I called your statements worthless. Attacks like that aren't helpful, so I'll let you be the only one that throws them out. I think most people reading the links provided by UTCL and MastCell can see how problematic his personal stories are and that they do nothing to help the articles or editing environment.

I again encourage those involved in the dispute to kick it up the steps of DR. If an RfC/U has been tried, why not go to mediation. Getting rid of civil POV pushers can be a hassle, and I know it can be frustrating when the admins that happen to be active don't see what you see when you lodge a complaint. Unfortunately, I don't think there is something immediately actionable here, so I'm going to recommend closing this. AniMate 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I had hoped someone would ec with me. You don't know he's cherry picked anything until he points out what he's looking at. Please put the argumentative tactics away and ask the guy to support his claims before you throw them away. He's probably wrong about the stats, he's definitely wrong about his personal perspective (stats show that white males commit the most gun massacres), but the primary issue here is that he hasn't shown where he is getting his stats and instead of addressing that, you're rolling over it at racist instead because it's easier to ignore him that way.--v/r - TP 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to put what you say a different way, if you don't mind. I actually don't doubt that Apostle is right about the stats- in that he could probably find citations showing that his claims are true. But the problem is, as you point out TParis, that it is equally possible to find stats proving the opposite point. That's why I strongly disagree that asking Apostle to support his claims about the statistics is actually productive. WP needs and wants secondary sources about white privilege that analyze, contextualize and draw conclusion from all the various statistics. Then we summarize them. The talkpage of the article is simply not the spot to discuss personal experiences of black violence or to develop one's own research about whether white privilege exists or not. And, as an addendum, if anything shows what the intent, it is, as I pointed out previously, the inclusion of the STD stats of African Americans which has absolutely zero to do with even the topic Apostle was claiming to be proving. Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the talk page is the wrong place for discussing his personal opinion; all of Wikipedia is. But the first diff wasn't about his opinion, for the most part, and that was the diff UTCL highlighted as problematic. If he has reliable sources, he should produce them so their value can be considered for the article. They shouldn't be dismissed as racist having never seen them. If he can't produce them, or if he has misconstrued their context, then we shrug it off as racism.--v/r - TP 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I agree totally that sources are required. But it is critical that the sources be about the topic, not just sources that "prove" the individual points Apostle wants to make about "differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims". What was inappropriate about that edit was that it was cherry picked original research, and unhelpful for the building WP. I can do the same thing with golfball dimples. I can easily find sources for the fact that there are between 350-400 dimples on golfballs [3][4][5], but that would be ignoring those that have fewer [6] and those than have more [7]. That's why we need secondary sources to bring it all together for us. Answer for the record: typically 300-500 dimples, up to a max of 1040). Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that some of the commentators here have chosen to focus on the last point I listed (the over representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year) while discussing the fact that many differential outcomes (white people v. people of color) do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege. Was I racist when I referred to the over representation of black females among those who enjoy very high levels of self-esteem, with more positive outcomes (fewer eating disorders, less depression, less suicide) than other ethnic groups? Or was that merely sexist? Was I racist when I referred to the overrepresentation of Japanese, Chinese and Korean students at American institutions of higher learning - or was I merely demonstrating "inter-asian" racism for contrasting them with Laotian and Cambodian students? Perhaps I was stereotyping Ashkenazi Jews (as opposed to Sephardic Jews) for their overrepresentation in the sciences and among Nobel Prize winners. There also seems to be an assumption that I must be white (actually I am multiracial), or that family members victimized by black criminals (the discussion from "Criminal black man stereotype" talk page) were not "people of color" (some are). Lots of assumptions, all intended to paint me as a racist. I am particularly concerned about MastCell's distortion (see above) when he created a quote box that excluded any of my statements that might detract from his apparent intent to portray what I wrote as racist, especially when I wrote about the tragedy of the criminal black man stereotype for the majority of black men who are not criminal.

The fact is I seldom reference personal history on Wikipedia talk pages, despite UsetheCommandLine's efforts to create the opposite impression. When I do so, it is to explain why I might be committed to a certain editorial perspective that relates specifically to article content. As for personal opinions, it seems to me that talk pages are the appropriate place to express such opinions. Almost all of what appears on this page has to do with the sharing of personal opinion. In my opinion, entirely necessary and entirely appropriate, as long as opinion and original research stays out of Wikipedia articles. Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look dude, your rants are getting annoying at this point. I am trying to defend your position, so it'd be helpful to me if you could just go ahead and start backing up your remarks with reliable sources.--v/r - TP 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, as multiple editors and administrators have stated here, the talkpages are not the place for your personal opinions, and that the specific personal opinions you expressed were inappropriate in the context of building this encyclopedia. And no, racism has not been the main argument for why that edit was inappropriate. See above. Anyway, that's my last here. I agree that this should be closed, as no administrator action is required for the moment. Hopefully Apostle12 will take note of the various comments here.Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be assured, S1P1, that I have taken note of the comments here. With regard to my comments on "White privilege" Talk, I could simply have eliminated the last example I gave, and next time I probably will. Even though multiple sources support the facts I offered (e.g.http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/AAs-and-STD-Fact-Sheet-042011.pdf), it seems apparent that truth is no defense here.

In this regard, TParis, I see little point offering reliable sources for each of the points I made. It would not be difficult to do so, but the primary objection seems to be that I spotlighted realities that have negative connotations for certain ethnic groups. If you truly believe backng up my remarks with reliable sources would still be useful (other editors thought not), I will do so. At this point I don't think it even matters that I am indeed a member of some of the ethnic groups affected--as Dennis Brown pointed out, Bill Cosby discovered this unhappy fact when he endured intense fallout after delivering his "Pound Cake" speech. I am surprised that you saw my attempts to defend myself as "rants." In any case, thank you for defending my right to frankly discuss controversial topics here at Wikipedia, even if it riles certain sensitivities. Apostle12 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I concur.

As a rule the problem has not been UTCL. I was an editor at White privilege for over four years, and during that time I encountered only one editor who was more abusive than Apostle12. Besides violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP Apostle12 has shown little regard for WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CANVAS, among others. After a recent RfC/U went nowhere, I decided to take a step back from editing White privilege; frankly I was exhausted from getting bullied.

Personally I think this is a loss. UTCL and I both made a lot of uncontroversial edits (e.g. spelling changes to conform to Standard American English) to help maintain the quality of the article in addition to the ones that drew Apostle12's wrath. But whatever you might think of me and UTCL, it is hardly unthinkable that allowing Apostle12 to continue to violate Wikipedia policy, especially those that are aimed at protecting other users from abuse, will drive good editors from the article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to step in here and mention that I am not siding with or lumping myself in with any of the editors on White privilege. I'm fully interested in collaboration, however. I'm not going to entertain UTCLs accusations that I am sexist for my edits to Male privilege. I have edited numerous articles on wikipedia and I have not treated the topic any differently than other articles. I removed content which was unsourced or dubious, with the intention of recruiting an interested editor to add reliably sourced sections concerning privilege, but UTCL immediately reverted my edits and violated WP:OWN in her actions and language. There is no requirement that I leave poor content in an article until good content is found to replace it. UTCLs actions have been, on the whole, unhelpful and bullying, and she refused to AGF from the outset, or to follow WP policies or common sense, because she immediately characterized me as a sexist without any basis for that claim. For someone like her, who is so concerned with a hostile atmosphere, she sure doesn't mind contributing to it. I have never before had a problem with another editor, or found another editor's actions to be so childish and unprofessional. UTCL epitomizes the angry feminist stereotype. I will copy my most recent post from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine_violating_WP:OWN.2C_and_reverting_removal_of_unsourced.2C_biased_material. to Talk:Male privilege, and I'd appreciate if those involved in this discussion would civilly comment on my suggestions. Thanks,Rgambord (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people who try to bring a POV'd article to the center are the ones most often accused of being "POV warriors" (and other wiki-nasty things) by POV warriors, because they are much more credible and harder to "get rid of" and thus a much bigger threat to the imbalanced status quo at an article than actual POV warriors. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Animate, your comment " Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you." could be construed as calling me a racist, as if my objective is to retain only white people. (That I'm relatively white is already known since I publish my image on my user page.) Am I going to make a deal of it? No. It is called opinion, and in the heat of a discussion and I allow for such things. It is also wildly inaccurate. We retain editors by allowing them to express and discuss freely, without shoving political correctness down their gullets. As long as discussion is focused on the merits of the subject matter and not overtly and intentionally offensive, I'm pretty tolerant of opinions I disagree with if they aren't founded in hate. If you want to run people off the project, the quickest way to do it is to tell people what to say, what to think, and make damn sure they don't color outside the lines. Or insinuate that someone who disagrees with you is a racist.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In no way did I mean to insinuate that you're a racist. I should have stated more clearly that the project has real problems when it comes to outreach to and retention of minorities. What Apostle12 is doing here seems absolutely crystal clear to me, and I was honestly stunned to see more than one administrator defending it. What I was trying to suggest, poorly apparently, was that this situation needed to be looked at in a different way than you were seeing it. I think it was a wonderful opportunity for you to attempt some editor retention. I also think you blew it. That doesn't make you racist, and I reject fully that you have done anything racist here. I also think if you had read all of what Apostle12 wrote and tried looking at it from UTCL's position, you would have had an excellent opportunity to retain an editor. AniMate 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, a comment is accidentally worded so that it sounds much worse than the original intent. I did have to look at your comments twice, but I've seen you around enough that you weren't trying to insult me, it was just worded poorly. The timing was perfect to demonstrate my point, however, that we all word things poorly in our rush to communicate from time to time. Honestly, I don't know his history, but I'm not prepared to take strong action based solely on the diffs presented here. What I do focus on is getting people to overlook simple things, and the comments presented here were not so strong as to demand action. Sometimes, we tend to overreact as a community and push people away by over-policing, and we do this too frequently. Again, I don't have the full history but I saw reason to slow down and have doubt. Perhaps it is so subtle is requires looking deeper, perhaps we are not being as tolerant as we should. I'm not condoning anything, but before we block or topic ban someone, I think we should be damn sure it is the right choice and the only option, and the evidence is more solid than just the diffs presented here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic-ban

