I am here to discuss the behavior of Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Scientus has been edit-warring in recent weeks on four articles that I'm aware of:

• Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[1][2] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
• Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[3][4]
• Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".

I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.

There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of a Pope Cardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [5]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet [6] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In making the following personal attack, "...FUCK YOU for calling me racist you insensitive piece of shit. Go fuck yourself!", Scientus blanked the warning and then rebuffed the admin that warned him about the attack. This isn't promising.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "anti-Semitism" racism, or is it not racism? You are going in circles. And BTW, my great-gradfather fled the Jewish programs in Ukraine/Russia. Scientus (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support a 1-week block. --JBL (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And he's back! Today Scientus once again edited Israel concerning the issue of universal suffrage (which doesn't mean what Scientus would like it to mean). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of "universal suffrage"? Cause those words quite literally means everyone (universal) votes (suffrage).Scientus (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Scientus, you mistake the literal meaning of words for their meaning. See Talk:Israel#No Universal Sufferage (sic), where I addressed that question nearly two weeks ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Block

Scientus has had 16 user-page warnings since May 25, yet has continued his disruptive editing, edit-warring, defiance of Wikipedia policy and/or consensus, vile unprovoked and completely erroneous personal attacks, inability to hear, and general incompetence. Whatever may have been his past contributions prior to May 2015, he is clearly no longer here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that he be blocked, for at least one week or as long as six months -- the length at the discretion of an uninvolved admin or community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as proposer, a block of one month, for the continued cumulative number and types of disruptions/violations. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, support, support. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --JBL (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. at least one month.Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lachlan Foley has resumed genre warring after his week-long block a few weeks ago, received as a result of this ANI post. They are edit-warring at the article Marquee Moon, attempting to rearrange the order of the genres listed in the infobox. I suspect they have some prejudice against "post-punk" as a genre since they tagged it for needing a citation at Pornography (album) but not the other genre listed there ([8]). This editor is becoming a disruptive annoyance. My warnings to their talk page have been useless as they have not responded or taken accountability for the genre changes they've made. Block them, warn them effectively... do something, seriously *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Incident nomination should be about @Dan56, not me.

Dan56 reverted my completely harmless, inconsequential edit which can be seen in the Marquee Moon article history, and had the temerity to call it "genre warring". He also has failed to realise – and has since been corrected by another user – that post-punk was not cited at the Pornography (album) page, and gothic rock, indeed, is. I think he is grasping at straws looking for things I am doing to complain about and is reverting my changes on the Marquee Moon article out of spite. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where was "gothic rock" cited at the time you edited Pornography (album)? And where was the consensus or discussion you created to support rearranging and revising the genres at Marquee Moon? Nowhere is where, because you are nothing but a genre warrior, an editor who spends 99% of their time making revisions to the genre parameter of the infobox. I do not know enough to want to "spite" you for something because I don't know anything about you, except for your pattern of behavior as an editor, and your edit history doesn't lie. If your edit is "completely harmless, inconsequential", then stop restoring it, and refrain from revising the genre parameter of the infobox at album articles because you clearly have a disruptive obsession for it. Again, your edit history is made up almost entirely of those kind of edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as these articles are either GA or FA, then the minimum LF should do is raise the issue on the talkpage(s), instead of going back to exactly the same behaviour that got him blocked only last month. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lachan is even completely removing the genre from some albums, so many of them do not even have a single genre to accomandate the article. What is there to gain from this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this on-going edit-warring and WP:DE is OK by the admins? Good, glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They will not stop. Just a few from today: [9], [10] Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are admins ignoring this? All the damage he is causing will take so much time to fix. You can't just simply remove genres with no excuse. Many of the genres are sourced, but in the article itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smalljim, You have to make something. Now he makes the genre disappear from the infoboxes like here and obviously he drowns his edit by making a few domestic changes regarding the visual aspect of the infobox. This is wp:POINTy and disruptive. I'm tired of spending hours to revert his edits instead of adding historical content like I used to make on Siouxsie and the Banshees related articles; today out of the blue user:Freshacconci has the guts to say that it was my edits that were genre warring whereas he obviously doesn't know anything on Lachlan's history. Why after being blocked for Genre warring, does LF have the right to keep on acting exactly the same way without being blocked once again. Carliertwo (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My only involvement here is at the Dear Prudence article. From what I saw, User:Lachlan Foley added a hidden message to the infobox stating that only sourced genres should be added, while removing unsourced content. User:Carliertwo reverted back to the unsourced content and incorrectly stated in the edit summary that references are not permitted in infoboxes. According to WP:INFOBOXREF, references certainly are permitted if necessary. This is the standard for all Beatle song articles as they have a history of genre warriors adding their own idea of genres to the infoboxes. Keeping in mind that the issue here involves the infobox for the Siouxsie and the Banshees' version of the song, most Beatle song articles include a reference in the infobox for genre(s) listed. I have no opinion on what the correct genre of the Siouxsie and the Banshees cover is, but it should be referenced in the text and if not, in the infobox. As for the battle between Carliertwo and Lachlan Foley, I am uninvolved (although coming "out of the blue" is somewhat WP:OWNish, as if I have no right to make an edit or state an opinion -- I won't bother with my the "[having] the guts" comment as that statement is puerile). What I saw was one editor reverting what appeared to be a useful edit in favour of a version that included unsourced content, with an incorrect edit summary. freshacconci talk to me 17:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Dear Prudence, what it is saying here is that LF's edit erasing the genre from the infobox of Siouxsie's version was "useful" because it was unsourced content. Well, so why didn't the 2 genres (present in the infobox of the Beatles's version) erase too? Those are also unsourced content, as it is not documented by a source in the body of the article. There are multiple issues with LF's edits, GWAR, Edit war, Spamming etc... and of course, Freshacconcci doesn't have anything to say about these issues because that it would be admitting that edit was wrong.

