User:AndyTheGrump removed a number of adequately sourced entires in List of deprogrammers‎ [1] under the guise of violations of WP:BLP. I had previously re-enstated the names, however I had then gone ahead and added references as requested by other editors in order to comply with BLP.

User:AndyTheGrump removed these new additions (which had taken me a few hours to research, btw) - and couldn't adequately explain why, despite repeated requests. He has threatened me with banning[2] and has made several personal attacks against me, calling me a liar, and qualifying my mistaken addition of a duplicate source as intentional trickery. [3]

After calling for a RFC on the article in question[4] Andy decided to add a non-neutral comment within the filing, effectively poisoning the well against me in the eyes of any eventual neutral third party.

This user is disruptive, uncooperative, and refuses to see things objectively. Zambelo; talk 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the sub-title from notable deprogrammers to known deprogrammers, and unlike the initial list, none of your additions have articles. So Grumpy might well be concerned that you're creating a list that does not pass muster, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even noticed the title change, actually - I was focusing on trying to integrate and format the new references... Zambelo; talk 05:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to first create articles for the individuals you're trying to add, and prove their notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo has already created several articles on this topic concerning individuals of questionable notability (judging by the currently-running AfD's) - I don't think that more of the same would be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying he's doing things backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've created one or two and contributed to others. The issue I've had is that the article stubs have been nominated for deletion just weeks after creation. And as I've mentioned, there has been a concerted effort to delete anti-cult movement-related articles by certain editors. Some of these individuals may not be notable enough to merit an article (and some are, but let's not get into that), but are certainly notable enough to be included in a specific list on the topic, as they are referenced in secondary sources as deprogrammers/exit-counselors. Zambelo; talk 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of nefarious motives is not the way to win support. If you create an article on any subject, it is subject to the "notability" question. Being "known" and being "notable" are not necessarily the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of filing a report here [...]

(as I had informed Zambelo after a recent post at WP:BLPN) - my report follows:

As a previously-uninvolved person, I recently came across two related threads at WP:BLPN [5][6], concerning the actions of User:Zambelo, who has been adding, against a clear consensus, names of (presumably) living persons to a List of deprogrammers and Template:Opposition to NRMs. Given that the source being cited for incusion [7] merely names these individuals as being included in "Rolodex files" of the Cult Awareness Network. it seems self-evident that reliability is open to question, never mind establishing the level of notability required to merit inclusion in templates ands lists. Despite the issues with this source being made entirely clear at WP:BLPN, Zambelo chose yet again to add the names to the list [8] - citing the same questionable source twice under slightly different names where previously it had been given once. Since this was not only clearly a WP:BLP violation, but grossly misleading, I reverted it, and warned Zambelo that were the names added again without consensus, I would raise the matter here. Though Zambelo has not as yet done so, s/he has repeated the same stonewalling behaviour and refusal to address the legitimate concerns over sourcing that were raised at WP:BLPN, and has deleted my response to a RfC that s/he started at Talk:List_of_deprogrammers [9]. I note that this is not the first time Zambelo's behaviour over this issue has been raised here [10], and I further note that User talk:Zambelo contains much evidence of previous questions relating to edits concerning cults, new religious movements and the like. Frankly, it seems evident to me that Zambelo has far too much emotional involvement regarding this issue (why, I don't know - though it doesn't really matter under the circumstances), and given the sensitive nature of such topics, combined with a clear inability to listen to the advice of experienced contributors, I have to once again, propose, as was done in the previous ANI thread that Zambelo be topic-banned. I realise that there was little traction for this proposal in the previous thread, but it seems to me that his/her behaviour since suggests not only an unwillingness to learn, and to listen to advice, but also something which was not previously apparent - a willingness to engage in fundamentally dishonest behaviour, as evinced by the duplicate citation of a single source under slightly differing names. Given that we frequently place our trust in contributors when it comes to accurate reporting of sources (e.g. when material isn't verifiable online), such dishonesty must be considered significant in such circumstances, and that this, combined with a general battleground attitude, provides sufficient grounds to exclude this contributor from topics that need careful and circumspect editing, and adherence to the highest standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: As I mentioned, I had added new references, a fact that Andy has completely disregarded. The discussion on the BLP noticeboard was in relation to the template, and I have adequately explained myself there as well as on the talk page for the Opposition to NRMs template talkpage.

As much as andy would like to obfuscate the issue, combining the discussion regarding the template with the discussion of the list, they are two separate issues, with separate ongoing discussions surrounding them. What we are discussing here is the reversal of the referenced content on List of Deprogrammers, and the then ongoing refusal to listen to reason. In contrast, I have always been part of the conversation regarding these issues: in fact it was to comply with the BLP questions[11] that I researched and then added new references supporting the inclusion of the names, a well-intentioned edit that Andy instantly reverted citing BLP violations [12] - and has refused to answer why.

The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors - and this was never discussed on the article pages in question, and there was no attempt at getting outside look through a RFC: it went straight to the BLP noticeboard. The source you cite here is a secondary source mentioning the rolodex, not the rolodex itself, btw.

Instead of removing entries that he had an issue with, Andy decided to revert the entire edit, which I had spent hours looking up. When asked why, he refused to answer, saying only that there was a "duplicate" source, without going into any more detail.

If there was an issue with a source, why not remove one of the duplicates, and remove the entry if it was in violation of BLP?

My "behaviour" has never been an issue. It is easy to verify that I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles relating to New Religious Movements, while there has been a sustained attempt to destroy them over the past week by several editors. The only emotional attachment I have with the articles is in relation the the amount of time I have spent on them, only to have them torn down by a small concerted group of editors over the past week or so.

I propose that Andy be topic banned, and banned from contacting me in future.

I'm happy to answer any questions in relation to specific edits. Zambelo; talk 05:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors" - that just about sums the issue up here. Zambelo has decided that a mere mention on a Rolodex file is enough evidence of notability to merit inclusion in a controversial list, and anyone arguing the contrary is doing so because of 'POV'. And I should be topic banned for this 'POV', should I? For arguing that the source shouldn't be used, after coming across the issue at WP:BLPN? And expressing an opinion concerning a topic I can't even recollect contributing to before? My comments regarding this issue have been confined solely to WP:BLP issues regarding notability, and to the suitability of sources - I've not expressed an opinion one way or the other concerning the topic, and quite possibly don't know enough about it to do so. Evidently though, the mere fact that my opinion (as a long-term contributor familiar with policy) differs from Zambelo's when it comes to the inclusion of these particular names based on questionable sources is grounds for a topic ban? Nope - and I have to suggest that this ridiculous proposal to ban me from a topic I have shown little evidence of being interested in will be seen for exactly what it is - further evidence of the battleground mentality of a contributor clearly incapable of neutral editing - a contributor with an axe to grind, and with little inclination to do anything but engage in the very POV-pushing that s/he accuses others of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Your proposal to topic ban Andy will not fly. And I see nothing in this thread that warrants that Andy be topic-banned. And on a side note: When Andy states something about a WP:BLP issue, he is often, if not usually, correct. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I rescind my proposal for a ban - I'm sure Andy thought he was doing the right thing based on the limited information he could see on the BLP noticeboard. In this case however, he is wrong. Zambelo; talk 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a content dispute in general, and specifically a violation of the way lists are supposed to be created, especially lists of living persons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that Andy has acted improperly here and there are certainly no grounds for a topic ban. I suggest that this discussion returns to the talk page of the article(s) in question where it belongs.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a report asking for Zambelo to be topic banned. Should we not at least discuss the matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. (And I'm not even going to comment on the silly tit-for-tat proposal concerning Andy). In the past few weeks, several AfDs have been running in which Zambelo diplays a basic misunderstanding of what reliable sources are, what constitutes in-depth coverage and time and again fails to comply with AGF. As Andy says, their apparent emotional involvement with the topic is simply too much. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note that Randykitty isn't neutral in this, and has a COI in this matter, having, over the period of the past week or so proposed multiple articles for deletion that I had been working on. I would invite any editors here to look at his editing history over the past week.