Based on the foregoing and his overall record of contributions, I propose to topic-ban Apostle12 from editing in the area of human race and ethnicity, in light of this principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems like a complete no-brainer to me. Apostle12 has absolutely no business writing commentary like this on article talk pages. When somebody posts long screeds on talk pages about how such-and-such an actor is obviously the best actor in the world, it's irritating. When another editor spends volumes on trying to defend their country's ownership of some disputed territory, it's troublesome. When another editor, here Apostle12, uses our talk pages to interlace personal (i.e., arbitrary and capricious) commentary with cherry-picked statistics, without reference to secondary sources (or, given the nature of this topic, ideally tertiary review articles or really high quality academic books), and then lumps all of that together to draw a conclusion that (surprise!) proves that, in fact, there really is a legitimate justification for racism, well, that person should be shown the door. Quickly. If a topic ban will get rid of the problem, fine. If it won't--if this points to an underlying attitude that will simply be perpetuated in other, similar topics, then a block. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone where whoever wants to rant is given a forum and a microphone. We have a purpose: building articles out of high quality sources (and the topic itself will indicate what types of sources are needed). Apostle's editing directly hurts that goal, by 1) demanding an answer, thus transforming a talk page into a waste-of-time battleground and possibly trapping other editors, 2) creating a hostile environment that makes others less willing to contribute, if they know they have to wade through thinly veiled racist crap to actually get to the article. I could imagine a commitment that Apostle12 could give that would make this unnecessary, but me feeding it to him won't work--if he can articulate what was wrong with the aforesaid commentary and specifically state what he won't do in the future, I could see him avoiding the need for this. But, if not, he needs to be stopped, ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where's the evidence of wrong-doing? I see some borderline comments that I find questionable, but nothing that warrants a topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The personal commentary about his first hand knowledge of how bad black people are has no business on Wikipedia, and he clearly shouldn't be editing in the area. As Qwyrxian said, this is a no brainer. AniMate 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please provide some diffs where Apostle12 talks about "how bad black people are? If we are to topic-ban someone, there needs to be concrete evidence of wrong-doing.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The best example of the commentary is his story about his family's experience with violent crimes here that apparently justifies the criminal black man stereotype. Stating that non criminal black men they need to emulate stereotypical asians.... if you can't see the problems there, you must be blind. AniMate 00:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for sustained breaching of the required focus on reliable sources and the arguments of reliable sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Apostle12 has a long history of using White privilege as a forum to voice his political viewpoint while choosing words that hurt others. With the addition of racial bias we can see that Apostle12 has not learned from previous warnings and is instead getting bolder. My only question is why none of us proposed a topic ban sooner. (Qwyrxian and A Quest For Knowledge, if you need examples, read UseTheCommandLine's initial post to this thread, and be sure to read all the examples he gives.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The editor has been misusing WP as a platform to air his own positions. "No-brainer" sums it up nicely. Surprised that the proposal is only for a topic ban. I would have supported a community ban. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Defense

I offered no "personal commentary about (my) first hand knowledge of how bad black people are." I referenced the fact that I and several members of my immediate family have been victims of serious violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with deadly weapons, and rape) and the perpetrators were all black males. Some of my ancestors were white, some black, some native American, some Ashkenazi Jews; and various family members are white, asian or, like me, multiracial and multiethnic. The only thing we have in common with respect to the "Criminal black man stereotype" I was discussing is that we have at times been attacked, held at gunpoint, robbed, threatened or raped by black men. As an early participant in the civil rights movement (efforts to expand voting rights in the American South, 1963) I have supported all efforts to end race-based discrimination in the United States and I continue to be committed to racial and ethnic equality in all realms. I do not believe black people are "bad." Quite the contrary, I am an admirer of black culture and its contributions to American life, both in general and the contributions my many black friends have made to my own personal life. I do lament the violent subculture that has taken hold in every American city, beginning with the Black Panthers during the late 1960s and continuing to the present; in this respect I am no different than most black conservatives. At the risk of sounding like Archie Bunker ("Some of my best friends are black"), I have maintained close friendships with blacks since my youth, our children have grown up together, and all of my children and friends know that I am a person committed to judging people solely on the basis of their characters. That said, as I pointed out in my commentary, I have found it necessary in the public realm, where I do not have the ability instantly to assess character, to be wary of black men who present themselves, through dress or demeanor, as members of violent subcultures. This necessary caution does not please me, and I wish it were not so, however I do not think it is racist; my wariness merely represents prudence, learned through long, harsh experience.

When it comes to editing Wikipedia articles having to do with race or ethnicity, I challenge anyone to point up instances of wrongdoing. Even in my editing of controversial articles, like The Black Panthers article I have consistently guarded against any editor who attempts to insert racist content, or who strives to bend the article in a non-neutral direction. Sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with mitigating harsh judgments of the Panthers by adding more supportive material (many Panthers were good people committed to racial justice), and sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with adding sourced material that is highly critical of Panther methods (anti-white rhetoric, criminality and violence).

But, I am getting off-topic. My point is that I am capable, despite certain negative personal experiences and defined perspectives, of editing without racial bias here at Wikipedia.

With respect to the objections UsetheCommandLine originally raised regarding some examples of differential outcomes that would be difficult to attribute to white privilege, I can see that the last example I offered, while true and easily sourced, came too close to that invisible line where offense can be taken. The other differential outcomes might be interpreted as congratulatory of positive black outcomes (high self-esteem among black girls), supportive of positive black outcomes (majority black presence among NBA and NFL players), or more or less neutral with respect to black outcomes - I should have stuck to those.