Concerning the comment for ownership on SATB-related articles, one has to look at the history of this article here to see that this doesn't stand. Indeed, three users have already rejected LF's edits for edit war, Gwar (User:Greg Fasolino also shares this opinion), etc. What LF is doing is wp:PUSH and wp:DISRUPT. This doesn't have to be encouraged. Carliertwo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my exact response to you from our conversation on my talk page. As you've added this after my response, I can only assume you did not read it there: "You are free to remove those two genres as unsupported. I don't even agree with them. I don't do a great deal of editing these days, so I'm not going through every Beatle song article to make sure the genres are sourced. I only mentioned the Beatles as I'm familiar with the issue of genre warring and I find it silly when people add absurd genres to them based solely on their own opinions. My only concern was with the Dear Prudence article because that is the one I saw. I'm not aware of nor interested in the battle between you and Lachlan Foley. That will be resolved at ANI. Since I was mentioned at ANI, I responded, explaining my edits, as I saw them, to maintain WP:V/WP:RS. If you were concerned about Lachlan Foley's edits, I don't think re-adding unsourced content is the answer. And please use the preview button before saving on my talk page. It's annoying to have repeated new message tags for the same comment." That's all. I think I've said all I can based on my involvement. freshacconci talk to me 20:31, 8 July 2015.

• I don't see a problem so huge that it needs a topic ban to solve it. Lachlan Foley is trying to get a project-wide handle on genre warring by others, which is commendable, but it appears he is taking part in some genre warring himself, at some of the music articles. I think the effort is net positive. For the negative bits, perhaps it's enough to slow him down, to set a one revert per day (1RR) limit with substantial talk page discussion required from Lachlan Foley before any further revert. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is going to happen if that Dan56 and many other users including me are going to check out LF's contributions and as soon as he does wp:disruptive editing which is always what he does, one will undo his work. This is going to become our new hobby and yours. Carliertwo (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earl King Jr. is a single purpose account dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc.]] to a single article, and reducing the text in that article. In that effort, King has successfully removed the Zeitgeist Movement page and crammed all mention into a small paragraph on the Zeitgeist (film series) page. King is tendentious and bullying in discussion. See:

• 2 July 2015
• 00:26, 1 July 2015
• 01:36, 30 June 2015 (subsequently modified by King when I pointed out that it was a personal attack)

King frequently attributes improper motives to other editors, accusing them of being "Zeitgiest supporters," "sock puppets," and "meat puppets." See:

• 00:46, 20 May 2015
• 16:25 00:35, 22 May 2015
• 16:25, 19 May 2015
• 07:20, 19 May 2015
• 00:27, 16 May 2015
• 07:56, 27 December 2014]

King's tactics in discussion, attacking people's motives, accusing people of meat and sock puppetry, accusing people of being "conspiracy" minded, and so forth are contrary to the Wikipedia:Good faith. As will be seen a number of times in these histories, King prods other editors of good intent until they (unwisely) strike back, then he calmly lectures them about civility, as though the whole scenario were a deliberate strategy. The long-term, relentless, single-purpose history of reducing carefully constructed articles and attacking other editors suggests WP:LONG and WP:ANTIWP. Reluctantly, I am requesting a block on King's account. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Sfarney is being aggressive and assumptive about all that. That particular talk page and now this [11] have gotten very intense. If I am at fault somehow I apologize. As far as I know my editing skills stress reliable sources. My goal on Wikipedia is grunt worker with interests but keeping my own interests, not noticeable. The Zeitgeist article is an intense spot partly because of the call from the group organizers to come to Wikipedia to edit [12] There more calls on various related sites that specifically point out myself as a gatekeeper which to me does not make a lot of sense. I hope I am not a single purpose editor. It might seem like that because once this article is on your watch list it seems to require a lot of attention if one is willing to give it attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for topic ban

Community General Sanctions

Arbitration Requested

Canvassing?