As I've already mentioned, I have no emotional involvement in the content, but I dislike people wasting my time. Proposing multiple articles for deletion, and ganging up as a group of three to ensure they are deleted is both unethical and bypasses due process. Zambelo; talk 11:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh YES! Please follow Zambelo's advice and compare my edit history with theirs (last week, last year, any period you like). Meanwhile, Zambelo could read up on the difference between COI and involved. And as far as I am concerned, I only got involved (in the WP sense, as simply !voting in an AfD normally does not make one involved.) because of Zambelo's tendency to accuse everybody who disagrees with them of having a POV. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this attempt to circumvent an ongoing AfD heading for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't circumventing, that was me agreeing with Drmies proposition to merge the article, since the article was clearly going to be deleted, despite new references being added. "Circumventing", that's a bit rich coming from an editor who has been consistently bypassing deletion procedures. I've made a statement here sharing my concerns, along with those of other editos regarding COI and editors involved in Landmark editing, which lists the articles targeted relating to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article, about a documentary critical of Landmark. I think it's rather plain what is going on here. Zambelo; talk 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Zambelo, I've had it, this is one personal attack too many. Your "evidence" at the ArbCom request is that I !voted deleted where you thought that was wrong. You have been warned more times than I care to count to assume good faith. Please either provide evidence of me having a COI and circumventing deletion procedures or apologize. Barring that, I will call for you to be blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack, it's a remark on your editing history. I apologize if you feel it's a personal attack. My comment about you circumventing deletion procedures was a remark on your disinterest in discussing references, while actively seeking to delete multiple articles simultaneously, without giving me a chance to properly discuss the issue, the references, or the deletion proposal. I've brought this up numerous times in the AFDs[13]. Zambelo; talk 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Block requested. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could have a look at the above paragraph, just compounding the personal attack on me. I note that this is not the first time and that Zambelo has been warned to assume good faith multiple times. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Block - support TBAN as absolute minimum. *Support topic ban for Zambelo. User violates BLP, repeatedly pushes the same poor sources, reacts antagonistically to any disagreement, and seems entirely too emotionally involved in the small area they have chosen to edit to contribute neutrally there. If some of "their" articles have been deleted, well, that speaks more to the nature of the POV "walled garden" they were tending than any "gang of three" they imagine exists. User seems only capable of viewing disagreement as signifying membership of an opposing cabal - they should consider that the reality is that this is not the case, and that other editors are merely trying to maintain a neutral, BLP compliant encyclopedia. Begoon ^talk 11:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources are poor? How was this determined? There was never a discussion regarding the sources, the articles were simply listed for deletion, leaving me scrambling to try and save them, because there are in fact notable in the scope of New Religious Movements - which you would know if you looked at the sources I was providing. I have been a constructive editor to many New Religious Movement articles, not because of some supposed emotional attachment, but because I find the topic interesting. Maintaining a BLP compliant wikipedia is fine - and I have complied barring a few reversions in two articles, (which btw, I hold were adequately sourced, but which Randykitty et al. refused to discuss) - and even then after eventual discussion (which they chose to hold directly on the BLP noticeboard instead of the talk page) I accepted the consensus and went looking for more sources to comply with BLP issues raised - the references I found were from noted academics - religious scholars specialising in New Religious movements - so your assertion that I "push the same poor sourcesW is unfounded. All of what I say here is easily verifiable - I don't know what motives, if any, the three editors had to delete the articles without first attempting to discuss the issues or even look for sources, but I do know that out of 13 articles connected to the original Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous only 3 now remain after two weeks of deletions, by the same people who were pushing to delete the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article in the first place. Zambelo; talk 13:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issues are well described by Andy above. There are many additional examples in the linked discussions and articles of inappropriate sourcing, often due to (AGF here) a misunderstanding of when primary sourcing is appropriate - clue: very limited circumstances. You start from the wrong place, Zambelo - you have something you wish to include, then try to work out how you can shoehorn it in, and fight like hell with anyone who disagrees. Then they are enemies. Is it a gang of 4 yet? Or 5? Don't forget Andy. That's not what we do here - we see what reliable sources have deemed worthy of mention, and include it, if and only if it is due, relevant, BLP compliant, and improves and serves a neutral article. You have the cart before the horse. I fixed your comment formats/indents again - please try to use proper indents etc. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "gang" was in reference to the editors pushing for deletion, and bypassing due process. The articles were being deleted because of notability concerns, and so I attempted to demonstrate notability by integrating new references into the article - because this is how you show notability - through secondary sources. Don't be snide, please. Zambelo; talk 14:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't be snide please"? I've fixed up your comments here 5 times now - don't be lazy and inconsiderate please. You've made a personal attack on Randykitty. Don't attack folks please. You asked for a topic ban on Andy. Don't come here with ridiculous trumped up demands to try and head off a legitimate complaint please. Is that enough pleases yet? I could find more. Begoon ^talk 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And please stop talking about deletions bypassing due process. Each and every deletion has been after a regular AfD that was open for at least 7 days. Nothing improper here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to religion. cults and psychological counseling, very broadly construed. First of all, the editor is way to emotionally invested ever to be able to edit in this topic area with sufficient detachment and objectiveness. Second, the editor has demonstrated a high level of battleground behavior and even sneaky trickery on several AfD's, and seems incapable of working cooperatively and civilly with editors with who he disagrees, of which there are several other seasoned editors besides Andy. His "gang" comments in this thread are particularly disturbing. Third, there is a major lack of competence as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned, especially WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and no apparently willingness to address that deficiency. Fourth, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply. And last of all, the editor has made quite a mess that needs to be cleaned up by multiple AfD's. Sorry, but I would also support an indefinite site ban. I've seen this type of editor before and the experience was harrowing. Let's nip this in the bud. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban of Zambelo on all articles related to religion, per Dominus Vobisdu. This sort of behaviour and this sort of editor is nothing new and I (clearly not alone) am tired of it. Encyclopedia, not soapbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Strong arguments have been made for a topic ban which I support, though I do not think Zambelo is the only one guilty of violations. We might need to put in places stronger policies for sensitive topics. Articles related to religion are always sensitive and people have a tendency to want to block those who do not share their own POV. Dominus Vobisdu suggest an indefinite topic ban based on violating several policies. I'd be inclined to think the same should apply to the user, who is happy to ignore ongoing discussions to push their own WP:POV, more interested in reverting than discussing, and with a blatant disregard for WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Just like they accuse Zambelo of nothing being here for the right reasons, Dominus Vobisdu is quite clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to religion in an WP:NPOV way. We'd need more users who are willing to discuss and find consensuses, less users who revert at sight without providing any topic-related arguments just because it suits their WP:POV. Policies that would limit blanket reverting without discussing, or discussing without providing factual arguments, may be helpful on many sensitive area.Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So did you have a comment on this discussion about Zambelo, or a recommendation as to how to proceed? I'm not clear from what you say. Begoon ^talk 15:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, apparently I mistakenly deleted the first part of my comment before posting. I said that I fully support a topic ban for Zambelo based on the evidence provided here, but that I think the blame is not only on them. That was not the exact sentence, but the essence of what was deleted. I then proceeded to say how articles related to religion are always sensitive and that some who accuse Zambelo, particularly Dominus Vobisdu, appear to behave no different themselves.Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't be sorry. My fault entirely. I didn't see the part where you fully supported the topic ban, which I appreciate, and I erroneously focused on the part where you discussed the other !voter instead. Peace. Begoon ^talk 15:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now re-edited my comment to make my position clearer.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's much clearer now you added the first bit. I'm sorry for my confusion. If you have concerns about another editor, I'd generally recommend a separate process because there are, believe it or not, a few other folks as slow on the uptake as me, when rushed, who could get similarly confused. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. This user has a very poor understanding of our sourcing requirements and is extremely belligerent. Zambelo has disrupted multiple AfDs with underhanded tactics to try to avoid an inevitable delete consensus on articles Zambelo thinks they WP:OWN. Any disagreement is met with ultra-defensive ranting and accusations of bad faith. This user is clearly not a net positive. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The entire article has now been blanked. Might as well finish it off and delete it. Looks like Andy got his way. What a shame, again. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot more than this one article out there. Zambelo has made quite a large mess, with a bunch of articles winding their way through AfD at the moment and more on the way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would you ever justify a topic ban here? The editors voting for my ban have a COI in this matter, and have previously been edit warring over several articles, attempting to push their POV. This is all verifiable. I have been a productive editor to the topic, in fact, if you consider the spate of recent article deletions, I am the only editor currently actively productively contributing to articles on the topic. I invite editors to look at the entire story, stemming from the edits to Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous, which I attempted to save (unsuccessfully) from deletion which then caused a flurry of deletions on articles relating specifically to that article, and anti-cult articles in general. Editors responsible for the deletion of the Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article have been working in tandem to ensure the deletion of these articles, by flooding the voting system, thereby bypassing correct AFD procedure. There was never any discussion on the article pages on how they could be improved' nor did any of these editors make any attempt at searching for new material or references. My attempts at trying to save these articles on notable individuals from deletion by 1) Finding new references to support notability 2)Voting to keep them from being deleted may have come across as belligerent, but this is because I was actively attempting to save these articles from being improperly deleted without discussion. The only form of "discussion" came when I was reported (by one of editors making the deletions) to the BLP noticeboard - and unfairly portrayed as a disruptive editor, when all I had done was revert two articles a few times, because these editors disagreed with my inclusion of adequately sourced content. I leave it up to my peers, really. It's easy to join a witch-hunt, but I invite you to have a look at the entire story before banning me on the accusations of a few biased and annoyed editors. Either way, this will be my last post on Wikipedia for a good while, I expect the deletions to continue unabated and unchecked. Peace. Zambelo; talk 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy your break. I'm rather hoping one of the first things you'll do on your return will be to apologise to "The editors voting for [your] ban" for your accusations of "COI", "edit-warring", "attempting to push their POV", collusion, bias and vote-stacking. I know, as one of them, I, at least would appreciate that, since the accusations are utterly baseless and I find them rather offensive. That's what we mean by personal attacks, by the way. Begoon ^talk 04:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've previously filed for a TBAN on this editor for the exact same reason. This will be the fourth time he's been shown to violate WP:BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Would someone care to wrap up this set of threads with some kind of a close? It would be a shame to let all this pretty prose get archived without some kind of closure. Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be fundamental WP:BLP issues in our coverage of 'deprogramming'

Having looked into the underlying topic here - that of so-called 'deprogramming', I have to suggest that there are fundamental WP:BLP concerns raised. Specifically, the 'deprogramming' article states in the lede that "Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved, and deprogramming has been shown to result in PTSD". On this basis, the inclusion of any person in a 'list of deprogrammers' amounts to an accusation of criminal activity - clearly a breach of WP:BLP policy unless the individual has been convicted of such activities. Were it not for my prior involvement in this discussion, I'd be tempted to blank the 'list' immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the 'list of deprogrammers' article again, I note that the present version (with the questionably-sourced individuals discussed removed) provides only one citation for a criminal conviction - where it states that Galen Kelly was "Convicted of kidnapping Debra Dobkowski in May 1992". Our article on Kelly however states that the kidnapping conviction was overturned. Given that Zambelo had edited the Kelly article five times, I think we can safely assume that s/he had read it - and accordingly I think we need an explanation from Zambelo as to why the 'list' describes Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, given that s/he must have been aware that this statement was false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The charges were for kidnapping, not deprogramming. Furthermore, deprogramming wasn't (and still isn't - illegal), the methodology has changed however. Kelley was convicted of kidnapping. The fact that his conviction was later overturned after he served time is irrelevant - he was still convicted of kidnapping. You are not following the references here, and are entering the realm of Original research. There is no connection between being a deprogrammer and being a convict. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly qualify as an "Oops!" In general, would you say that unless someone is convicted of something, they don't belong on the list? What if they claim to be deprogrammers, and neutral sources back up that claim, but they don't happen to have committed any crime? But what I'm really curious about is the editor's motivation or interest in creating and/or expanding the list. Is he in favor of deprogramming and is trying to promote deprogrammers? Or is he opposed to deprogramming and is trying to expose them? Either way, it seems shaky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither - I'm interested in establishing a neutral article about deprogrammers, which were an integral part of the anti-cult movement and relate to my larger interests on New religious movements. The facts are that deprogrammers did exist, and during the time they were active (and to this day) are notable as either "cult experts", "counsellors", "deprogrammers" or all of the above. Deprogramming was a profession back in the day, not a conviction title. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that having been asked why the list stated that Kelly had been convicted of kidnapping, but failed to note that the conviction had been overturned, Zambelo is claiming that s/he "knew nothing of the kind - the references said he was convicted". [14] This is despite having edited the Kelly article six times - an article that starts the penultimate paragraph with the prominent statement "Kelly's conviction was overturned in 1994 by the appeals court because of prosecutorial misconduct". I invite all those reading this thread to look at the Galen Kelly article, and ask themselves whether it appears remotely plausible that anyone reading the article could possibly miss this statement. I for one find it impossible to believe - and if it were to be true, I would have to suggest that it would demonstrate a lack of competence to be editing such sensitive material anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Deprogramming. God, that's a mess. A statement in the lead "This was started in 19xx by name" with no citation. It just lurches on from one POV statement to the next, all the way through the article. The whole article screams POV piece. I considered making some edits, but WP:TNT keeps springing to mind. You kicked over an anthill, Andy. One that needed kicking over, I think. Begoon ^talk 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambelo has now clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that s/he is completely and utterly incapable of understanding elementary WP:BLP policy.