I do believe it is counterproductive to penalize Wikipedia editors who are willing to discuss racial matters frankly. Apostle12 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss reliable sources and represent them fairly in our coverage. These representations of your experiences are simply not germane. There is nothing there in your experiences for anyone to reply to or comment upon. Your friends, your assailants, your activism, your race, your family's race, are all off-topic (as you note). So long disquisitions on them are bound to be disruptive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - AQFK pretty much sums it up, but I wanted to point out that the editor has supplied a RS that supports some of the comments he's made ([8]). I propose an alternative: this editor is warned to keep his personal opinion to himself and stick strictly to reliable sources which he is required to present at the time of comment on racial topics.--v/r - TP 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they haven't supplied a reliable source for the comments in any way. Precisely the opposite in fact. Exactly as I predicted, they provided a source simply showing that African-Americans have higher levels of STD. But that is exactly like me providing a source for a golfball with 350 dimples... the question is does the source support the notion that there are "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" as claimed by Apostle12? No. In fact the text says the exact the opposite: "While everyone should have the opportunity to make choices that allow them to live healthy lives regardless of their income, education, or racial/ethnic background, the reality is that inadequate resources and challenging living conditions make the journey to health and wellness harder for some, and can lead to circumstances that increase a person's risk for STDs. African Americans sometimes face barriers that contribute to increased rates of STDs" and goes on to list as factors (amongst others) the higher levels poverty, and poorer access to health care of African Americans as compared to other populations. It finishes up with the statement that "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." This source does nothing to support Apostle12's use of the talkage to speak about theories that "the impact of white privilege is less plausible". It says the precise opposite. --Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still. He supports "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" with this source by this line "The quality and consistency of STD care can also be affected by the fact that African Americans tend to use medical care services and treatments less than whites, which research suggests may be partly related to mistrust of the medical system." He is arguing that it is not white privillage, but mistrust of the healthcare system which affects the STD care of African Americans. A counter argument is made in the same sentence, "In addition, research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." But the point he is making is supported by that source.--v/r - TP 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still! It is disingenuous to claim that this sentence is making any claim abou that "white privilege" is less plausible. Why do you think that "mistrust" is there? If it isn't clear enough for you, the article actually spells it out for you "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience" --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After ec: I'm sorry, but that's your own WP:SYNTH about what the author means. Before (edit conflict): Striking oppose. I'm fighting a barely defensible case that I barely believe in on principal grounds and it's just not worth the effort when Apostle12 continues to do the crap we're discussing here. I'll save my efforts for a user who is legitimately interested in the topic and not trying to toe the line while pushing his own agenda.--v/r - TP 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The editor has a COI but has attempted to bring some sources to it, while the personal history and preferences of editors are something that come easily, Apostle12 just went to a great deal of trouble with the 'defense' statement and at least tried to keep personal matters out of it. The subject matter is going to be a nightmare for just about any of our editors. This has gotten the attention of more eyes and as a result might introduce a better atmosphere. Warn Apostle12 as per TParis's suggestion and I second that any controversial (not just racial topics) be backed up with reliable sources pre-emptively and doubly so for contentious material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TParis. Unquestionably, he has ruffled some feathers and many of his comments leave much to be desired, but I think TP's idea is more likely to have a lasting positive impact here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I will limit myself to saying that I agree with Brad's proposal for a topic ban, and that some of the responses in this thread make me ashamed to be part of this project. We're talking about someone who goes around talking about the criminality of black men and how they should try to act more like Asians. In any reputable volunteer organiation, someone like that would politely but firmly be told that he or she was no longer welcome. But here, the first admin responding couldn't be bothered even to click on the supplied diffs before dismissing the complaint, and the second views this as simply a matter of "ruffled feathers". MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. What he wrote on those talk pages was insanely offensive and the response here is embarrassing and shameful. AniMate 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, it comes down to this. The threat of being called a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot, fascist, elitist, ect has the exact same chilling effect as legal threats. When you use them unrestrained (because some people, maybe even the subject, do deserve the title), then you are biasing Wikipedia to popular opinions. I'm not saying unpopular ones deserve equal attention or weight. I'm saying the OP didn't even both asking for sources and immediately started this thread calling the subject a racist and you've propagated that name-calling. So, Animate, yes, you should be ashamed.--v/r - TP 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein's warning of WP:ARBR&I sanctions to Apostle12 seems appropriate. Various sanctioned users, some subsequently topic-banned, extensively edited articles like Race and crime in the United States. The articles might have been slightly different, but the general drift was the same. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, but mine as well let the proposal run it's course.--v/r - TP 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I agree that terms like racist can be used too cavalierly. But this is a case of "If the shoe fits, wear it." Honestly, can this be taken any way other than racist?

Seriously, which part of this isn't racist? That black men have not met his standard of speaking out against crime, so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety? Or the bit where he says they should "emulate asian men" because their stereotype is "studious reflection and harmlessness."

Yes, he points out that stereotypes don't fit everyone... but he still treats them as valid. That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals and, besides, they should act like another group's stereotype!

I just don't see any way to avoid the fact that this is a racist statement. And it should not be endorsed on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety?"

"That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals" Ummm...he didn't actually say those things. That's your original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Right there in his statement: Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, referring to our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype". That's not OR, that's fucking blatant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does he state that it's okay to treat all black men as criminals. Sorry, it's just not there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're willfully blind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just don't believe in imaginary things. But we don't see to be making any progress here, so let's just agree to disagree, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Okay, as Kyohyi points out, this statement is from last year. It's pretty clear in its intent but, if it hasn't happened since (and doesn't happen again), there's no point pursuing it now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response by Apostle 12

The request for sourcing at time of comment on racial (or other controversial) topics is an easy one to observe. While I am a stickler for sourcing when editing articles, this is the first time sourcing has been requested for Talk comments. Perhaps this should become a WP policy for all Talk commentary. Question: Would it be useful for me to go back and provide reliable sourcing for each of the examples I gave on White Privilege Talk and on Criminal Black Man Stereotype Talk? I can certainly do so, however I suspect it might turn out to be more disruptive than not.

For the record, I have never referenced personal experiences or perspectives while editing any article, especially those having to do with race; at most such experiences have served as a reality check, and the emotions associated with such experiences serve only to increase my commitment to racial impartiality.

There is also no need to relate further personal experiences on Talk if the consensus is that such storytelling is objectionable. I have done so only rarely (UseTheCommandLine mined my edit history to provide examples) and this is the first time anyone has objected. Except for UseTheCommandLine, other editor comments have been positive. I do believe occasional storytelling is a positive endeavor, as long as it is not heavily laden with agenda.

I have observed that legal sanctions against racial commentary have been counterproductive in repressive societies (the former Soviet Union and Singapore come to mind), and those societies tend to make little progress in this area. My personal preference would be for more open dialogue. Apostle12 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to dialogue about race. This is not a blog or a chatroom. This Project is not about your personal opinions of the Soviet Union or Indonesia, or how their societies deal with race, nor is it about your opinions about how black men, or asians, or urban areas, are or should be. The Pedia has a specific mission and your purported autobiographical material, personal observations, and the conclusions that you draw from them (your "storytelling") are getting in the way of it to such an extent that it has wound up here. However this goes, the advice you have received is to discontinue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of how this community sanctions discussion concludes, the conduct at issue here is also within the scope of the discretionary sanctions provision at WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended), that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". On the basis of the talk page contributions linked to initially, which are at least prima facie problematic in the light of the principle linked to by Newyorkbrad, I am issuing Apostle12 with a discretionary sanctions warning as provided for at WP:AC/DS#Warnings. This allows any further potentially problematic conduct to be reported and sanctioned via WP:AE.  Sandstein  10:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was earlier prepared to let this off with a warning, but two factors lead me to see that this is not enough. First, Apostle12 has continued to use this very page as forum for their personal experiences and for arguments that "racial commentary" and "storytelling" should continue. Second, and much more seriously, despite the extensive comments above about the kind of reliable sources required to avoid OR, and promises from Apostle12 that they are stickler for good sources etc etc, the source they have come up with to support their cherry-picked statistic about "white privilege" being less plausible, [9], while confirming the statistic about STDs in African Americans, draws precisely the opposite conclusion from the one Apostle12 was trying to use it for. It is this misuse of sources to make a completely different point, despite extensive and recent coaching that tips me over the edge. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I haven't seen any evidence that would warrant such a drastic sanction as topic-banning. I think that a reminder that talk pages are for improving an article, not for telling personal stories or general discussion should be sufficient. @Apostle12: You've ruffled a lot of people's feathers. While I don't agree with them, the fact is that this is a collaborative enviroment. You have to figure out a way to get along with everyone. If you're saying things that are pissing other people off, stop saying them. Otherwise, you will get topic-banned the next time around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to consistent soap boxing and consistently using his own personal experience for the basis of profoundly negative comments on talk pages. as an aside; I'm generally sympathetic to a very limited amount of off-topic posting if a person has a particularly salient point which may have some possible relevance, but the editors comments are determined from his own limited experiences with little critical analysis. There is a reason why people shouldn't base arguments off personal experience; it's subject to "hidden persuaders" like cognitive bias, hidden variables etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban On all race related topics at Wikipedia, editors with unpopular viewpoints are sanctioned for far less than their opponents are. If Apostle12 is topic banned, he will be another example. He has done much less than what people with the opposite perspective can get away with. For the diffs presented in this thread, Sandstein's warning is enough. Akuri (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The one instance that is being discussed is over eight months old. At this point I believe any sanctions would become punitive, instead we should take him up on his offer of not having any more personal commentary on these articles, and remind him that he should stick to talking about article content. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that's a valid point. (And it's the only valid objection so far, IMO.) Though the comment he made was pretty blatant, 8 months really is long enough for this to be stale. If it doesn't happen again, that should be the end of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see any reasonable basis for a topic ban. The claim of "racism" seems terribly weak to me and based more on personal attitudes on the subject, which is why people shouldn't be sanctioned merely for expressing an objectionable opinion or being perceived as having a certain attitude on a subject. Detailing one's personal experiences or personal opinion is hardly a problem unless that is all the editor is doing and this does not appear to be the case here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I got a couple of people emailing me about this. I should have turned emails off, frankly. I logged in to change my user page slightly. But I wanted to clear some things up and hopefully, provoke a little more discussion here.