Please review these apparent canvassing attempts. [49][50][51][52]This appears to be coaching a side with "we"[53]. There may be more. This statement appears to be very misleading as there doesn't appear to be any language in the propose topic ban to include all of 9/11 and seems to be an effort to attract attention of editors that may have had disputes with EKJ. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, please see the thread above (in voting on topic ban). It follows immediately after Rich Farmbrough's emboldened 'Question'. Starting with an admonition from me for Sfarney|Grammar, to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, the 'we text' ('The last thing we need now is a round of more accusations when Earl's accusatory conduct is under examination.'), was also moved to a less prominent position from [54]to [55], where the exchange became meaningless as it was not a response to anything.(It is restored and I have invited the editor to 'strike through'). The very least that must be said is that 'coaching' a new editor is inappropriate and moving 'embarrassing' text on a noticeboard equally so.Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool off, Pincrete. "Less prominent" means nothing when editors are as carefully observant as this crowd. I tried to move it to the discussion section before the argument became another magic beanstock. But now I see you have reopened your accusations of canvassing in a separate area AWAY from my responses to your earlier accusations. What's up with that? Are YOU trying to hide the full discussion from examination? The last thing we need now is a another round of accusations when King's conduct is under examination. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not open this section DHeyward did. Coaching another (new) editor and then moving his text in the manner you had previously advised that editor to do, is unprecedented in my experience. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that he had also moved the comments. The coaching itself was a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "us vs them." Moving the comments to avoid scrutiny in the manner described to the editor is battleground and disruptive behavior that appears to be motivated by reason other than building an encyclopedia. This at the very least should be a 1-way iban against User:Sfarney so he isn't allowed to plot and carry out underhanded dealing with EKG. Possibly a complete topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, battleground mentality is precisely the real problem with this article, of which this incident is only the 'tip of the iceberg' (see talk and recent BLP). My only 'horse in this race' is to argue that getting rid of EKJ will be a victory for that mentality, not the solution to it.Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely no more coaching that any experienced editor would give a less experienced editor. I would like you to consider these points one at a time, because you are seeing them all through a lens of misrepresentation. 1. I counseled JWilson0923 to tone down his remarks and move them(07:11, 4 July 2015 UTC) before ANYone had answered them (08:15, 4 July 2015 UTC). Please check the dates and times and satisfy yourself that this is the truth. 2. I always use "we" when speaking of Wikipedians. The last thing we all need is to turn the administrator page into a battleground of mutual accusations. You don't need it, I don't need it, JWilson0923 doesn't need it, Earl King Jr. doesn't need it, and no honest editor in Wikipedia needs it. 3. Even Pincrete advised the JWilson0923 that his comments were of the wrong color in in the wrong place. 4. I was quite obviously not moving the comments to avoid scrutiny. The only context that would be broken was JWilson0923's comments to Mongo -- When I moved, I kept the whole block together. If you want a long running thread of discussion in the voting area, I did not know. I don't think it is proper. That is why there is a discussion section. 4. Canvassing. I put a general notice on the BLP incident board immediately upon filing this ANI request.[56] I then notified all other editors who had any involvement that I could locate on the talk pages who were not current on the BLP page. Pincrete reminded me I should put a notice of ANI on the talk:topic pages, so that is what I did. Then Mongo accuses me of spamming -- you can't please everyone, I guess. You may not know, but EKJ has often tied 9/11 conspiracy to the Zeitgeist films because the film talks about 9/11. When you look at King's contributions on that talk page, you find he is active there, and the ANI is a discussion of "all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie." That includes 9/11 and would be a part of the topic ban, so those editors should also be involved. The other talk pages I included for the same reason. Let's handle one thing at a time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that Sfarney|Grammar's advice to JWilson0923 was before I gave the public advice to strike through on this ANI. I still think that Sfarney|Grammar's actions were WHOLLY inappropriate and his choice of message to JWilson0923 constituted 'conspiritorial coaching'.Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) …[reply]