On being asked once more why the 'list' described Galen Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, when the Kelly article (which Zambelo had repeatedly edited, and must have read) made it entirely clear that Kelly's conviction for kidnapping had been overturned, Zambelo posted the following:

"Gallen Kelley was convicted, you understand. His conviction was overturned after he served time, but he was convicted of kidnapping." [15]

Given this unequivocal demonstration of either gross incompetence or a complete refusal to even make a pretence at complying with elementary WP:BLP policy, I have to suggest that the proposed topic ban discussed is insufficient, and that we should be instead discussing an indefinite block for Zambelo, on the grounds that he cannot under any circumstances be trusted to comply with Wikipedia policy. That anyone should think that it is remotely acceptable to assert in an article that Kelly (a living person) was convicted of a serious crime without also stating that the conviction was overturned is beyond belief - yet Zambelo is arguing exactly that. S/he is a menace to Wikipedia, and needs to be immediately and unceremoniously thrown off the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already altered my vote above to support a block, before you posted this. That's just incredible, though - we can't tolerate a cavalier and biased approach like that towards the lives of real people. I fear we may have some substantial work ahead cleaning up the damage in this "walled garden" they have created, but it certainly can't continue. Begoon ^talk 15:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances of Galen Kelly's conviction and that conviction's subsequent overturning and the other events in that saga are much more complex than Zambelo's comment makes it seem. I can't tell if Zambelo is incompetent or if he's pushing an agenda, or both - but no matter what, he's got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the rest of the articles and contributions, Bugs. I promise you all will become clear. Begoon ^talk 16:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

Checking Zambelo's edit history, I note that beyond cult/'deprogramming' related issues, s/he has edited few other topics. Two that stand out are Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician). Interestingly, User:Sfacets, a former contributor blocked back in 2008 having 'exhausted community patience' and a confirmed sockpuppeteer, [16][17] likewise took an interest in the cult/deprogramming issue - for example adding a huge slew of articles to Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals in November 2007 - and likewise significantly edited the Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician) articles [18]. Furthermore, a confirmed Sfacets sock, User:Couchbeing, had taken an interest in the 'deprogramming' article - and had edited the Galen Kelly one. While it is entirely possible for multiple people to take an interest in the cult/deprogramming topic (and be promoting a similar POV), and simultaneously to be interested in Sahaja Yoga (itself a cult-related topic, according to some opinions) just how likely would it be that both Zambelo and Sfacets would also be making significant edits an article on a Pakistani American rapper if they were unconnected? I have to suggest that sockpuppetry seems a much more plausible explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree, as per WP:DUCK.Jeppiz (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem an unlikely series of coincidences. Zambelo has put a "vacation" template on his/her user page. I'm sure they'll address this, too, when they return. On the other hand, and at the risk of assuming bad faith, I guess we should also consider, given this, that Zambelo may not necessarily return as Zambelo. Begoon ^talk 11:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Close requested. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to WP:ANRFC, but that's stupidly long at the moment. (This is #73) Agree it needs formal closure before the archive bot kicks in. Begoon ^talk 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

Yes. Yet another Ryulong (talk · contribs) thread. This time he mass-deleted language articles just by labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields:

• languages with ISO 639-3 codes (i.e., Ethnologue entries): Tokunoshima language[47], Okinoerabu language[48], Yoron language[49] and Northern Okinawan language[50], and
• their supergroups: Amami–Okinawan languages[51], Amami languages[52], Amami language[53], Okinawan languages[54] and Kunigami language[55],

where I contributed substantially using a dozen of published sources (some of which are available online). This is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen since I joined Wikipedia in 2003.

Of course, labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields alone does not justify mass deletion. Otherwise one can revert any change s/he does not like. So his comment is synonymous with "I HATE YOUR EDIT!!!"

Ryulong is a regular at this incident noticeboard and is very familiar with 3RR and other conflict related stuff. But he has a fundamental misunderstanding on what Wikipedia is. Given the fact that he is an experienced user, there appears no hope that he would amend his behavior. I think the only feasible solution is to keep him out of Wikipedia. Any suggestions (especially on procedural details)? --Nanshu (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RFC/U (that said, don't use such pejorative rhetoric there, or you won't get far) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I raised the edits in question on the Japanese WikiProject's page and another editor agreed that these divisions were not accepted by the linguistic community at large. The primary article on this language family only suggests that there are six when Nanshu created articles on five undiscussed languages. Nanshu has been particularly mad at me whenever I disagree with his edits, and this is frankly nothing new. He did not have to come here to this board first when he could have responded to the discussion at WT:JAPAN about his very issue. I see no such attempt. I will be restoring the articles to the versions prior to Nanshu's vast and u discussed changes, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Nanshu has also been warned in the past over his unnecessary attacks against me whenever I dispute his expertise on these topics. While I cannot easily access these threads in the notice board archives right this second,mother can be found. In fact, he was blocked earlier this year for disregarding the warnings he was given for his comments about me. He has called me a disaster at the langauges WikiProject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous thread is here which includes a warning from Atama, which resulted in a block in May of this year. Nanshu's comments at WT:LANG include claiming "Ryulong sees Wikipedia quite differently from us", has the gem that I am suffering from "Knowledgelessness (or simply ignorance)", "Unteachability and unwillingness to cooperate", claiming I am owning these pages, and referring to me as a "disaster". Atama specifically warned Nanshu that he was not to talk down to me as if he was a teacher and I was his failing student, and this is exactly what Nanshu has done, yet again. He may be a self proclaimed expert in these dying languages, but he cannot work with others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the real problem is Nanshu's dramaticism. The whole "this is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen" thing, and his acting like some sort of victim of abuse should be evidence of that. He insults Ryulong's competence at WT:LANG multiple times, which he has been blocked for in the past. He has made no attempt at discussion whatsoever, only his complaints here and at WP Languages. He can't deal with criticism and refuses to coöperate with anyone who opposes his views. I will also say that this AN/I post would be about me, or anyone for that matter, had I/someone else had reverted his edits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Also see this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The various languages for which User:Nanshu created articles (Toku-No-Shima, Yoron, Oki-No-Erabu) are listed as such, i.e. listed as languages, in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, published by Oxford University Press – definitely not a fringe publisher. The IEOL also points out that these languages have no mutual intelligibility with Kunigami, to which Ryulong has redirected them, so I think Ryulong is on shaky ground here content-wise – at any rate this is not a matter that is clear-cut enough for an admin to ride roughshod over a contributor who has invested quite a bit of work to expand content in this area. Andreas JN466 05:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that there are more sources that say there are only six languages in the chain, because traditionally each island claims to have its own language due to isolation and areas of mutual unintelligibility. There is very little coverage of the languages Nanshu made pages for anywhere online, and this is under more discussion at the langauges project. Nanshu simply has a history with me where he sees me as inferior to him in his knowledge on this subject and finds anything I do a danger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I believe the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics is quite authoritative. [56] (What content can be found online is really quite immaterial here.) 2. If you simply delete the content he creates, you should not be surprised that he sees you as a danger. Andreas JN466 05:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all I am aware is that for the past several years we have only acknowledged the existence of 6 languages native to the ryukyu chain, and not the 4 new ones he made pages on that are considered dialects of two others and the content fork he made for the fifth because he disagrees with the name given to the language, which is even in the ISO standard. If there's very little documentation on these languages in general, that means they are not accepted as being separate languages as much as they are even referred to as dialects of each other. I also don't know why he has been repeatedly removing the kanji and kana names of these languages from the articles in question, why he has been insistent in his talking down to me, and his complete abhorrence to attempt to form a consensus, as I had started a discussion on this before he flew in a rage here and at the linguistics project. Nanshu is the problem. My stance in not agreeing that these splits, expansions, and the such based on an extremely small handful of paper sources that for all I know do not even discuss these as separate languages but rather dialects within the larger languages (as he has completely ignored one island's supposed separate language) but rather his personal research that he is posting to Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that "more sources" say there are only six languages. If some reliable sources say there are six, and other reliable sources say there are more, then we can and should produce duly weighted material covering both viewpoints, and make a note of the fact that reliable sources disagree. What we do not do is cover only the majority viewpoint and make wholesale deletions of the minority viewpoint. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The minority view point has only ever been presented by Nanshu in the last 72 hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then he's in the wrong too, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. You must stop removing reliably sourced content. If you feel it doesn't represent the majority point of view, either add reliably sourced text giving that point of view, or tag the article with {{NPOV}} or some other maintenance tag so that others are aware of the problem and will take steps to fix it. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of reliable sources combine Amami (and its Northern & Southern split), Kikai (which Nanshu omitted), and Tokunoshima into one language (UNESCO) and Kunigami (what Nanshu redefined as "Northern Okinawa"), Okinoerabu, and Yoron into a second language (UNESCO, again). Nanshu produced these articles using minimal sourcing, reliable or not, to have an entire page full of the extensive IPA information. All of his articles rely on research performed by one individual years ago which defines all of these as dialects (because that's what the Japanese government considers them all) rather than unique languages. Much of the articles he produced were heavily unsourced, including the new classification systematics he came up with to categorize the several new articles he made to justify his rewrites and splits. All I did was restore status quo on something that was in effect a controversial decision. Just because it involves new articles does not make me any more wrong in my behavior than he has been acting.