I, of course, Strongly support the topic ban. But I challenge anyone to show where I called Apostle12 a racist. I may have said something at one time like "that sounds racist" or perhaps "it's very hard for me to AGF based on that comment" or the like, but it was users like TParis who initially made hay of the connection between racism and Apostle12's statements. I left in a huff, certainly, and I do not dispute that.

In going over this discussion, one of the things that troubles me is that people are focusing on these statements in particular. They were simply the most egregious ones I was aware of, and knew roughly the dates and times and places. But to be absolutely clear, the reason I filed this incident in the first place is because of the extensive, consistent, counterproductive soapboxing that i had repeatedly attempted to civilly suggest was unwelcome, and which despite this was continued.

And honestly, some of you who are admins are clearly not doing your due diligence. I am quite sure that this pattern of violating WP:NOTFORUM can be demonstrated throughout Apostle12's edits. Take a look at some of his speculations on Project MKULTRA or the 1951 Pont-saint-esprit mass poisoning. or look at the sourcing dispute I had with him about Huey P. Newton. Take a look at his comments on the Franklin child prostitution ring. Take a look at the failed RfC/U. This is an editor who flaunts or ignores policy when it pleases him and has a long history of doing so. And to see policy flaunted, especially for relatively new editors like myself who take great pains to learn policies and try and follow them, falsely believing that they are "the ropes" to be learned here, seeing them undermined, especially in this way, leaves me little faith in this Project.

Which, at base, is why I have decided to leave. I am still not sure whether this will be temporary. I have things in my life going on that require me to be less distracted for the next several months, and WP is one of my major distractions, so there will be, as noted, a minimum of 3 months of proverbial radio silence. I know I've broken that already, but I wanted to publicly acknowledge the words of affirmation I have received, and correct what I felt to be mischaracterizations.

I admonish all of you, please, look at the history of Apostle12's edits. I did not simply fly off the handle here. This was simply the last straw for a sustained pattern of abusive and policy-violating behavior, and for which I had no other recourse. Whatever you think of his racism-or-not-racism, that is not specifically why i filed the dispute, simply a strongly aggravating factor. I also challenge you to find similar disruptive or tendentious behavior or edits in my own history. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ shutdown -h now 01:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MKULTRA comments seemed completely legitimate to me. WP:NOTAFORUM is not some absolute prohibition on all comments that do not explicitly concern edits. So long as editors stay mostly focused on content, commenting about the subject shouldn't be a big deal.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely, that what is being pointed to is Apostle12 calling the other editor a troll. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose weak oppose It appears the comments in question are 8 months old. The noriuser may have a troubling POV, but nothing has been presented to indicate he can't work within the ruleng s. Hobit (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theseyour aren't 8 months old: chidishBlack_Panther_Party&diff=prev&oldid=540863572[21]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't know if those had been raised before, I'd not seem them. One is still quite old (5 months?) the other much more recent. I'm not certain that topic-banning this person is the right call, but my AGF bucket is now empty. I'd prefer we wait an see if the warning is enough, but the topic ban isn't unreasonable, so moving to weak oppose. I'd like an acknowledgement from the user that personal stories and feelings on issues don't belong on the talk pages. I will say that on a quick pass the article appears to be fairly balanced. If this user is contributing in a useful way in mainspace on the article, I'd hope the closing admin would take that into account. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of my point, all the problems were on talk pages, not articles, and they weren't overt. The solution isn't the ban hammer, not yet anyway. We do ourselves a favor if we use the least aggressive method of dealing with a problem that will get the job done. Since the person is communicative, there is a lot of time between problem edits and he is not combative, then a warning and education are a better first solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per NewYorkBrad, Mastcell, et al. With all respect to those opposing, there is no need to let things get worse before taking this action. KillerChihuahua 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' I've been dealing with editors who are far worse than this. At least Apostle12 supplies sources when he makes edits. No point in topic banning someone who's willing to observe NPOV on articles and do research. Shii (tock) 04:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't believe Apostle12 is a racist. Don't believe his experiences are racist. Don't believe his statistics are racist. Don't believe his comments are racist. Believe liberals can't handle the truth. Believe in free speech (for EVERYONE). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FREESPEECH might be an enlightening read. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KatieBoundary (talk · contribs) has launched on a campaign of article blanking at Yasheng Group and Silk Route Museum, claiming that the material is unsourced. While it is true that the sources for Yasheng Group are largely primary sources or trivial (business listings at NYT and the company's own SEC 10-K filings), denoting a certain lack of notability, the sources can be trusted to verify the existence of the company. Katie's actions appear to be predicated on her assertion that the Yasheng Group is a fraudulent company set up by David Korem, a renowned fraud. However, no evidence has been provided to verify this assertion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unauthored NYT "listing" and SEC filing can't be trusted to verify the existence of the company. In fact, inconsistencies in the filings from year to year, and inconsistencies between those filings and their own press releases, and their recent blanking of all of their 2008 and 2009 press releases from their website, indicate the company does not really exist. It appears to be a "company" made by purchasing a shell called Nichols, renaming it, and then claiming it is the same as a supposed huge Chinese conglomerate, which even if that huge conglomerate existed in China (the existence of which is looking more and more doubtful). That would not be the same company as the shell, even if the Chinese company actually existed. (I note that WikiDan61 has been looking at this objectively, and may now be thinking along these very lines.) KatieBoundary (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition she has mis-used an edit warring template against both WikiDan61 and myself, and almost blanked Silk Road Museum twice, despite my finding of a primary source for uncontroversial material such as floor area.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the 3rr. The floor area claim is controversial, since the museum appears to exist only as a computer generated image to "raise funds" for what is looking more and more like a hoax museum with a president who uses multiple aliases and is involved in a clear hoax "mining" operation in Arizona, with the "company" securities being sold on an American stock exchange based on preposterous geological advertisements. Deleting content that utterly fails WP:V is not being contentious. KatieBoundary (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply of Katie Boundary - WP:V says, "any material challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Removal of unsourced content is challenging it. So it must be attributed to a reliable published source. There is not a single reliable source for any of the content in either article. Insisting on VP:V, and corresponding WP:RS requirements, is not being tendentious. KatieBoundary (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:The "biggest floor space in China" and multiple inconsistent claims all over the fraud notice websites, used as a phony claim in a pump and dump scheme for a nonexistent museum, is not "uncontroversial". All false claims are "controversial". Please follow WP:V and WP:RS. KatieBoundary (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Untangling all this is not a role of Wikipedia editors, and it would not even come up if WP:V and WP:RS were being followed. KatieBoundary (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any evidence at all that the museum is connected in any way apart from the company being one of the sponsors of a fund setup by the museum. You have also misused warning templates against me, and just blanked the article again. What is controversial about the museum article?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::I am not supposed to "give evidence" - You are supposed to obey WP:RS. As I wrote, the talk page section pointing out a total lack of any WP:RS sources was blanked, and massive unsourced content removed. I deleted the content, and restored the talk page section. (Evidecnce - They have the same office address in the (inconsistent from year to year) corporate filings, the same tiny office space used by David Korem. But again, I am not supposed to "give evidence" - You are supposed to obey WP:RS. ) KatieBoundary (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have now violated 3RR by removing the material 4 times in 2 hours. I would be delighted if you could show me any of this evidence you keep talking about but haven't actually shown anywhere. I am obeying RS and you are, actually, responsible for justifying your actions, especially when you have broken 3RR.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not party to the matter, but I rewrote the entire article I did which included the material she was concerned about (I was able to source it)). As for the inappropriate use of edit warring templates they are correct Katie, that template was used incorrectly :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::I am not a party either. I am a geologist. I found out about these phony companies when they advertised owning all the mineral and fossil rights in the Gobi desert, and when I contacted my Chinese colleagues at the California Academy of Sciences, working in the Gobi desert, they supposed "museum" did not exists, and the CEO Chang Sheng Zhou was listed as having been in prison for securities fraud. I looked into it, and there were no sources at all in the article. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have looked into it, please feel free to share the sources that you uncovered. Your Chinese colleagues, and a sketchy stock alert website, are no more reliable sources than anything else that you have complained about. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The securities fraud is legitimate see this, the museum itself is the source for the association with the group here. The group reached a settlement with a former shareholder. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it sponsors a fund set up by the museum, which is not the same thing.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(A part of this section appeared to have been duplicated somehow, so I've removed the other copy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I think it was an edit conflict of mine.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Solarra: actually, no, this does not verify securities fraud. It verifies that Yasheng and a complainant entered into a settlement agreement without either party admitting any wrongdoing or liability. Such a settlement is not an admission or proof of guilt. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but it does establish that validity of the claim that the company has engaged in fraud, as do the sources Katie cites, enough to warrant inclusion. The whole goal here is mutual consensus and for all parties to be satisfied by what is included in the article :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a settlement does not "establish the validity" of the accusation. It merely states that they paid a settlement to make the plaintiff go away. Sometimes that's cheaper than a full court trial. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Will you three please stop playing WP:OR detectives, trying to reargue whether WP:RS is still a policy? Neither of these articles have any WP:Notability secondary source. None has a single reliable source cited anywhere at all. An anon IP came in and blanked the talk page pointing this out, then wrote a huge mass of unverifiable nonsense, and you three are trying to reargue whether WP:RS still is a olicy at Wikipedia, replaced by whatever detective work you come up with. WP:RS is dispositive. If there are reliable secondary sources to establish notability, then the article stays up. Reliable primary sources can be cited, but only qualified that the content comes from the sourc3e itself. But that is only if it is reliable, such as Harvard University posting its own museum square footage. A museum that claims in various places to be the biggest in the world, but has somehow avoided being written up in any newspaper or arvchit3ectural review, is not reliable. If there is a WP:RS, it can go in. If not, it cannot. Case closed. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Katie, that is a straw man argument - none of us have suggested it is not a policy. Take it to AfD if you believe the museum is non-notable or doesn't exist.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reread WP:Notability and WP:RS among other websites, honestly after spending over an hour attempting to find a WP:RS which would satisfy all parties for the museum itself, I am unable to do so, while I can source the claims Katie makes, I cannot source the museum itself outside user generated sites (TripAdvisor, etc) which would not be acceptable per WP:RS. I suggest we redirect the museum article to the Yusheng Group page, as that meets WP:Notability (barely) but frankly after trying to find a source for over an hour I am beginning to side with Katie that the article itself shouldn't exist, although for different reasons. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not entirely surprising given that none of us read Chinese, so I left a request for assistance on the WikiProject noticeboard.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, will the lot of you stop filling up the space with rehashed arguments. If this gets much longer, admins will ignore it and let it archive itself from the reams of TLDR that is already starting to fill up this space. Blackmane (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Gilderien just wrote, “I have not added any content to this article beyond minor copy-edits”.[23] In fact, Gilderien added huge amounts of content that are not "minor copy-edits",[24] all without a single reliable source. So did WikiDan61.[25] So did Solarra.[26] All of this is in violation of WP:RS. It is not tendentious to require WP:V. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that was a revert of basically a page blanking. It is highly mis-leading to call these edits adding content.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While content that does not have a reliable source can be removed, it only must be removed if it is controversial information about a living person. There is no policy or guideline that says that non-BLP unreferenced content must be removed. There is, however, also no policy or guidline that says sources must be available online - offline sources are equally valid, and the possibility of offline sources being available must be considered before deciding an article "must be removed" - and if it really does have no place in the encyclopedia, the place to 'remove' it is Articles for Deletion, where I see the articles in question now are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says, "any material challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Removal of content having citation needed tags up for months is challenging it. So it must be attributed to a reliable published source. Observing this policy is not being tendentious. KatieBoundary (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KatieBoundary (talk · contribs) appears to be the former PPdd (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely banned by Toddst1 for a number of questionable edits to various articles. A review of the articles this user is editing and the content this user is attempting to include in articles seems to confirm that this user is one in the same. An Admin may have more tools available to connect any remaining dots. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File an SPI report then - absent one, you might be breaching AGF alas. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the two recent months a mass sockpuppetry has disturbed the article Nicolaus Copernicus to disturb three years of a quiet consensus [27]