ps Sfarney|Grammar I didn't remind you to put a notice on the talk page (Why would I? I had already done it), you did it only AFTER I had counselled you to stop canvassing. You misquote the message you left on JWilson0923's talk. You 'can't please everyone' when you knowingly act outside guidelines, in order to 'whip up' solicit support. Who elected you to decide which pages are included in the proposed topic ban? If you thought all those additional pages should be included, you should have proposed them. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did remind me -- perhaps not intentionally, but remind me you did. And I don't think it's appropriate for you to appear to quote me with words I have not said or written. That is not held to be good conduct. As to whipping up support, take a moment to think about what you are saying. If a public notice of this Incident report is broadly known, it should whip up support for King in equal measure to the proposal to ban him. A general notice would whip up support for the ban only if King's adversaries overwhelmingly outnumber his supporters. And that is not improper -- that is what the proposal is intended to determine. How would you alert all involved of this Incident report and proposal? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sfarney|Grammar, if I have 'appeared to quote you', I will correct, but since you don't say where, I cannot.Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) … … Ah I think I see now, fixed! Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed those posts as inappropriate canvassing. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The we can presume you will be posting a notice with more neutral wording so that all the communities within the topic will know of this discussion and provide meaningful participation. All those who know King to be a constructive presence and Wikipedian will have full opportunity to speak in his favor, as well as those who have had other experiences. But public sunlight is always a good thing in these situations. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar'sLittleHelper, clarification, IF those pages were part of the proposed topic ban or IF evidence was being offered of EKJ's disruption on those pages, then such a notice would be appropriate, otherwise it's spamming or canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who will know what is a part of the topic ban until it is issued? And when it is issued, it will be too late for King's admirers from those articles to come forward and testify to his contributions. But you and Mongo don't seem to look forward to a flood of admirers. You seem to presume all comments from those editors will be negative -- Why is that? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar'sLittleHelper, please strike through your speculations about my and MONGO's motives and attitudes, you are not on the talk page now!Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC) … ps a topic ban is not 'issued' in the manner you imagine, you cannot go to court for shoplifting and be found guilty of murder.[reply]

Grammar'sLittleHelper, I invited you to 'strike through', you chose not to. So, I will respond to your speculations about my and MONGO's thinking. An ANI is not a 'Reality TV show' where we vote off 'least popular'. There are websites where they count up 'likes' and 'friends', but not WP, I hoped you would have had the good sense to see that.Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, This is an investigation into Earl King's Jr.'s value as a Wikipedia editor. Is he more tendentious than valuable? Is he more valuable than tendentious? Those are the comments -- with evidence -- useful to this forum. We even have buttons to push and awards to acknowledge people for their Wikipedia contributions. When I posted a notice to the Zeitgeist-related talk:topic pages where King has edited, other editors were invited to come forward and provide valuable evidence and opinions in answer to those two questions. The invitation was general -- everyone can contribute. So please, if you have experience with Earl's history as a Wikipedia editor and you have more information that answers one of those two questions or both, bring it forward. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sfarney|Grammar, I did not/do not re-open 'canvassing' or 'spamming', the diffs are there. I DID ask you to 'strike out' (infantile), speculation about the motives of two editors. I have repeatedly said (endorsed by others), that I believe EKJ is not the biggest problem, nor banning him the solution.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to speculate on your motivations. You have voted against banning King. From that undisputed fact, we must conclude that you hold him to be a constructive editor. Mongo has made even stronger statements. No speculation is required. You both wish the vote to be carried in the direction you have voted. Again, no speculation required. You object to broad notices of this proposal to ban King. You have given no reasons for your objections, but it is no great leap to conclude you believe that involving more editors with more experience with King will not help to carry the vote in the direction you have voted. Once again, no wild speculation there, either. If you have other reasons for objecting to public notices of this discussion, please inform me so that I can cross out the earlier statement as an error in judgment. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sfarney|Grammar, speculation is precisely what it is, a speculation that belongs in the playground world of 'our gang' and 'his gang'. Which part of 'I believe EKJ is not the biggest problem, nor banning him the solution' is difficult to understand ?Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC) ... ps, Grammar'sLittleHelper, you have my permission (if you wish) to strike out everything of both yours and mine from 'And when it is issued, it will be too late', through to here. Making this ANI unreadable benefits no one.Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally attacking other editors? Bullying? Multiple copyright violations? Eviscerating whole topics? Non-consensual editing? Inventing WP policy de jour? Deleting text in violation of Wikipedia:Citation_needed? Deleting citations? Canvassing support from individuals? Yes, it is difficult to understand how you might think King's multiple and continual violations would not stop if King were stopped. Have you read everything in this ANI and examined the evidence for yourself? Have you studied the messages he puts on personal talk pages? In Pincrete's estimation, what is the "biggest problem" if not King? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar'sLittleHelper, most of the 'sins' you mention seem to have become endemic on the article. I've answered the 'biggest problem' elsewhere, but briefly it is a 'battleground mentality', which, in my estimation has become an end in itself, the article has become an excuse for pursuing personal antagonisms and where denigrating the other point of view is almost a conditioned response. That mentality may not mean to do so, but it gives encouragement to 'nothere fly-in' editors, who may not be a HUGE problem, but who exist/will exist.