And this is exactly how he has reacted to me adding information on other languages that he deems that I am a dunce in, such as the dispute over whether or not Hokkaido had a name in Ainu as seen here, the dispute over the use of ï at Kamuiyaki when I found sources that used "kamwiyaki" instead seen here, and a similar issue over the way to write the origin of the colloquial name of the New Ishigaki Airport as seen here. This is not, as Nanshu cries, an issue with me removing content. It is just Nanshu being unnecessarily combative whenever I challenge him and this needs to be stopped, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but look – you've simply gone and deleted his articles – articles on languages that are listed in the Oxford University Press International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I think that's more combative than his crying foul. I'd become combative if I were in his position. Andreas JN466 13:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say about the languages in said encyclopedia? Let's have a look. There's barely anything about them, and they're all listed under Japanese rather than independent entries that provide any level of information about the language. Because the majority of sources say that the languages he had created pages for are synonymous with each other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I linked to the relevant page above. For all of them, it says, "Inherent intelligibility is generally impossible or very difficult with other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese." (Note the phrasing "other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese".) Even if these are considered dialects by some scholars or politicians, there is no problem with having sourced articles about them, where such disagreements about classification can be mentioned. Wikipedia has lots of articles about language dialects, and rightly so, as each dialect has its own characteristics that can be studied and described (see Alemannic German etc.); and if there are sources about these properties that satisfy RS, then I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about them. Andreas JN466 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only just then saw that there's nothing in the book about them except the statement that there is "generally impossble" mutual intelligibility. This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. Every other source Nanshu exclusively used in the articles describes these as dialects (all Japanese sources do this). I do not see this listing in that encyclopedia (effectively one publication's insistence that Kunigami, Okinoerabu, and Yoron are all separate from each other) as reason enough to combine several sources describing them as "dialects" to produce all of the articles on the languages that Nanshu decided to make after he was bold enough to perform a major expansion on the original articles and call me a disaster and continually talk down to me, an act he was blocked for in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Ryulong employs the repeat-a-lie-100-times strategy here. He has never proved that I misrepresent a fringe theory as being mainstream. The meaning of "majority" in his mind is quite different from ours. He only relies on the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger. Just compare UNESCO, Ethnologue and Glottolog. You will see they present drastically different classifications. This inconsistency can be attributed to complicated isoglosses reviewed by Karimata (2000). Recent papers including Pellard (2009) and Lawrence (2011) demonstrate that this problem is unsettled. For a complete list of sources, see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong. Ryulong knows nothing about the research history I outlined. And do not forget the most important question: how does this justify mass removal of content with reliable sources? --Nanshu (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're presenting something which as far as I can tell from the research I've done, and the consensus that has existed on this site for years, is that you are presenting information which is not accepted by the mainstream. There should be more available on these proposed pages in any language than can be found. Below, WP:BOLD is cited by Rdfox 76. So that means WP:BRD should be followed. You were bold in your creation. I reverted (undid the split, and made pages redirects), and there should then be a civil discussion instead of you using your usual tactics of acting like a high and imghty tenured professor and I'm some student who just doesn't get it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, you say, This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. That's simply demonstrably false. For example, in addition to the highly reputable International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, we have Tomoko Arakaki (28 June 2013). Evidentials in Ryukyuan: the Shuri Variety of Luchuan: A Typological and Theoretical Study of Grammatical Evidentiality. BRILL. p. 7. ISBN 978-90-04-25340-7. This says, The contemporary regional varieties of Luchuan can be divided into two large major groups: Northern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the north, and Southern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the south (Uemura 1992). The Northern group is subcategorised into eight kinds of languages, and the Southern group is further subcategorized into three. The Northern varieties consist of Kikai-jima, North Amami Oshima, South Amami Oshima, Tokunoshima, Okinoerabu, Yoron, North Okinawan, and South Okinawan. The Southern varieties are: Miyako, Yaeyana, and Yonaguni (Uemura 1992[2003]; Shimoji & Pellard 2010). P. Heinrich wrote a book chapter on "The Ryukyuan languages in the 21st century global society", published by the University of the Ryukyus. Etc. The sources do not bear you out. As for the wider issue, firstly Wikipedia should reflect any diversity of opinion on whether these are languages or dialects, and secondly, why should it be improper for Wikipedia to have a well-sourced article on each of them? Sources are available. Andreas JN466 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this discussion should be happening at WT:JAPAN, where I first raised the issues of his edits, or WT:LANG where Nanshu also started a thread (that way I can pick apart the fact that he constructed IPA tables from sources that as far as I can tell do not use IPA to describe anything). The fact is that regardless of my own mistakes in not finding sources to support his edits, Nanshu has spent most of his edits in this content dispute personally attacking me. Perhaps I was wrong in reverting everything with the term "fringe theory" but Nanshu has spent as much time arguing that he is right and I am wrong as much as he has been calling my edits an act of violence (twice in this very thread), calling me a disaster and lacking knowledge amongst other attacks (in his thread at WT:LANG). Nanshu is being a drama queen about this all. Ever since he and I began having content disputes, he has failed to assume good faith in every instance. I have complained time and time again about his personal attacks towards me whenever we find ourselves editing the same article. I suffered from his attacks in 2010. It happened again in 2013, and I raised it for discussion when it happened again earlier this year. Nanshu has been warned in the past that he should not be talking to me as an inferior being or a child, and he was blocked for it but because he infrequently edits Wikipedia the block basically served no purpose. The only reason he is editing Wikipedia heavily now is because I dared to challenge his expertise. Why else is he constantly acting as if I killed his father and then shat on the grave?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want Nanshu to dial down the rhetoric, I recommend you lead by example rather than exceeding him. All of this is quite unbecoming. Take a break; you can do better than this. Andreas JN466 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have documented how Nanshu has done nothing but belittle me whenever I happen to get in his way over disagreements over dying Japanese languages. I do not deserve the abuse that he sends my way just because I disagree with his contributions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, note that Ryulong is trying to obscure the point. This is not split/merge stuff. What he is doing is complete removal of content with reliable sources. I don't think there is a way to defend his misconduct. ---Nanshu (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You split up two articles to make 5 new articles, one of which is just a content fork of one of the original articles, and I reverted that split. You don't go to ANI automatically to cry foul.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might I make a suggestion at this point from an outside non-admin perspective? Wouldn't the simplest solution here, the one that would likely result in the least gnashing of teeth, and the one that would resolve the situation in complete compliance with WP guidelines and policies, be to temporarily restore the articles and then immediately send them to WP:AFD? Do that, and we can get an outside consensus on whether these qualify for separate articles, or should be merged back into the original ones. The delay would also provide some time to determine if there are additional sources supporting the separate articles; remember, there is no deadline, so waiting a couple of weeks for a final resolution won't hurt anyone.

Without digging deeply into the issue, as this is NOT an area I hold any expertise in beyond one semester of Japanese in college--the second aborted when I realized that my mid-30s was too late to try and learn kanji--my personal opinion would be that Nanshu seems to have made a decent case, based on a reliable source; I don't know if I'd necessarily keep them as separate language articles, but at a minimum, I would retain the information in a merge rather than just revert to status quo ante. Ryulong, I understand that there may be past history involved, but even so, "Be Bold" is one of our pillars, and editors should not be chastised for performing major expansions to provide due weight to a reliably sourced opposition view, even if it hasn't been covered on Wikipedia before--PARTICULARLY in that case, actually; new, reliably sourced material should be welcome for examination and editing for weighting purposes. Only items already discarded by consensus as fringe theories, unsourced and controversial material, and items sourced to unreliable sources should be rejected out of hand. (However, this entire paragraph is my personal belief, based on a mildly inclusionist view of policy and the pillars. Either way, I suspect that an AfD would resolve the issue with much less shouting than an ANI...) rdfox 76 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's going to be some policy war on what constitutes the notability of a language. And, again, it's not a reliably sourced opposition view. He used Japanese language research papers defining these as "dialects" and their minimal listings in Ethnologue and that Oxford encyclopedia to justify completely renaming the Kunigami language as the "Northern Okinawan language" and produce pages on the other partially intelligible dialects, new pageso n his own personal means toc lassify allo f thepage s he made, and consistently removing any Japanese language text providing the names of the languages from the article without justifying why. I'm all for a discussion, which is why I started one at WT:JAPAN, but Nanshu went over my head to call for me to be banned because he's dramaticizing everything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I feel that by just blanking pages, Ryulong circumvents the normal deletion procedure, where we need a consensus to delete rather than to add. But I also want to ensure in the ANI that mass removal of content with reliable sources would not happen again. If this kind of violence is tolerated, Wikipedia has no future. --Nanshu (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop saying my edits to turn a bunch of pages into redirects is "violence"? This is ridiculous. This is my problem with Nanshu. He is playing the victim over content which isn't actually gone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Nanshu is objecting to the fact that you've reverted over 40 edits by him over the past three days across a range of articles. That's bound to piss someone off. I've seen milder actions described as wikistalking, bullying and harassment on this page.