• User:207.112.105.233 and User:70.28.16.8 from Toronto disturb the talk page. From the language it's an obvious sockpuppet of User:Serafin and the IP betrayed itself [28]
• User:Astronomer28 is a single-purpose account raised in 2008 to help User:Nihil novi, who sockpuppeted years before as Logologist on the same article.[29] Astronomer28 was suspected in his first appearance in 2008 [30] but his new sockpuppetry is apparently technically improved since Logologist's earlier puppets. Five years later Astronomer28 came back to revert reliably for Nihil novi every single time and for him alone. He was warned about an indefinite block for any further revert before having a consensus but being a throwaway account ignored it.[31]
• User:Mieszko 8 is a single-purpose account caught and blocked for sockpuppeting.[32] During the block, he continued sockpuppeting [33] and is now back for more reverting. --89.204.155.98 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm... does the Sock go round the Puppet, or the Puppet round the Sock?!?! Basket _Feudalist 15:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the above IPs looks to be a sock of Serafin. See the just-reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serafin. The two IPs may be the same person. I had previously warned Astronomer28 (talk · contribs) that he was getting near an indef block due to his warring at Copernicus and the time may have come for that. Mieszko 8 (talk · contribs) has just been blocked two months by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I would be surprised if User:Nihil novi has anything to do with this; he is an established editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet and have only advocated the NPOV. I did not set up the account to help Nihil novi or anyone else, but rather because I was interested in the debate. My account is completely legitimate. I request my editing privileges be restored so I can edit articles. Thank you. Astronomer28 (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user William M. Connolley has erased my resolution proposal on the Talk page. Astronomer28 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're topic banned, if you mean [34]. You're not allowed to edit the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is that article not on permanent semiprotection? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and you notified them where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turn on pending changes. This is what it is for.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. PC is no more effective at stopping edit-wars or determined sockpuppets than semiprotection, and in fact may give the latter an audience. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been on semiprotection almost all of the time since at least 2008. But the parties edit-warring now are established editors, so neither semiprotection nor pending changes will solve that. I sanctioned two persons who I thought were among the worst offenders yesterday (as somebody noted further up in this thread), but got bogged down over contemplating with whom to continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five days ago I asked for an admin to close a discussion and make a finding of consensus or no consensus. I was told that the discussion had to run at least seven days. Well, now it's been seven days. At that time, the raw vote was 6-4. Now it's 8-3. Please read this, determine whether we have consensus (and for what). post your findings and close the discussion. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't RfCs run 30 days? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an RfC — which invites input from editors previously uninvolved in the discussion. It simply asks for a formal statement of "support" or "oppose" from editors who are already involved, along with their supporting arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. An informal survey to determine consensus among editors already present, regarding an editing proposal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words "at least" are important - discussions such as this run "at least 7 days" ... while there are still policy-based comments being added, why rush things? We're not in a big hurry around here - the project won't die if the discussion continues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five days ago, the "vote" was 6-4. Now, it's 8-3. Consensus has become even more clear. Future changes in position by active editors on the page are extremely unlikely. One editor supporting the minority is using the continued lack of finality in this matter as an excuse for tendentious editing, as Arthur Rubin and MastCell have observed. Perhaps I should be seeking sanctions against him instead. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. A "vote" could be 9-1 and closed in favor of the 1 if the 1 is consistent with policy and the 9 aren't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen them go that way, Bushranger. in this case, as I explained,the eight are consistent with policy and the three aren't. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a non-zero possibility that one or more of the participants in that talkpage discussion will be topic-banned or otherwise restricted in the ongoing ArbCom case associated with this article. I'm not sure how that possibility weighs into the question of assessing consensus or closing the discussion, but potential closers should be aware of it. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::::There is a lot of tendentious editing and discussion going on at the TPm article and Talk page.