You I believe have been as guilty as anyone, more interested in 'slapping down' some editors and 'rallying the troops', than listening to arguments and working around a problem or problematic editor. EKJ probably has a 'siege' mentality, but many others have a 'siegers' mentality. I have been prepared on many occasions to partly agree with you, but partly has never been good enough, therefore consensus for small but significant improvements hasn't happened. For example, ,I MIGHT be willing to 'throw out' Ms Goldberg (I'm not US and don't know 'Tablet'), but I can't throw out Tablet's opinion and accept 'Huff Post' as fact, even less can I throw out 'Tablet' because Ms Goldberg fails an individual editor's 'rationality test'. As Aquillon very sensibly pointed out (Sanctions), any kind of 'monitoring' would apply to everyone, inc. EKJ, so he's either learnt to behave or he'll be the first to 'fall foul' of the sanctions. Topic bans are meant to be remedial, not punitive.

You asked for my opinion, I presume sincerely, (rather than rhetorically in order to 'disprove' it), that's my 2p, but here is not the place to debate it, so you have my permission to strike it through, with your previous, if you wish.Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Sfarney did something wrong, I'm sure it will come out in the wash from uninvolved editors/admins when this is over. Given that EKJ is active exclusively on a couple pages, it is hard to imagine why Sfarney's posts there would be considered excessive. It also appears it is through those same posts that many of EKJ's supporters those opposing were informed of this discussion. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

70.36.233.104, actually very few have posted here as a result of 'user page' or 'spamming' contact. IF they had, this whole ANI would be thrown out. There are reasons for these policies which I am happy to discuss with you on my/your talk, should you wish. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of no consequence then there's no reason to argue about it. Sfarney's been warned, he isn't doing it any longer, if you think it is that serious open up a complaint against him. I don't see why this has to go on and on. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ughhhhhhh when did I last mention them except to offer to explain policies to you ? Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from Earl King Jr.