In my view, this situation calls for wider input. The suggestion by rdfox 76 above is a good one. I propose we give Nanshu the time to bring the articles to the sourcing standard he would aspire to, and when he's done, let the community assess notability in a well-prepared AfD which right from the beginning presents all the sources used, and any other sources available that may impact notability (one that Nanshu seems to have missed is Noguchi's "Dialect acquisition and code-switching on Yoron Island", published in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics). Andreas JN466 17:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rdfox 76's proposal is fine. But Nanshu's behavior is not. He can object to the actions I've done without insulting my intelligence by acting as if he is a professor and I am a student he's given a failing grade.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wider input? Ryulong gets what Ryulong wants, if not by hook than by crook. Look at the history of Ultraman, a Japanese TV show that was widely syndicated in the US. The article had a picture of the hero fighting a monster, demonstrating what Ultraman looked like. Ryulong constantly edit warred to have a screenshot of Ultraman replaced by Japanese text from the opening credits, essentially the same as replacing a picture of Superman with the wrod "Superman!" When a long-term compromise was reached using both the image and the opening credit card (still in Japanese, although this is en.wikipedia) he basically vandalized the sceenshot, which was already a cropped, low res image, and made it of unacceptable quality.

At the same time he complained the picture was of low quality, and insisted on my talk page that I upload a screenshot from another episode more to his liking. He then removed the image, and edit warred to have it replaced with a hi-res image of Ultraman stolen from a commercial website that provided no attribution for its provenance. So now the article has meaningless opening credit shots as its main picture, and a hi-res image stolen from a commercial website offering no license for its use in the text. But Ryulong prefers the monster in that picture, so a stolen hi-res pic is fine. (In the meantime my original fair-use screenshot was deleted as an orphan.)

I have a real life, I don't have time to battle this shi..tuff. Users like Ryulong (who's been blocked how many times now?) make it impossible for adults to edit mainspace constructively. I suggest a

• Lengthy Ban by some admin familiar with all the cases against Ryulong on this board. Oh, and BTW, I am no expert, but I happen to have Cambridge's Languages of Japan and various books by Roy Andrew Miller that contradict Ryulong's bizarre assertion of "fringe theory" here. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis is making a mountain out of a mole hill in the content dispute we had at Ultraman where he was constantly upset that the screenshot he took and uploaded to Wikipedia (File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG) was repeatedly taken out of the infobox by other editors in favor of the show's Japanese (and English) title cards, as is standard practice on every other article on television programs. This is documented on the article's talk page at Talk:Ultraman#Why Can't We Have a Title Card at the Top? where another editor made a statement about the article's usage of Medeis's screencap in the infobox rather than the title card. At no point during the dispute was the file he had uploaded ever removed from the article. It was merely moved to a lower position, as seen here. Not to mention that he blanket reverted much of the article to a point he preferred, which included throwing the English title card into the infobox's "title" section and claiming that Japanese text has no place on an article on a Japanese topic. I could also point out Medeis's constant accusations of sockpuppetry whenever someone reverted him, or claimed vandalism (other reverts and other claims unsupported by policy going back several years). And he is really taking my request for a higher quality, but still small sized image as an unnecessary slight. And then when a different editor uploaded a different image to replace the one Medeis uploaded, Medeis began this narrative on the alternative image (File:Ultraman and Zetton in Thankyou, Ultraman.png) that because the uploader found the image online and uploaded it as a fair use image, it somehow counts as "stealing" because the website the image comes from was as he claims a "commercial website" and thus it was not valid fair use (my message to him here). I assume he's making the same statement about the completely different image I found that is in use on the article (File:Ultraman Festival 2013.JPG) because it's a clear photo from a press junket that has been resized rather than the grainy screenshot of a 1960s television show. This is not a reason to ban me. This is a reason to scold Medeis for holding this stupid grudge all because I dared to defy him, much like I dared to defy Nanshu. And "vandalizing the screenshot" when I resized it to comply with the non-free content policy. Please, Medeis. Grow up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've admitted my mistake and wrongdoings in regards to reverting Nanshu. This does not need to become a dogpile of more people who I've somehow slighted by daring to edit the same articles as they do and having some knowledge of policy and the topic that contradicts their actions as Medeis has made it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpile? He doesn't deny he downgraded the image or edit warred to have it deleted. Again we see Ryulong is a simple liar. He is the one who both insisted on my talk page that I upload some other image he preferred, and he is the one who downgraded the quality of the now deleted image (since the image was deleted after his edit warring, see an admin for its history). Nothing he says can be trusted, look at his block history, he should be banned for his endless disruption. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about a topic ban or a site ban? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a simple request to you, Medeis, to perhaps produce an image of better quality that more clearly depicted Ultraman and a monster he has fought. Anyone reading your talk page can see that. And I did not "downgrade the quality" of anything. I resized the file (an exact copy of this image in its original resolution can be found here) per WP:IMAGERES: "If you believe an image is oversized, either re-upload a new version at the same file location, or tag the image file page with a {{Non-free reduce}} template, which will place it in a maintenance category to be reduced by volunteers...". And I did not "edit war to have it deleted". You were the one edit warring over 3 years time to make sure the file you uploaded was at the top of the article. When the second file was uploaded, I removed it, you restored your file when it was replaced by the other editor, I restored your version, decided the other was better, you began your false accusations of not complying with policy, I reverted, self-reverted, self-reverted again, and then split the difference by uploading a third unrelated file with proper sourcing and attribution that clearly shows the subject of the article. This does not mean I deserve a ban. It means you deserve a trout because for someone who's been on Wikipedia this long, you should know the policies better than you're showing you do in your poor attempt to get me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ryulong is a proven liar whose statements are ingenuous. He's claimed above that he wanted a better quality image of an image whose resolution he himself decreased. There's no question of this, and any admin with access can see the edits--given the image was deleted after Ryulong's edit warring I cannot provide diffs, but anyone familiar with this page is also familiar with Ryulong's endless disruption on every front. The user needs a long term general blocking for his inability to deliberate and act civilly and in good faith, not a topic ban, a general blocking. Read his history and all will be obvious. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you actually reading anything I've said to refute your ridiculous claims? Your screen cap was shit quality. It was blurry. It did not clearly depict the characters in any way and I can prove that with the file that was mirrored on the Ultraman Wikia. I asked you if you could possibly procure a better looking screenshot but also reminded you that it had to be a certain set of dimensions because of the non-free content policy. I do not know why you are so fucking incensed over the fact that I changed the dimensions of the screenshot you uploaded in order to have it properly comply with WP:IMAGESIZE. Now get off your fucking high horse because all I ever fucking did was resize your grainy and poorly timed screenshot and dare to think someone else's discovery elsewhere on the Internet would be a better option even though you wiki lawyered five ways from Sunday any way you could have your version on the article and nothing from anyone else. Someone hat off this off topic garbage from Medeis, please, because it's clear he just will not accept that I know more about the non-free content policy than he does.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to interpret Ryulong's comments logically, but he appears to propose lots of new policies to Wikipedia. For example:

• We can be bold to mass-remove content with reliable sources, without discussion.
• If the title of a paper appears to be at odds with one's ideological agenda ("languages" and "dialects" in our case), it can be removed completely.

Will they be accepted by the community? The answer is obvious. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder if Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) still endorses Ryulong's mass removal of content with reliable sources. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My advice would be bring some of the disputed reliable source to WP:RSN. If they are deemed reliable by others who are uninvolved then I see no reason why the content should stay removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. The point here is mass removal. Actually, I posted a list of sources I cited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong and wait Ryulong to pinpoint the reason why each of them must be removed completely. If he would have done this, I would have gone to WP:RSN. --Nanshu (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. Mass does not equal total. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then help Ryulong. He has so many things to done to defend mass removal. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your sources for hese pages were minimal in content and context (some comprise one or two pages at times) and you seemed to be making much more out of 6 pages of Japanese text per subject than seemed possible. Not to mention that you cherry picked sources to prove that these dialects, as considered by the sources you gleaned and other existing sources, are languages unto themselves. Everything you wrote contradicts other articles on the project, and you still never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language. And additionally why you have constantly made ad hominem attacks whenever I dare contest something you've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a typical Ryulong thread. Extremely long but no substance. He keeps replying. It does not matter to him however pointless his comments are. He is just waiting people to get fed up. Unfortunately, this strategy is proven to be very effective. After all, we are volunteers. Life is short and we can use our limited free time better. This is done at the cost of the devastation of the community. It's clearly harmful to Wikipedia's development. I ask for you patience. This strategy shouldn't work any more.

The point is simple from the very beginning. Ryulong mass-removed content with reliable sources, without discussion. He fails to defend his action. And judging from his comments here, it is highly likely that he will do this kind of disruptive editing again. We need effective measures to prevent this from happening. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's because whenever someone raises a thread against me on this board it is always for a trivial reason that outweighs the policy violations perpetrated by the original poster. There is also a growing consensus at WT:LANG that supports my actions due to the fact that there is nothing out there that supports creating separate articles for these 3 dialects, completely renaming a language/dialect, and making up your own personal interpretation of the language families that contradict every other article on Wikipedia on the subject and the mainstream theories.

Nanshu, you keep saying I'm violent, a waste of time, devastating the community, etc. Stop it. I am tired of it. You have been berating me and talking down to me since at least 2011 when I dared to add "Aynu Mosir" to Hokkaido and it has colored every single conversation we have had since. You did not bother to participate in any of the conversations that had been started. You automatically cried "violence" and brought this to ANI. You've clearly not learned anything. You are not superior to me. I am not superior to you. We are equals on this website and perhaps it is your behavior that is the issue. I don't think I've ever seen you participate in any discussion that hasn't been made for the express purpose of getting rid of whatever I might have contributed to the project in the area of these dead and dying languages of the Japanese archipelago, and constantly rehashing arguments after you've disappeared for months and the conversation either came to a decision without you or just died on its own. No one should have to deal with someone as obstinant as you.

And it's not my fault Medeis decided to open up his own old wounds and cry foul over a deleted fair use image he uploaded that he thinks was vandalized when I made it 50% smaller.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for quoting, but I just remembered something after reading this:

• "never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language".

Nanshu has done this specifically before, where he went through many of the towns and villages of Okinawa Prefecture and removed some of the native names of the settlements[57][58][59], while leaving others alone[60][61]. He then ignored my demands for a reason for his actions[62]. This is obviously a pattern. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Irrelevant. Unless you explain how this justifies mass removal of content with reliable sources, you are dodging the most important question.
• Unsourced. Ryulong's unsourced claims are unverifiable.
• Covered by the "Folk terminology" sections in a much better way (with at least 8 reliable sources, accent information whenever available, etc).