Here is a related issue (WP:CAN), since someone has opened a thread User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Re:_.22Anti-immigration.22

I have mentioned this to SilkTork User_talk:SilkTork#TPm_related_Canvassing.3F in the hope of drawing attention to the tension level, maybe expediting the decision in the TPm Arbcom case, which might help stabilize the editing environment there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the language from WP:CANVASS that forbids convincing someone who has already participated and "voted" in a survey, RfC or other matter, to change his vote. Thanks in advance. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so this isn't an RfC. Are admins supposed to decide if consensus exists in closing an ordinary article talk page discussion? Maybe they are, but I can't recall having seen this done. Why don't you open an RfC? The input of uninvolved editors should be valued as they have no stake in the outcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would give the aforementioned editor 30 more days to edit tendentiously. I'm hoping this would put an end to his disruptions so that we can move on. MastCell is an admin. He hasn't indicated there is anything even slightly improper about a previously uninvolved admin determining consensus and closing a discussion when asked. I respectfully suggest that you rely on his judgment in this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins aren't gods and nor do they have Papal infallibility. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else did, I've opened up an RfC.[35] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. Thirty more days of an editor's tendentious editing, that has already been described that way by at least one admin. I'm so grateful. Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a very good reason nobody else did? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly so described by an Admin who is a protagonist for your POV Phenix and Winslow, and he has been explicit he is not acting as an admin. Try and keep it factual rather than 'spinning". You organised a straw poll its not even an RfC and it devided on normal grounds. Use the mediation which is in place and stop forum shopping ----Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "wrongly" opinion is predictable, since the tendentious editor in question is part of your shrinking minority. And yes, the survey to determine consensus is divided on normal grounds: a large group of editors who offer sound arguments, based on Wikipedia policy and a wealth of reliable sources; and a shrinking minority that relies on tendentious editing, guilt by association, and misrepresenting what its tiny number of sources actually say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has unilaterally closed the RfC, mischaracterizing the suggestion in the RfC guideline to engage in normal talkpage discussion before opening an RfC as an injunction against opening RfCs without prior consensus. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Phoenix and Winslow: You've already tried once to get a early close on the question. That admins and respected users are gently telling you "No, we don't think early closure is appropriate here" is annother hint. From my uninvolved viewpoint and only looking at this thread I see 1 editor who is attempting to get a final conviction read so that the handcuffs of shame can be slapped on. Bold, Revert, Discuss is your friend. I assume someone's done something bold, there was a revert, and now you're discussing. Is it going to be the end of this (democracy/liberty/wikipedia) if the issue is talked out until a consensus is established? There might be a very good policy based reason for why someone is holding out for their viewpoint. I see you trying to use the "Vote Count" argument which is relied upon in the case of a weak argument position. Now that a RfC has been opened it's strongly suggested to run for a minimum of 30 days. Let it run and have some tea. Hasteur (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it going to be the end ... if the issue is talked out until a consensus is established? It's clear that a consensus has been established in my opinion; the minority is unwilling to accept it.
• There might be a very good policy based reason for why someone is holding out for their viewpoint. I don't think so. It's a highly politicized subject, and I think the minority may be resisting consensus due to interests that do not coincide with those of the Wikipedia project. Time will tell (better, at least).
• I see you trying to use the "Vote Count" argument which is relied upon in the case of a weak argument position. I've also relied very heavy on such policy sections as WP:WEIGHT, which are sections of our "pillar" policies of Wikipedia. These are relied upon in the case of a strong argument position.
• Now that a RfC has been opened ... It's been closed, I didn't close it, and I really can't stand tea. Care for a beer?

Seriously, just asking for an admin to take a look, that's all. If the admin feels this should run a bit longer, or that it should go to RfC, I'll accept that. But for now, the lack of finality is being seen as a license by some to engage in disruptive and tendentious editing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm an Admin and I suggested an RfC and then when someone (you?) said that would need talk page consensus (citing our page on RfCs) pointed out that nowhere does it say talk page consensus is needed and that anyone trying to prevent an RfC might run foul of the ArbCom probation. Sorry I missed this discussion until now. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal is to determine the best course of action to take in a content disagreement, then obviously the widest input of relevant argument and reasoning should be encouraged. If the goal is to advance just one preferred side of a disagreement, based on numerical support instead of reasoned argument, then an RfC would be a threat to that goal. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, unregistered editor User:Legend41, identifying himself as the husband of Erica Muhl, telephoned from Los Angeles at approximately 2:40pm local time to object to my “repeated deletions” of “virtually the entire article” on his wife. (Apparently he had looked up my number in the telephone book, since I do not mask my identity on Wikipedia with a pseudonym.) I was a little taken aback since I scarcely recognized the name but, upon investigation, I discovered a single recent edit, made on 8 April 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=549413048&oldid=549338801. I explained that this edit had restored the only three sources previously found in the article, which he had removed in his own edit. At the same time, I had reverted the addition of several unsourced paragraphs of material. I suggested that he restore those paragraphs, only with the addition of reliable sources. Although he claimed to understand what a reliable source meant in Wikipedia terms, at the same time he suggested that I should telephone family members to verify the truth of these additions, or alternatively he could send me an extended CV which supports the claims. I explained at this point that such things do not constitute reliable sources on Wikipedia, and quoted to him the verifiability, not truth criterion. Brushing this aside, he again accused me of “repeatedly” deleting material, and I found a pair of edits from over a year ago (4 March 2012): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=480109302&oldid=480109206 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=480109206&oldid=480103086. I pointed out that my edit summary on that occasion explained that unsourced material challenged since 2009 was being deleted. I also explained that removing long-challenged claims like these is standard practice on Wikipedia, since ample time had passed for sources to be found and provided. At this point, Legend41 threatened legal action if I ever deleted anything further from his wife’s biographical article on Wikipedia, and told me that his wife has considerable experience in such legal matters. I told him that intimidating behavior of this sort is in direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines, that I was reporting him to the appropriate authorities (which I am doing now), and that our conversation was at an end. Because this editor is not a registered user, I am unable to take any further steps to notify him of this report. It appears that I had made only one previous edit to that article, on 13 June 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=296232620&oldid=288273481. This was a correction of punctuation and several calls for citation made in 2009, presumably some or all of the claims which I eventually deleted three years later. This is the first time in nearly seven years of editing on Wikipedia that anything remotely like this has happened to me. If this is not the right place to report this form of threatening behavior, I would appreciate a pointer to the correct authority.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we have sufficient jurisprudence to do so, I have indef-blocked for inappropriate off-wiki contact/harassment. Although there has bee no formal on-wiki legal threat, the phone call above is extremely chilling, and dangerous. Jerome, if you feel physically threatened, please contact your local police (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How can he be User:Legend41 if he's unregistered? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(methinks the OP thinks he's unregistered because his userpage is a redlink ... the edits made by Legend match the rest of the description) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that sounds likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is just a clarification question, how should we handle the content issue in cases such as this where an individual user has obviously been targeted. My gut is to say we restore content in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines as long as we can determine that no legal problems exist within the content (I understand that we need to take legal threats seriously, and explore them as an actual complaint of content) but in this situation a specific user has been identified. Do we immediately restore the encyclopedia to normal operations, or are there some things we should do beforehand as to not exasperate the situation? I agree with the actions taken in this situation, it is just a question of clarification and to see what policies may apply.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per the requirements for sourcing on a bio of a living person, I reverted to the version that actually had ref's. Probably the WP:WRONGVERSION, but ref's are important (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. This is exactly why I use an anonymous handle unique to Wikipedia. That's exactly the kind of behavior we do not want happening to our regulars. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is really guaranteed anonymous with a fake name here, which is why I just use my real name. Privacy on the internet is an illusion, it only takes one slip up or bad friend or email where you use your real name, or one edit while you are logged out. As for BWilkins comments, I agree wholeheartedly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Dennis. This was one reason I decided in the first place not to bother with an anonymous handle. Thanks to Bwilkins for swift action, and for the expression of concern. There was no threat of physical action, only legal, and though I relish the thought of having the perpetrator hauled off to a police station for questioning over this incident, I don't see any purpose in reporting him at this stage. To User:Boing! said Zebedee, yes, I misspoke. I meant to say that this was a redlinked editor, and so there is no Talk page where he can be notified of my action in reporting him (or am I wrong?). Concerning the content issue here, I notice that the article in question has been tagged (not by me, I hasten to add) for possible non-notability. This in fact was why I reverted that edit in the first place, since it had removed the only tenuous claim to notability that the article possessed. Is it perhaps time that this issue is seriously considered, especially in the light of such strenuous efforts by an individual associated with the article's subject to overcome Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability? Given that I could be seen to be an aggrieved party here, I think someone else probably ought to initiate the festivities.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can always use a registered user's Talk page to contact them, even if you are the first to create it - they'll still be alerted to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, thank you. This knowledge may come in useful, though I hope never to encounter a situation like this again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I appreciate the advice, but I'm already aware of that. No one else knows I use this handle on Wikipedia so, unless I forget to log in, it has no link back to me offline. It's not perfect, but it's pseudoanonymous enough for me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome, if you edit with a handle, law enforcement or very determined stalkers might be able to figure out who you are, but you'll have a reasonable amount of protection from incidents like this. It's like locking your door when you leave the house. The lock might not stop somebody with a big enough sledgehammer, but locking it is still a generally useful method of preventing unwanted intrusions. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the blocked editor has an unblock request on their talkpage that expresses concern with edits being made to a BLP. Aside from their inappropriate response, shouldn't someone point them towards OTRS so that their issue can be resolved? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went and declined the unblock. OTRS is a good place to go when reporting BLP violations, but that's not the problem here. Legend41 wants to add content, so it's best he stay onsite. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should remind him that he has not been blocked because of his actions on his wife's article but because called up another editor without provocation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more curious and chilling things I have seen on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, could it be worth temporarily semi-protecting the article as a pre-emptive measure against any logged-out edit warring? – Richard BB 09:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had just asked this question, some where, Why Ghosts Only on Wikipedia? and Now after 5 days so upsetting and disturbing things have happened to Jerome. The part of the word, where I live, things do not stop at just a telephone call. My God so chilling. Be brave and true to your job. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who you are in real life doesn't and shouldn't matter on Wikipedia anyways; the sources and content are more important than who makes the the edits. Situations like this are exactly why it's sometimes better to just remain a Ghost. - SudoGhost 04:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very benign, idealistic, and may I say fantastic interpretation of the very real problem of Conflict of Interest (and fighting it and rectifying it). Who the editor is matters a very great deal with respect to the reliability of content created. Until Wikipedia ultimately addresses this issue — and it will, someday — it will remain a very flawed intellectual resource. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the bytes that have been spilled regarding editor retention, suggesting (as seems to be being done here) that editors be required to disclose personally identifying information in order to edit, which would drive away a very significant proportion (I hesitate to say "most", but wouldn't be surprised) of Wikipedia's editors, is rather preposterous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP - User talk:72.93.33.119 - is almost certainly a regular user who is editing logged out (has knowledge of ITN/C-specific procedures, such as marking items "ready" and shifting items from full blurb items to the "recent deaths" (RD) section). All of the IP's contributions, Special:Contributions/72.93.33.119, all of the edits have been disruptive and unconstructive to ITN/C processes. I just wanted an outside admin to look at this: it's probably sockpuppetry, but since to the large number of people commenting at ITN/C, it's difficult to identify who this person is. The user has already received 2 warnings for disruption yet has continued, and I don't know if a block with "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" would be necessary in this case. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as they didn't respond to not one but multiple warnings, I blocked logged-in accounts from editing from that IP address. The result should be amusing. Shii (tock) 04:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One week? Talk about overkill. And the us versus them attitude at ITNC needs to stop. Hot Stop (Talk) 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion here, I have decided to open a thread here concerning G-Zay (talk · contribs) and claims that he is violating the BLP guidelines. My main concern, and that of the other editor who chimed in is that he is taking advantage of our trust in foreign language sources (in this case, Japanese), in order to write libel about persons and companies.