That is assuming there will be a topic ban which might be assuming too much. There is no actual real body count voting on such things but there is a general consensus which can be gotten at. A general fair consensus is now not possible as an editor has gone out of their way to dig up from multiple pages any number of people that seem to have a grievance or have complained in the past about Earl King (me}. Andy the grump has been adamant about a topic ban. He also has a history of making personal attacks against Earl King that is beyond blatant [57] and [58] and [59] and [60]. Other editors have called for him to be topic banned or blocked from editing for personal attacks. The Devils Advocates recent appearance here is controversial because he has been banned currently from these types of boards. He also has been blocked previously for tendentious editing on the Zeitgeist page though that is in the past. Several editors, Andy, The Devils Advocate, SomeDifferentStuff have filed multiple Ani's none of which were acted on but are quoted that they were filed as evidence of wrong doing by King but filing Ani's is not a guilt by association generator but has been used as such. Other editors recently have called for Andy to be blocked from editing and also Sfarney to be blocked from editing. Grammers Little helper has affected what ever case he had by his alleged spamming or canvassing of anyone who is a peripheral participant in a range of articles who might come here and vote. Lobbying this Mr. Wilson who previously called King a troll editor is probably a perfect example [61]. That kind of behavior on the article is not supposed to be be allowed, calling people trolls. Wilsons talk page indicated that GrammersLittleHelper the filer of this Ani thought it best to call Wilson to the Ani which is spamming or canvassing, see his talk page as others have brought this up [62] I think we have to look at the broader elements of what is going on with people editing the article and that would mean a future of watching the article under the direction given by the Arbitration committee. I suggest this Ani has lost the basis of being valid because its originator Mr. Sfarney has gone too far in lobyying (canvassing). So, lets draw a future line in the sand. Ask the Arbitration committee for a fresh perspective and identify problems without so much drama. I propose we drop the ani now as tainted and start fresh elsewhere namely the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom looks almost certain to reject the case, on the basis that the community is dealing with it here. Accordingly, we should do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earl King Jr., I took the liberty of sectioning this off from 'Canvassing?', please revert me if I was wrong.Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked for my editing of Zeitgeist articles and I have not filed a single ANI request regarding you. Once I proposed a topic ban in a filing someone else made, but that was it. The previous ANI cases were presented mostly for the sake of pointing out how this is a long-standing issue and to show previous evidence of misconduct that was presented in those cases. You have a devoted group of supporters who believe you should be allowed to do whatever you like so long as you keep the Zeitgeist supporters at bay and they have obstructed previous efforts at removing you from the topic.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three ANI proposals were originated by others who knew the process of writing a proposal. None were written by me. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate, please name (or strike through) the 'devoted group of supporters' and the other characterisations of those who do not agree with you. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO and Tom are the two most notable ones who have commented above. They routinely weighed in to defend you at previous ANI discussions as some necessary soldier in the fight against Zeitgeist supporters and have also supported some of your more extreme POV edits in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate, I'm not sure who 'you' or 'your' means, it was me Pincrete who left the message, and I don't even know who 'Tom' is. I left the advice to strike through because I thought you were getting dangerously close to personal attacks and characterisations. I repeat the advice. By all means strike through these two messages of mine at the same time. Even though I disagree with you, your posts above are constructive. These are not.Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't see it was you and not Earl responding to me. I do not consider it a personal attack to say Earl has a devoted group of supporters. Not everyone who disagrees with me is in that group either. The two editors I mentioned are the main ones. Both of them have repeatedly argued against any sanction for Earl, no matter how extensive the evidence of misconduct, on the grounds that they think he is a necessary bulwark against Zeitgeist supporters. On article talk pages and in edits to the article itself they have often supported his position no matter how extreme as in the case with the capitalization edit war noted in my previous comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, you've at least clarified who you DIDN'T, mean (inc. me). Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is little that TDA and I agree, so not surprising we would disagree on what should be done about Earl King. I find TDAs mentioning myself and Tom to be furtherance of his usual conspiracy theorizing...it's not relevant to this matter and is a serious breach of AGF. --MONGO 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you two support Earl regardless of his conduct is not a conspiracy theory or a failure to assume good faith. It is an observation about your conduct over the years I have been involved in the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged some articles that User:CrazyAces489 recreated for CSD and have !voted to deleted several others of his articles. Out of the blue, he decided to nominate an article I wrote last month, Amin Khoury, for deletion. I don't find it coincidental. The nom reasoning isn't even valid and has all the appearance of being just a WP:POINTy nomination. This isn't an AGF issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You are the only one who even wrote on the article. I thought it was a vanity page and notability is not inherited. I didn't think the article seemed anything more than a vanity page. Now you saying that I came from the crap factory [63] or I am "butt hurt" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. [64] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I wrote it. It's not even a month old, so no, others haven't yet. Your "notability is not inherited" reasoning is nonsense, since that's not asserted. Yes, I said you are butt hurt and run a crap factory. I shouldn't have and have struck those comments. That has nothing to do with this issue, but does tend to reinforce my position that you nominated this article out of spite. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a very long record of deleted articles, including a high proportion of biographies. It seems as if we ought to be introducing a restriction on creating articles other than by WP:AFC for a while, at least until CrazyAces learns to write a properly sourced first draft. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen had suggested more care in the creation process before. [65] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting User:Tokyogirl79 also told CA to take more care in process, even to go through the drafting process and have it reviewed before creating any article. This is a pattern and someone needs to break it because CA clearly can't do it themselves. Along with several other issues CA chooses to not fix...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you would think that I have done a lot of articles as of late. [66] I am on my own self restriction. One of them just passed an AFD and the other is a martial artist who is a black belt magazine hall of famer. I actually nominated my last article to AFD so that others could bring forth opinions on its notability. [67] I am ok with not writing any articles outside of the ones I am trying to push out of userspace. So it is not like I wasn't trying. In terms of that article Mr Amin? It had 2 weak keeps and one keep from him. He was also the ONLY editor. I didn't see any notability under WP:ANYBIO or even WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -You actually created 17 as User:NegroLeagueHistorian, just saying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I was the only editor (I didn't need all caps to say it either). I created the article about 3 weeks ago. He is a low profile, non-controversial figure, so there's not likely to be a big rush to edit it. You act like every article must have a team working it the minute it hits live space. It's never going to be a GA unless he suddenly starts getting more coverage, but there's enough to reach GNG. I almost forgot that you were the one who nominated Crispus Attucks[68], a guy who has over a hundred books written about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amin simply didn't appear noteworthy to me. [69] , than NightShift36 is settling even worse with multiple deletions across various articles I was editing on [70] , [71] and more [72]. Niteshift seemed to have found the time to edit and gut many articles that I started. Yes I nominated Attucks because I thought based on wiki policy there was no history that was documented on him. I was incorrect! It happens! Saying I am butt hurt [73]isn't Niteshifts first negative comment he has made about me. He has insulted me many times even on AN/I [74] and other places. This isn't the first time Niteshift has had trouble with insults. [75] CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CrazyAces489, please don't make a virtue out of not creating articles recently, when you've in fact been creating articles with your other account, NegroLeagueHistorian. I hope that doesn't mean you're trying to evade scrutiny of what you did with that account, and I most certainly hope that you will stick to one account in future. (In your unblock request in April you stated "I won't create another account"[76], and yet you did.) Several admins have had a lot of patience in overlooking the fact that you were using (at least) two accounts concurrently, so please keep your nose clean it that regard. Compare User talk:Tokyogirl79. If you don't, and it comes to my attention, I will actually block you, despite the fact that I take systemic bias issues very seriously. It's because of those issues that I and others have been giving you second, third and fourth chances, but they'll run out eventually. Note: I see you've posted a {{retired}} template on your talkpage. You'll be most welcome to change your mind and return, as you've done before, but not, and I'll stress this, to simply jump to another account. Enough with the evasion of scrutiny, please.