--Nanshu (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your bold actions to split up two articles onto all of these content forks that your claiming have reliable sources, despite the fact there is no established consensus on Wikipedia or in the linguistic community for the terminology and divisions you employed. I hoped that by restoring things to as they were it would foster a civil discussion on the merits of your system, but your behavior makes that difficult.

What unsourced claims? Because I have sources. You just constantly reject them because you think I'm inferior to you.

You did nothing of the sort in the edits that Sturmgewehr88 addresses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks, revisited

Because he is not getting the desired results here or at the linguistics project, Nanshu is making baseless claims in an unprecedented attempt to discredit my opinion on the topic. He has accused me of being some sort of political activist violation WP:Advocacy because I think one language classification is better than the one he produced on all of the articles he's angry at me for reverting him on. This has got to stop. Nanshu cannot edit this project collaboratively if this is how he reacts to every single disagreement he has, as I have shown throughout the larger thread above in other diffs and conversations (more like berating lectures) I have had with him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong is doing an all-or-nothing game. He thinks he has a right to keep Wikipedia in the state of nothing unless he agrees to expand. This is not the way Wikipedia works. Admitting that mass removal of content with reliable sources (instead of merger, for example) was a mistake is the first step to depart from nothing. The most important question is left unanswered even though this thread is getting painfully long. It's clear who cannot collaborate with others. --Nanshu (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is going nowhere. Nanshu's argument for creating these content fork/fringe theory articles is falling apart on WT:LANG, the redirection of which articles is the whole basis of his complaint here. The fact that this whole time he's done nothing but belittle Ryulong with holier-than-thou rants that're stretching into WP:TLDR territory, coupled by the fact that not everyone agrees that his newly invented languages are even notable, just shows that this motion to block/ban Ryulong should be closed. I again stress Nanshu's over-dramaticism and total failure to coöperate constructively. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't believe he would refactor this section break. This thread has gone no where from the beginning. Was my stated rationale for the redirecting and u splitting wrong? Perhaps. But Nanshu cannot be worked with when he is challenged on his edits like this. He was bold, I reverted, and instead of civilly discussing its devolved to his usual attacks on me rather than my actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's a straw poll because he's not getting his way and he's framing this as "Nanshu vs. Ryulong" instead of actual discussions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on for 4 days now. It's clear that if administrator action hasn't been taken already, it won't be; this thread is now pointless. Would an admin please close this? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really love to stir shit up don't you Ryulong, how many ANIs a month you get? Loganmac (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a half of one. Now don't pile on because you hate the player and not the game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus I went back to edit my formating fuck up and you had already fixed it thanks, how many pages you watch, and how much time you spend on Wikipedia Loganmac (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiOriginal-9/Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer) and Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer) needs their history merged. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey attempted to close an RfC that I had originated less than 24 hours earlier. They seem to think that I was wrong to revert, but I see no justification for his closing an RfC without any prior discussion with me or anyone else. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listing alphabetically:

• Elvey attempted an inappropriate snow close of a < 24 hour 8-3 RFC with a snarky close statement that was as much about Rationalobserver as the content discussion [86], and twice templated rationalobserver [87][88]
• Rationalobserver is reverting the talk page message (which is fine, of course), with taunting edit summaries [89][90] which isn't so fine.

There's also this interchange on the Plagiarism talk page. I recommend both editors learn to engage each other (and the rest of Wikipedia) in a more positive and less confrontational manner. NE Ent 02:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Understood. When someone isn't listening, I shouldn't raise my voice to try and make myself heard. And if I misapplied what seemed to be the relevant clause from Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs: "However, if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.", I'm sorry. It seems I did; I misread the !votes as 5-0 (without Viriditas's or the OP's !vote) - a SNOW. In my defense, I acted after Flyer22 said, "Having two WP:RfCs going on regarding this matter is not productive, in my opinion, and is rather disruptive, especially since Rationalobserver does not seem to be truly considering anyone's viewpoint but his own".--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 06:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the last part of this edit is a canvass attempt to get editors to come here and boomerang me. I think this is highly inappropriate and ironically, boomerang worthy. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see two calls for the boomerang. "Be careful what you asks for", comes to mind. I kind of feel like if there's a reason for a boomerang effect it should go after both of you. But then I notice above that NE ENT offers some wonderful advice. So I wonder if the Boomerang should be secured in it's case?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NE Ent, and I pledge to make an effort in that regard, but canvassing editors to an AN/I discussion with the hope that they will facilitate a boomerang is inappropriate under any circumstances. Elvey was obviously wrong to close the RfC, so I fail to see why complaining about it here justifies a boomerang to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I miss where it has been determined that Elvey was obviously wrong in closing the RFC. Yes you determined that but aren't you here to see if others concur? Seeing NE Ent's comments above I see this canvassing as just another escalation in a fight that was escalating. Do we ban them because there escalation was worse than yours? I think perhaps we could just point out that Elvey's canvass was wrong, ask them not to do it again, make them aware of said policy, drop this stick, and perhaps y'all can attempt talking thru your dispute. But then I also notice that in the hatted comment on the topic page your issue was that they as an involved editor closed it. I'm not an involved editor and if there is no objection I could go in and do a snowball's clause close.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be pleasantly surprised if there's no objection to your offer to do a snowball's clause close.

As for the WP:CANVAS guideline: I have removed my expression of my own views from the Notification (which is

1. on a talk page on which my views are already expressed and
2. in an already-collapsed section of that page besides and
3. a single posting and
4. to a neutral, and relevant, not partisan or targeted, audience)

even though it seems quite academic given the context in which it appears; it seems to have upset Rationalobserver.

As to your question, "what exactly would justify a boomerang to me?", several editors have indicated you need to DROP THE STICK, and yet even today, you are swinging it (diff - beating the same dead horse over at WT:FAC) and (diff). As a result, though User:Moonriddengirl has the patience of a saint, it seems she's fed up (diff). And you opened this discussion, yet just claimed to know nothing about dispute resolution (diff). Makes me wonder about several things.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the crux of the matter can be seen in this comment by Rationalobserver at FAC: (diff) "If you are using the same creative words as the cited authors, then these words need to be in quotes, or else you are stealing their creativity" in the context, it's accusing User:Dan56 of stealing, even though there's a citation and(!) an in-text attribution. User:Elvey/sandbox-temp 89 kilobytes are spent at FAC in exhaustive discussion, before bringing it to multiple other fora (Village pump, plus notices on several popular policy talk pages). It's so dead God's own cat couldn't survive it™ I was only aware of the discussion at WP:Plagiarism when I suggested the stick needed to be dropped, but now that I am aware of the other fora, I think I should mention it. I think AN/I is the place to address such an issue. I hope I've spent enough time on the matter, to elucidate the need for some action to be taken; I'm done. I'll be avoiding further interaction like the plague. I sincerely urge Rationalobserver to consider the pros and cons of dropping the stick given the consensus on the matter. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was suggested by another editor at VPP that a talkpage RFC be opened [91], so it's not reasonable to accuse Rationalobserver of forum shopping. To avoid duplicate discussion, I've closed the VPP discussion with link to the current WT:Plagiarism talk page. My recommendation is to let the Rfc run the suggested 30 days or until a passing responder -- i.e. someone not involved in prior discussions, including this ANI thread -- calls it as close able based on clear consensus. NE Ent 02:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just remind you : It's said he opened TWO RFCs on the same topic at the same time. Was that suggested too? What is that if not forum shopping? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this account only two months ago, and I don't have much experience with RfCs, so if I am in trouble for inappropriately opening two RfCs at once, which are both now closed, then so be it, but you are, IMO, trolling for drama. As far as I am concerned, this matter is settled, and the policy has been clarified to my satisfaction. It is you who is now beating the dead horse. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is closed -- in effect, withdrawn by Rationalobserver [92] and maintaining the status quo as Elvey supported. My suggestion is this thread be likewise closed, but if statements about other editors are going to continue to be made, they should be backed up by WP:DIFFs NE Ent 02:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raising here per WP:LEGAL: an editor calling themselves User:Agentdunhamfbi has updated their user page to inform other Wikipedia users that "If you say any false statements about me, my work, or the articles I edit/created, you may (may not, depending on a timely fashion) will be prosecuted in court and/or online.", apparently after disagreeing with other editors about whether it was okay to upload copyvio images. --McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clearly an attempt to introduce a chilling effect, which is just about the main reason we have WP:NLT... Blockhammer descending now. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty obvious, pretty ridiculous, and pretty indeffed the panda ₯’ 13:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Yeah, that's not good. A legal threat is a legal threat regardless of how poorly phrased or unfounded it may be. The obvious intent of something like that is to chill participation in discussions with that user. I'd also like to comment that the username probably merits review (I doubt this person is an FBI agent). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as a lawyer, that looks like a fairly obvious "legal threat" to me, at least generically speaking, because there is no specifically intended recipient of the message who is identified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Qjndakdnakdnad (talk · contribs)