Yesterday, I responded to a request on OTRS here that details quite thoroughly what he is doing. This includes falsifying information from the Japanese sources, as well as mixing it up with legitimate truth. He also does not use page numbers for this information, and I invite him to provide page numbers that corroborate this. One example is this section, which cites the "Final Fantasy VI Advance Official Complete Guide" for information on the game's development. The problem is, the book does not mention anything on the development of the book, including claims that are outright contradicted in reliable sources. Rumors are also included, as seen here, and then added to gaming forums as something that was found on Wikipedia and needs attention drawn to it. Articles most affected by these issues include Hiroyuki Ito, Yoshinori Kitase, Motomu Toriyama, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Chrono Trigger. This would all be fine and well, but this information is now finding its way into news articles as “fact” and could lead to issues of circular referencing of these fallacies down the line.

He has also been banned from other sites for doing these things, and has engaged in sockpuppetry on those sites as well. This includes creating accounts in online cafes in order to avoid topic bans, so I any action taken here should take that into account.

I think a topic ban needs to be explored, as this user has already been reported to ANI in December, and nothing came of it, even though there was evidence that he performed the issues brought up above. This includes the part where he said, "There was also a rumour I created in July 2012 about GamesMaster magazine revealing Final Fantasy XV having already been in development for 4 years with Hiroyuki Ito as the director. The rumour spread around the internet but was eventually debunked once the deputy editor of the magazine confirmed the rumour was not published in the magazine. However, my intention making that rumour was not to mislead people, but for the rumour to eventually reach Square Enix so they could publicly debunk it themselves or provide statement about it." The fact that they have admitted to doing this on another site means that there are likely many issues that are on this site as well. The whole thread ended with nothing being done, but it is still concerning to have this brought up before nonetheless.