As for your pretty obviously retaliatory AfD of Niteshift's article, you may remember I told you in April that I hoped you wouldn't have to be formally limited in your use of AfD because of your combativeness and poor track record there. But when I see this, I wonder. It may come to that. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I created a new account after an admin emailed me and said that I could if I retired. I minded my own business and was outed. I can even provide the link where I was outed on May 28, 2015 [77]. I guess being outed is considered to be ok. I had stayed away from martial arts articles when I had a new account (an area where I had an emotional attachment as per cleanstart ). [78] I created articles that were important to minorities including Congolese Genocide and African American History which were automatically noteworthy based on accomplishments via WP:WPBB/N "Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." I made a few other articles and that was it." Automatically notable and no chance of being deleted via AFD.

In terms of TheGracefulSlick, after he saw that I created James Takemori he messaged PRehse and asked to nominate it for deletion and later claimed he wanted nothing to do with my work on 29 May 2015. [79] Yet strangely enough he started showing up on places my new account went to and started heavily editing there. [80] I retired my new account and went back to this one, I also left a reason why. [81] I felt I was being hounded and and asked Tokyogirl79 to ask TheGracefulSlick to leave me alone in the spirit of IBAN. [82] To which he agreed on June 29, 2015 [[83] ] and simply ignored as of June 30, 2015 to July 4, 2015 . [84] He has voted to the exact opposite of what I vote (although once changed his vote) including [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] . The purpose of TheGracefulSlicks hounding me I believe is based on my nominating a few of his articles for deletion 2 months ago. [90] [91] [92] [93] TheGracefulSlick stated that he believes that I have a personal vendetta against him [94] Another even told us to stay away from each other. [95] I have been trying to get away from him as early as April 25, 2015! [96]

In terms of Amn Khoury, I don't see how Amin_Khoury is considered to be noteworthy. YRCW has a CEO James L. Welch and the company is a fortune 500 yet he has no article. [[97]] What did he accomplish?! His firms website is listed as a source and according to the author Niteshift, a martial arts website isn't a good source for a martial artist. [98] So how is it a business website reliable for a businessman? I saw the various arguments used including notability is not inherited and other stuff exists. I learned rapidly these terms when I have had about 6 my articles placed on AFD at once by a small group of editors? Feb 23, 2015 [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] Feb 24 [105] It was overwhelming. I thought there was something to it. [106] I wondered what was the similarities between the individuals and there was 2 things (100 percent of them did Judo and 7 out of 8 were African American). When I made that statement, I was said to have implied racial implications. [107] The funny thing is that I saw that most of my articles in general that were deleted were African American or individuals of black descent. Strange coincidence? Possible WP:WORLDVIEW ?

Now I keep getting attacked because of my grammar. [108] I was even mocked for it by Niteshift36 [109] It seem that sadly, I am an innercity male where ebonics or African American Vernacular English is the language people speak. 91 percent of wikipedians are white males. [110] . Myself and most blacks speak very different, often listen to different music, and have a different relationship with the authorities from that of the average white male. Yet I am attacked for it? That is a bit unfair! I am told to go read rules and write "properly?" I am told by Niteshift36 that I am butthurt and make a crap factory and it is ok? [111]. Even earlier on April 9 he referred to me as "Crazy"Aces [112] on an AN/I . Even Bishonen stated that it was bullying "P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)." Niteshift36 stated that " But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars " (implying a sexual innuendo). ^[1] Yet I had , I got blocked for personal attacks when I put forth a corelation of articles [113] and he blatantly has stated nasty things about me and nothing happens? He has a long history of personal attacks. [114]

I created an article Racial bias on Wikipedia and was being judged on it. Problem is that it exists on wikipedia despite what people say. It was nominated for an AFD and was speedy keep. [115] Do I believe that WP:WORLDVIEW exists on wikipedia? Sure do!