This user is singularly-focused (the entirety of their edit summary bears this out on inserting a mention of an app similar to Yik Yak called "Masquerade" into the article. At first it was in the body, then it was in the "See also" [114] section (it doesn't actuallty have its own article, thus running contrary to WP:SEEALSO. User is now now engaging in a scorched-earth "if mine can't be their then yours can't either" [115], in removing link to Erodr that actually is notable and simioar to Yik Yak. Discussion at the talk page, Talk:Yik Yak, seemed promising at first, but the user subsequently tried to remove that section of the talk page, then went back to the old behavior. We're clearly in I Didn't Hear That territory. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but simply to promote a product. If they cannot make edits for any other helpful purpose, perhaps a block is in order.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur hour update. Mr. Qjndakdnakdnad has now created a sock, @Encyclopedicbrown:. Account created at 19:32, makes its first edit at 19:33, which just so happens to be the same link addition that Qjndakdnakdnad has been pushing...and that editor just posted something to my page at 19:27. Is a formal SPI filing needed, or can we just deal with the obvious shenanigans now? Tarc (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And both of them have attempted to blank this ANI section. Encyclopedicbrown here and Qjndakdnakdnad here. Meters (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indef'd Encyclopedicbrown and blocked Qjndakdnakdnad for 36 hours as sockpuppet and master after they both blanked this section. GB fan 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we get talk page access revoked, and his last 4 edits rev-del'd please.Amortias (T)(C) 17:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or his talk page deleted as it seems they wont drop the stick.Amortias (T)(C) 17:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Rev-del and talk page block. At your service, Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Usrpage claims that the account is shared between two people and their aim is to screw with wikipedia. I know were not a fan of preemptive blocks but im fairly sure we dont allow shared accounts. Amortias (T)(C) 19:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it's blockable based on username alone. And then there's this and this. WP:NOTHERE? (I always see that as "NO THERE"...) ansh666 19:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Looks like Evlekis is back at my user page, identical very simple abuse as follows - Jaxmax2 Go sniff Yvette Fielding Aacceess13 and 1a2b3c4d5ea. Amortias (T)(C) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is the correct place but the above mentioned IP address has been doing persistent vandalism and distuptive editing for two months. Here are the sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Here's all the warnings

Here's the notification

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivaner (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

He's never been blocked. Have you ever tried WP:AIV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I must try that. Thanks for the help Bugs.Rivaner (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) While a block might be appropriate, this report would probably fail at AIV given the IP has not been appropriately warned. The IP received the level-4 and 4-im warnings at nearly the same time as the level-3 warning, while making zero edits in the interim. Previously there had been some vandalism back in July, I guess, though it's pretty clearly the same person (all edits to Fenerbahçe Men's Basketball and Fenerbahçe Men's Basketball). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must take my chances because it has been going on for a long time as you stated and also he just removes parts without giving a valid reason and I think that it is very clear that he/she is here just to disturb the mentioned pages. The reason that the warnings time was close was because I always saw his/her edits after a long time and every time I correct his/her edits, I put a warning on his/her talk page. Hopefully, this IP will get a block. Thanks for your information and your time spent on this subject.Rivaner (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC) That IP is blocked. Thanks again for all your help.Rivaner (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this: [126]] followed shortly by: [127] which is a direct copy of [128], dosn't seem to be getting the message. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Existing copyvios deleted and final warning issued that any repeat will result in a block. Nthep (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short story: Puppet reported to SPI 28 September, CU confirmed puppetry 6 October, puppet still active 9 October.

• On 28 September I reported Pankycont to SPI along with other puppets of longtime puppetteer Sju hav. When nothing had been done with the puppets, which imo are rather clear DUCKS, I inquired on 4 Oct. A CU was subsequently done on 6 October and found six active puppets (the four I had reported, plus two extras). None of these were blocked however, as CU Callanecc belived more behaviour evaluation was needed for the two extras. I provided such info the same day. Pankycont has unhindered continued his puppetting. I reported this situation to the SPi board yesterday, but still nothing has been done, with the editor fully active today.Diff, Diff, Diff
• My impression is that the SPI noticeboard is not functioning as well as other problem user boards like AIV ANEW, RPP and ANI which mostly handles reports quickly. While I understand that several SPIs may need careful consideration, puppets/ducks of long time puppetteers ought imo as a main rule to be taken out of action the same day as reported, and preferably within an hour. If they get to play around for two-three weeks, the ban/indeff isn’t really working.
• Iselilja (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough active Admins there dealing with the non-CU cases. That's the problem and I saw a request for more yesterday or the day before. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure it would be good with more people to look into it. But why is it so difficult to block Pontycont and the other puppets which has been confirmed as puppets? He has been messing up the Peter Handke article and relating articles for almost two weeks. This is beyond ridiculous. Iselilja (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "not enough admins" excuse doesn't fly. The shortage of admins is not the fault of the users here - it's the fault of the admin corps themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it our fault? We're not working hard enough to earn our money? Being an Admin is a voluntary job. Of course, maybe more people would become Admins if it wasn't made so thankless a job by comments like yours. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the admins' fault because people who want to become admins have to pass a "popularity contest" gauntlet that will be sabotaged by anyone with an axe to grind. If you need more admins, find a better way to select them, and don't complain to users about the shortage. You folks have caused that shortage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not admins fault Bugs. I've even put forward more helpful options, as have other admin. the panda ₯’ 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it hasn't worked. And until you abolish the popularity contest, it never will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity contest is a community hole that we all dug. Even you yourself said "that will be sabotaged by anyone with an axe to grind". That's not admins, that's "anyone".--v/r - TP 22:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing "anyone" to gripe on an RFA is the crux of the problem. Or, more insidiously, that their vengeful comments are given any weight in the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which opens a whole new can of worms. We can only enforce civility as far as the community is willing to support us. If the community cannot decide what it wants in terms of civility and will attack any admin who tries - what do you want us to do about it? It's another community issue. The only problem with the admin corps is that the community has no idea what it wants from sysops.--v/r - TP 00:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall talking about civility in this section. I'm talking about the shortage of admins and the admin corps' unwillingness to do anything about that. They've had 10 years or so. If they cared enough, they would have figured out something by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for us to figure out. We're not the 'rulers'. We're button pushers. You and I, as editors, rule this place.--v/r - TP 00:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rule nothing. I would merely like to never again hear an admin gripe about a shortage of admins. If an admin is not willing to step up and challenge the process of selecting his fellow admins, then he has no ethical right to gripe about a shortage of admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin is unwilling not to keep to his ordinary life routine (I was about to go to bed & wanted to finish my watchlist), he has no right to comment on the shortage of Admins? Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. If it had been an emergency I would have dealt with it. And I don't think anyone can claim I'm a slacker (except obviously BB) Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller I have had a little job in reporting Sju hav puppets multiple times for a year and a half or so, collecting diffs, laying out removing edits from various puppets etc. Belated blocking needs to extra work for me, in addition to the mess to articles. This puppeteer messes up several Norwegian articles, and with him penchant for controversies, this also in some cases means severe BLP violations. Because there aren't too many ordinary Norwegian editors at ENWP not all of his harmful edits are discovered and removed; particularly because they aren't clear-cut vandalism. The article he has messed up lately is about Peter Handke, who was one of the favourite to win today's Nobel Prize. Currently the article includes a lot of nonsense, because I can't be bothered to revert him more, and noone else cares, expect one Norw. editor yesterday. This is about protecting the Wikipedia; the "admin-abuse" card has absolutely no merit here. The user is both a DUCK and linked to the master via CU. Is there any reason at all he should be editing and not blocked now? Iselilja (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He can't be bothered. He's too busy griping about the shortage of admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Baseball Bugs, what do you mean by the popularity contest? @ Iselilja, are you saying you do all that, report the sock, and then the SPI admins don't block? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally work the SPI board but I have gone ahead and blocked the six socks listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav. Just to be clear on the sequence of events, Iselilja opened the case on Sept 28. The CU request was handled on October 6, and sat like that for two more days. We definitely do not have enough admins patrolling that board; the work is complex and not everyone has a flair for it. I know I don't. I personally focus my time right now on the backlog of over 70,000 articles listed at WP:CCI that need to be assessed for copyright violations, and the F8 image deletions, of which there are over 1,700 in the queue. Most days I am the only person working the F8 deletions and one of a tiny group (two-three people at present) working the backlog of copyright cases, some of which have been open for four years. All help is welcome at WP:CCI, and you don't have to be an admin. Bugs, to hear you complain how I have not also fixed the broken RFA process (and stopped global warming in my spare time?) is not helpful, in fact it is counter-productive. Iselilja, sorry you had such a long wait for your SPI to be dealt with. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo to you for doing something. The shortage of admins is not any specific admin's fault, it's the fault of a system which won't change its approach. If admin's wanted to do something about that, they could. But they won't. So admin's griping about the shortage of admin's is not productive either. They are collectively to blame for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, so sorry. I am no more to blame for it than any other editor. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the crux of the matter: You're providing a service. Whether you're being paid or not, you have committed to providing that service. An admin telling a user that he can't do anything because of a shortage of admins is the wrong answer. The right answer is, "We apologize and will get to it as soon as we can." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you up to a point. But I am not going to tackle areas where I don't feel qualified or competent simply so that backlogs can be dealt with more quickly. In other words, I feel like I've already risen to my level of competence, and am not suited to work at SPI. And I am already editing for six to twelve hours a day, and intend to have a balanced life, with my job at the library, trips to the weightlifting gym, non-wiki leisure activities, and plenty of sleep. But enough about me. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you like some help with your admin work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it'd help if there was an option to apply for limited adminship? That is, one could only use their admin tools for particular tasks. The biggest thing keeping me from applying for adminship is that I admit I'm in no way qualified to handle content disputes and conflicts between users as an admin, but I'd probably enjoy sockhunting. I am aware that it'd pretty much have to be on the honor system to not use one's powers outside for other reasons, but having it spelled out that using admin powers outside of one's assigned post could result in desysoping or even bans or blocks should be enough to keep regular users on the straight and narrow.