The user who sent the request has offered to send us the pages in question if we would like to check these claims, and I would like it if G-Zay could respond to these accusations, as they are pretty serious no matter what the truth is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks really serious in my opinion and Ktr101's examination of the situation is accurate. Also, damaging the integrity to Wikipedia is not acceptable behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are very concerning allegations. Diffs would be helpful, but from a sense of G-Zay's contribs, I see that there's some merit in the allegations. So, support a topic ban. Chutznik (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of specific concern to me when I saw the ticket is the claim that the editor allegedly added this, referencing an offline source (which may or may not have been Japanese), and then one day later allegedly posted this in a forum, stating that he had "found" it in Wikipedia. The previous ANI report seems to back up the use of the "Galvanizer" alias. This is very troubling for obvious reasons, not the least of which are the possible real-life effects a rumour started in a supposedly trustworthy source (Wikipedia) might have on a company, its products or employees. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the OTRS matter, but the timing of these two allegedlys are really close. 17:20 Nov 25th versus Nov 26th and it just happens to be by the guy who essentially wrote the Ito article and still does? [44] This is highly suspicious. It doesn't seem to be the first time either. 'Fake news' removed by an I.P editor. [45] The content was also added by G-Zay. If true... I think we need to react appropriately, this is a major concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP or not, the subject of the articles doesn't matter here. What matters is someone who appears to be introducing subtle hoaxing in numerous articles. Hoaxers don't get topic-banned: they get sitebanned or simply blocked indefinitely, since we have no reason to trust anything that they've written. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While true, we should at least have hard evidence of this matter before we commit to the ban. Right now it looks bad, real bad, but I'd say we should at least see the evidence before banning. If we have clear evidence of the information being false, anyone who attempts to use it in a circular referencing or tries to reintroduce it can be notified and directed to why it is false. That and I do not believe in banning before seeing and verifying evidence of wrongdoing. I'm tagging Hiroyuki Ito as disputed for the time being, other things may be wrong with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "appears" — the evidence hasn't yet been presented, and I didn't have time to investigate myself. I expect that I'll support a siteban request or a simple "please levy an indefinite block" request if they're presented with more evidence; my point was simply that we shouldn't just try a topic ban. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately gaming the project to support factually inaccurate claims about living persons? Let me put it this way - how could we ever trust this person's edits on any topic, ever? I would absolutely support an indefinite ban, if the allegations are proved to the satisfaction of the community. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go ahead and blank the majority of these pages until we figure out what to do/what exactly is wrong with these pages? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, post-haste. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked the person pages, except for the intros, and I cleared out the section on Final Fantasy IV. In terms of the other two, I am hesitant to do anything since I don't know of any issues being presented. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why no action was taken before? It looks pretty clear cut here; he openly admitted to adding false info to a BLP article in order for his own selfish desire of weaseling information out of a corporation. What was the hold up a few months ago from action being taken? Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VI needs to be really checked out. I don't think everything has been potentially sought through. The recent contributions have been purged, but the ones stemming from 2011 are still included. As per this edit by G-Zay.[46] For a FA article, this is unacceptable. I will gladly add my support for an immediate ban whenever evidence is conclusive. I did not look back further then 2011 to see if G-Zay has other contributions here, but it hasn't been dealt with completely yet. Also... I have not removed it, I'm no expert on that game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further details: the earliest content edit G-Zay did to the page was February 13, 2011, with one previous edit to the infobox on January 7, 2011 that has long since been overwritten. The "creation" section currently in the article is a copy I made of the last edit prior to February 13, 2011, and as such includes nothing that G-Zay added. Any edits that he made to other sections of the article have not been checked/removed; based on his general editing habits, I would expect these to only deal with the lead and the infobox. I can take care of combing through the FF6 article when this thread is finished (I'm both an admin and a lead contributor to other Final Fantasy video game articles); it's the BLP articles that are going to need the real work, seeing the massive amount of content that had to get removed from them as G-Zay was the primary author. --PresN 19:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? "Final Fantasy VI was originally directed by series creator Hironobu Sakaguchi, but he eventually stepped down as director due to becoming too busy with other commitments at the time." is in the lede with no source and no mention in the article and was added by G-Zay. That jumps right at out at me. And the edit summary is 'all sourced' with the issues as the m.o. of G-zay. [47] Could you double check it real quick? And secondly, I find no German magazine by the name of 'Gamezone'. A legit Japanese magazine and a terrible U.S. magazine existed, but even counting a translation issue, the closest source would be the new 'Spielplatz' magazine and it most certainly did not do an interview with Ito in volume 57... And as everyone should know, Volume represents the number of years the magazine has been in existence and not the issue number. I'm moving to ban and purge. Real information mixed in with deliberate hoaxes. This kind of thing is inexcusable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I removed his contributions from the "creation" section; I haven't touched the lead yet or any other section. I'm sure his edits to the lead refer to things that have now been removed from "creation" and will need to be removed as well. I'll be going through all his contributions to the article later today. --PresN 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only blanked the pages because there was the potential for so much harm occurring, and it was best to take the precaution of that instead of waiting for our reputation to be destroyed. I'm sure he hasn't touched all of the article, so that should be kept in mind when reviewing and selectively adding things back in. I just reverted this edit from earlier which includes an unexplained refactoring of the information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some of G-Zay's edits, not that they were so contentious, but the communities trust in him have been questioned and rather then coming to a notified ANI, G-Zay insisted on putting back information. Here is my revert at Hiroyuki Ito. [48] While it is bold, I believe that this user should not be placing anything into these pages. The edit to respond to the axing was 'updating with verified sources'.[49] Despite the questioned material remaining with, while self cut down in this edit,[50] this is not good response to an ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a final warning has been issued on G-Zay's talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't actually see Chris' notice until later, but I don't suppose it will hurt at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first learned about what G-Zay had done to the encyclopedia, I was bewildered by what has happened. While something really needs to be done here at this point, I agree that the final warning would not hurt unless G-Zay ignores it. I assume that G-Zay was doing things in good faith, but I feel that he is chronically incompetent. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly... I do not think it is a matter of (in)competence. Quite clearly, we have valid and well written material mixed with false material that is supported via filled out templates and such. It is more unnerving because incompetence would be material that is easily disproven or amiss right from the beginning, this is far worse because the references were filled out with the templates and they consisted of foreign language print media that is not online and very hard to come by. And some of the false material cites an existing source that is mixed in with real material. The deliberate creation of false references to fake material which does not exist is not a matter of 'competency', it is a simple matter of bad faith. A clerical error for page or dates is fine, but making them up and fabricating sources for any purpose is wrong. Even more so that it was used to compel a company or the subject to respond to this false information. G-Zay is plenty competent and appears to be gloating about the material with the alias of Galvinator, G-Zay should speak up about this or face ban for the confirmed hoax material already known and done under the Wikipedia account alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. At first, I thought what G-Zay contributed was useful, but after learning about what had happened over the course of a few months, my opinion him mostly changed. I think this is kind of like a certain incident involving User:Legolas2186, who was also involved in creating hoaxes in Wikipedia. The evidence is way beyond my control to stand up for him now. Something truly needs to be done about this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Making this for evidence with diffs or other details that shows G-zay is not here to build an encyclopedia.

1. Added deliberate false information in this edit.[51] iOS Gamer magazine does not exist. The real iOS Gamer is a wordpress last active in 2011. Later changes magazine to the nonexistent iOS Gamezone. [52] Which also doesn't exist. A real Japanese and U.S. magazine named Gamezone existed, but not a German one and definitely not with 57 volumes (years of publication) when removed by an IP editor.[53] Content remained for a month. (Added by ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

What GZay has done has caused some consternation between myself and other users. These edits are profoundly detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. I will add some more evidence a little later. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ban discussion

• Support ban for the obvious reasons. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban Per reasons above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban per the above reasons. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia is seriously unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - Confirmed systematic creation of hoaxes and is not an isolated case, it disrupts and poisons Wikipedia's articles including our FAs. Off wiki interaction aside, the edits alone are enough to warrant ban even without confirmation on G-zay = Galvanizer identity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - I still want to see difs before this happens, but if true, and unless he gets on his hands and knees to ask for a topic ban and ongoing supervision, he can't be trusted to edit on his own at all. It is a real shame. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - Per arguments given, and the fact that 1) He hasn't bothered to come defend himself and 2) his only reaction to all of this seems to be "Darn, the company didn't confirm or deny my hoax theory directly". That's all he seems to care about, not that he's used Wikipedia as a medium for knowingly spreading lies and trying to trick companies into disclosing information to him. WP:NOTHERE. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban massive waste of other editors time in fixing the mess he's created. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban manipulating Wikipedia through false sources in order to further manipulate a company is disgusting behaviour, and for fear of WP:NLT I would also say borderline (if not over the line) illegal. There's no place on this project for that level of discrediting activity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban on grounds of betrayed trust. Shii (tock) 16:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban This type of thing is extremely troubling. The evidence I see is enough to make me believe the editor may be passionate about these topics, and I don't believe his intention was to hurt Wikipedia, but nonetheless that's exactly what he could have done, assuming the damage isn't done already. We can't trust people like these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban - Hello. I think I should chime in here seeing as I'm the centre of this discussion. I freely admit to posting poorly referenced information on Wikipedia. Granted, not 100% of my contributions have been poorly sourced and anybody who has closely monitored my contributions can testify to that; there have been numerous legit and well referenced contributions I have made. However, I've abused the system and my knowledge. If I knew something as fact but couldn't find a valid reference for it, I would add it anyway and include a reference to verify it, usually from one of the official books in Japanese. In essence, what I was doing was not spreading lies, but spreading the truth with references that were lies. I freely testify that my action was wrong. I also believe that this method of contributing gave me the motivation and drive to write such lengthy and in-depth articles for the Hiroyuki Ito and Motomu Toriyama pages. Looking back, I feel I became absorbed in my own deceitful tactic and used it as a spring board to write such long articles. It was even worrying for me as when I looked back at those aforementioned pages, I saw bloated and excessive articles that lacked brevity; I went overboard with how much content I added and how much detail I provided, even if I knew that it was all true. A simple short bio and table of works would have been suitable for most readers. Anyway, I digress. I support this ban for two reasons:

1. My actions have been wrong and I believe I should be excluded from editing ASAP. I say this for the sake of Wikipedia readers, other contributors and for my own psychological well being. If nobody discovered what I was doing, I fear it would have eventually spread over to other pages outside of Square Enix staff.
2. It's become an addiction for me. Not just my misleading edits, but editing Wikipedia in general. It was something I started just correcting some spelling and grammar and it has now evolved into typing entire, lengthy pages with fake references. I think my ban is a much needed rehabilitation.

Having said all this, I apologise for my actions. If possible, please IP ban me, too. That way I will have no way to edit pages should the temptation crawl back. Once again, my sincere apologies to you all. I saw a gap in the reference system and abused it to the point of it almost becoming a natural way for me to contribute. Please make sure I can never do such a thing again. I only hope there are other people out there that are as knowledgeable about Square Enix staff as I am and also have the references to back up their contributions. Thanks for reading and sincere regards. --G-Zay (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, your apology has been accepted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ban - Since the user himself agreed and requested a full ban/block, I was about to go ahead and implement it, but then remembered I had opened the December AN/I thread and that my neutrality could be in question; I'll let another admin complete this. But I'd like it to be noted that the ban is community-endorsed, but also endorsed by the user himself, and that should hold weight if an eventual return to editing is requested. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]