Or, to put it another way, allow lower standards for adminship if the person voluntarily topic-bans themselves from certain admin duties that require higher degrees of trust. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I argued for that, several years ago. That there should be a way to temporarily block an obvious vandal or troll (for, say, 24-48 hours) without having to wait for somebody at AIV or ANI to decide to do something about it. The block would then be reviewed by an admin. And as with tools like rollback, it could be revoked immediately if abused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly as this may sound, how blocking the sock in question while this discussion is going on. SlightSmile 00:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa issued several blocks. Did she miss any? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure she got them all. I should have looked before opening my yap. SlightSmile 01:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another case

Since you fellows are talking about old SPIs, could someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto? It is getting a bit a stale, and I'd like to know if MOSNUM is currently being socked to death or not. RGloucester — ☎ 01:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that User:Andrevan be banned from editing all religious articles, broadly construed. His views regarding religious bias and COI have meant that he is not able to interact with other editors in a collegial way when editing and discussing those articles. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; Support. Regrettably, I agree. however, the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude being demonstrated here convinces me that a simple reminder will not be sufficient as a remedy. Ignocrates (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a party to a dispute with Andrevan, it is not proper for you to propose a topic ban. I hold this as a general perspective. A party seeking to topic ban another party, who they are in a dispute with, is something I can never agree to. If this had been proposed by an uninvolved party, I would consider it but as it is, I would oppose. Blackmane (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair enough, and I am certainly an involved party (e.g. Andrevan said that I should not be editing the Gospel of Matthew article at all). However, the dispute regarding the article is now finished, so I would not describe myself as currently in a dispute with Andrevan. This is now regarding where we go from here. I was also basing my proposal as much on what Andrevan has said in this thread as anything he has said and done in the dispute over the Gospel of Matthew article. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I may be critical of Andrevan but we're not at the topic ban stage yet.--v/r - TP 06:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Topic bans are not for removing editors from subjects where you disagree with them. Black Kite (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify (since this appears to be directed at me) - this is not about any disagreement with the content issues of the article. (The dispute appears to be over, and the article is in a stable state.) Rather, it is disagreement about the very nature of editing, and who is entitled to edit articles. And yes, I disagree most strongly with Andrevan on that. StAnselm (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point was that at the moment, we seem to be getting a lot of entries at ANI where editors have a disagreement over an article and then head here asking for topic bans for their opponents - I would say that topic bans are a last resort (well, a second last one) rather than a first one, and I'd really expect to see long and well-documented evidence of persistent abuse before going along with that. Black Kite (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Andrevan is a well respected Bureaucrat, Administrator and Mediator who after a failed ANI against me was asked to Mediate. The anti-fringe editors turned on him because he made several statements in my favor, for which Ignocrates etc are holding a grudge. If one reads Andevan's statements in context you will see the accusations against him are totally false. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests and reverts by Codename Lisa has been irksome, attempts at clarifications with the user has been irreconcilable as well as confrontational. Rongxiang Lin 01:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs) [reply]

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I have done the liberty here @Codename Lisa: but please keep it in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editor dispute, not mass disruption. I don't agree with a ban or block. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I fully oppose a block/ban here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.... As if Round 1 wasn't pointless enough!, Nothing to warrant a block/ban whatsoever. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Warn OP. Hello, guys. Codename Lisa here. As the admin toolset would tell the admins, I and Ronggy crossed path only twice; once in Gtk Sharp, which is very negligible and once in MonoDevelop article. It is very rare to see a registered editor engage in vandalism. Nevertheless, Ronggy vandalized MonoDevelop article twice.[135][136] (c.f. WP:VANDTYPES) Investigating his contribution log suggested that these edits are not a newbie's accident at all; he is an editor that can tell for certain that this kind of editing is bad. As such, I sent him a Level 3 warning.[137] His response cleared all doubts of these edits being the result of an account takeover.[138]. Now, all this was roughly a month ago. Today, he started this topic and posted a round of four vindictive messages in my talk page.[139] Of course, the order in which he posted the messages is very suggestive.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have absolutely little clue what is in a "Codename Lisa", whether does it represent a computing entity or a political codeword.

Secondly, Monodevelop, Xamarin, Gtk Sharp as well as the Mono Project are a series of open-source projects that are somewhat well-known in the technology community, whether Microsoft or non-Microsoft. Codename Lisa's recent reviewing and editing first of all has failed in conveying the likelihood of her being a subject matter expert, so when somebody's knowledge in a particular subject matter is dubious and questionable, what is being questioned here is an issue of a personal level and that of a Wikipedian's integrity. If a Wikipedian's efforts at reviewing articles are being questioned, apart from considering him or her a vandal, you gotta recognize the fact that in the first place is the subject matter itself notable in the context of a Wikipedia community, apart from just what another contributor sees or imagines. So when Codename Lisa for instance, finds that edits in as far as Monodevelop, Xamarin, Gtk Sharp etc are dubious, is he the qualified person in the first place in reverting the changes then?

When questioned, Codename Lisa is neither an official representative of Xamarin, nor is he a contact person of Microsoft - which was good, because this candidate may offer a certain degree of impartialness - yet there is a problem somewhere somehow, if you know something about the subject matter, so do I, and you are disputing with me over articles with a presence that is global, since the user Codename Lisa came up with simple analogies, I offer and provide an even simpler one, when it is nighttime in the States, are you sure it is nighttime also in Iraq and Syria? If Codename Lisa is not sure, PLEASE, be honest and say you are not sure, instead of defending your lack of credentials AND VANDALISING MY TALK PAGE TOO.

If you comment upfront your lack of wisdom and understanding, at least I can suggest let's go and figure things out. So instead of asking me via a talk page why some changes are necessary, Codename Lisa went ahead and accused another of vandalism, because others too have accused him of inappropriate edits where Microsoft Windows 9 was concerned. So my point is, whether are the subject matters pertaining with Microsoft offerings or related or even non-related offerings, if you are relying on current-event news updates in reviewing Wikipedia articles, again is Wikipedia a news portal?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or even a knowledge base of sorts. If an article is one that requires constant revisioning or even provisioning, why is Codename Lisa the only one constantly reverting others' changes as well as adding deletion tags? Did Wikipedia hire him? WILL Wikimedia hire him? If Wikimedia's answer is yes, then do so. If the answer is no, or even not sure, that's where Wikimedia's problem lies.

Wikimedia relies on volunteers. Do you, Wikimedia, realize your product has got a problem where dispute and conflict management is involved. Wikipedia, you are NOT in charge of information.

It's not Codename Lisa's fault in the first place, do you understand, or not?

Codename Lisa claims or complains that he is busy or disaffected, I have been asking you Wikimedia over months can you put in a haitus or account suspension or closure feature, all Wikimedia can offer is "it cannot be done".

If simple tasks cannot be done by Wikimedia the organisation, how do you expect volunteer editors getting things done adequately or reasonably without disputes being escalated?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta close down an entire organization while saving one user, because of a simple Wikimedia design feature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No diffs = no action, and I doubt diffs exist. Given the screed immediate above, I don't think this report is going to turn out well and suggest closing it before the boomerang returns home. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kash201313 has been repeatedly vandalising Muhajir Sooba article. Previously he was warned not to vandalise pages. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Saqib. I don't think what Kash is doing is vandalism. He/she has not been using edit summaries to explain his/her edits, but neither have you. In the absence of a clear explanation, it is imperative that you assume good intentions of the user. The first step is to politely ask the user on his/her talk page about any issues you come across.

Admins, I see no cause for action here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a block on Ret.Prof for attempting to turn ANI into a WP:SOAPBOX for his personal grievances. See Andrevan admonished. Please note that I don't make such requests lightly. This is the first time in 9 years I have requested a block on anyone. Ignocrates (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am sorry I lost my cool. I really thought we had all worked things out. Then to see you bring a second ANI against Andrevan truly upset me. I have regained my composure. Sorry again! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies are nice after the fact, but the damage has already been done. You caused a major disruption on another thread by bringing in a large amount of off-topic material, which is now part of the record here at ANI. This incident is a close parallel to the frivolous request for arbitration you filed and later withdrew. You apologized later for that too. Something more is required here. Ignocrates (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose block. Blocking is not a disciplinary action, or a cudgel for those with whom you disagree, and while this user can be a bit of a loose cannon with his keyboard, verbosity is a pretty common sin here on Wikipedia. I have warned him about his Wikiquette before and he has shown signs of reflection and improvement. His slightly hysterical post above (whose spirit I certainly appreciate) is hardly a blockable offense. See our blocking policy and dispute resolution policies. Andrevan@ 19:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After commenting in Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Describing_Quinn-Grayson_relationship_in_the_lede in response to another editor's proposal, I found myself immediately set upon and badgered by these two users who assumed bad faith and made several baiting comments, apparently under the impression that everyone joining the conversation must be strongly biased against their clearly non-NPOV viewpoint on the issue, which Ryulong explained by saying "It's to discourage editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to attempt to push a point of view that goes against common sense and what the reliable sources on the subject discuss."

I'm appalled at how poorly these seemingly-'heavyweight' editors are treating newcomers to a significant page. My initial comment on the article was to disagree with someone else's proposal--a proposal they also disagree with--but they're so eager to see pro-Gamergate zealots that it wasn't even read and understood. I have not edited the page, I will not edit the page, I made one comment that was more neutral than the user I was responding to and, well, here we are.

While I understand that this is an ongoing controversy, I am amazed at how full of vitriol these editors are. It is not what I have grown accustomed to from Wikipedia and flatly contradicts WP:CIVIL and WP:DNB. I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia to recommend what sort of action--if any--should be taken. I'm content to bring it to your attention.

They'll be notified in the next few seconds. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've hopefully fixed the huge cock up here- When linking please for the love of god use brackets (IE [[]]). Thank you!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already fixed it and you reverted my fix! We're good now. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snakebyte42 is a pro-Gamergate editor making BLP violating statements on the talk page. There's nothing to see here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. That's rather the point. My statement was entirely neutral and a response to a more biased comment, which Ryulong is too insistent on assuming bad faith to even read. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Let me correct myself. Snakebyte42 is one of various dormant accounts of users who have involved themselves off of Wikipedia in the Gamergate debate who have returned to Wikipedia to push a POV on the article. While it was perhaps wrong to address him as such, it has become the norm on the article to have people like him appear out of apparently nowhere and begin making problematic statements such as this one that really belay his "I'm neutral" standpoint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not push POV. I am not pro-Gamergate. I did not edit the article. I disagreed with the suggestion of including Zoe Quinn's motivation for sleeping with Nathan Grayson. Anything else is poor communication on my part or a failure of comprehension on yours. Please stop telling me who I am and what I think. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you could explain why you chose to use the phrasing "a desire for positive press or a desire for penis drove Zoe Quinn onto Nathan Grayson's throbbing shaft" in that diff I keep linking to? Perhaps I was wrong in understanding your intent, but it's been months of dealing with editors who have an axe to grind and who have used similar language.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because speaking to you calmly and rationally didn't seem to work, and being told I think and am saying things I do not think and am not saying leads me to anger quite quickly. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well we now know that there was a misunderstanding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I wanted, man.Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]