The only thing that I asked is that Niteshifts behavior and repeated personal attacks be looked into. That TheGracefulSlick be WP:IBANed from interacting with me. I made one request and it was ignored. [116]

To be honest, I believe nothing will come about from this. Niteshifts repeated personal attacks will be glossed over at the most a slap on the wrist. My request for an IBAN will be ignored despite violations of WP:Hounding [117] [118] I will probably be reprimanded for something and or told that I am playing the role of the victim. It will be said that I have poor grammar, make bad articles, or the sort. I am pretty much semi-retired. I wanted to finish up a few articles Florendo and Paul Vizzio and quit. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop being a victim. In all the time you spent digging up diffs of stuff that happened months ago, you could have actually read the policy on reliable sources and started using better ones. Yes, grammar matters. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to write something and be unconcerned with grammar, start a blog on WordPress or something. I note that in your tirade, you leave out the parts where I did admit errors, retracted things and.....oh yeah, actually tried to help you. Instead of accepting help, guidance or just good advice, you rejected it with excuses and continued the same errors with the statement "I create so others can work". That, in and of itself, is a hostile attitude. I hope a passing admin finally closes this since the issue of your revenge nomination has been handled. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 Of course, exactly what I stated! "stop being a victim." You retracted some of them after being told you had to. As per the link. As per above wth [User:Bishonen]] Other people have repeatedly told you to calm down on your tone with me. [119] Sorry, that my Ebonics isn't correct for you. It is still an accepted language of my people in America. I don't think that people who only speak with an African American Vernacular English should be regulated to Wordpress (and find it offensive that you would imply that). You have been so nasty to me that I am left to simply ignore almost anything you say. I had to semi-ban you from my talk page because of your attitude. [120] . You have been taking the same quote of "I create so others can work" is over 2 months old [121] and is taken out of context. With so many of my articles being gutted by you and others. I simply am left to only create stubs. You complain that I am taking personal insults that are old but you are bringing up this quote that is even older! A bit hypocritical don't you think? CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict):*No, it wasn't taken out of context. You actually defended it. It explains so much of what you do here, an issue that a number of experienced editors have tried to get you to correct. You keep claiming that your problem is that you speak "ebonics". I submit that isn't the issue. "Ebonics" doesn't make you use the wrong word, like you did in your response (It's "relegated", not "regulated"), misrepresent sources or fail to even try to comply with RS. You may be speaking perfect "ebonics" (if there is such a thing as perfect "ebonics"), so I would never say your "ebonics" isn't good enough for me. I will, however, call you on editing with "ebonics". I won't apologize for the Word Press comment, because there's nothing offensive about it. In any case, since this is the English Wikipedia and not the Ebonics Wikipedia, the grammar rules of English apply and if you find that to be unfair, you can be the founder of the Ebonics Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African American Vernacular English is a form of English. With its own set of rules. Shocking how you stopped defending your attacks. They are what they are. Reliable sources from the limited African American publications makes it unfair. We must make considerations when it comes to SOME sources. I don't think that people who speak African American Vernacular English should only use wordpress. If you don't feel your statement has problems. That is a problem in itself. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You're not quoting sources using AAVE, it's you that is using it. It's not acceptable. Nor did I say that people who speak AAVE should only use Word Press. I said if you want to write in AAVE, consider starting a blog. Thanks for demonstrating again how you misrepresent things. Speak it all you want. Write it all you want. Be proud of it all you want. Just don't edit the English Wikipedia with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is concerned about your ethnicity! Your articles are gutted because you use terrible sources and the topics are unnotable. Maybe Niteshift said some regrettable things because he can't stand how you refuse to learn and think your work is ok. It's not! How many times does someone need to tell you, you need to improve?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This was closed because Bishonen saw how clear CA was acting in revenge...who opened it again??TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beats me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one wasn't closed. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to wait for Bishonen (or any admin, please end this!) to close this and hopefully block CA in the process. CA has caused too much damage and his excuses are getting even more bogus. He has been given too many chances because the work he is involved in is important, but CA's editing is not reflecting on that importance. It's hurting the project and the subjects of the article that deserve a better representation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So me speaking African American Vernacular English is bogus? Or creating articles that are about African Americans is hurting? Do you see the problem of not having articles ? In the article "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?" by JAY CASSANO it is addressed [122]. "Wikipedia is the go-to place for information, especially for young people who were born in the digital age. It's what they seek out. So even if they do a Google search and there is information about somebody or something online, they look for Wikipedia. The existence of an entry on Wikipedia gives it weight. It's kind of like 'Oh, it's on Wikipedia? Then it's important.' " I would rather an article written in AAVE than no article. Blocking me for addressing a problem is not how things should be done. You have not been working well with others and have been warned for it. [123] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a warning that was Bishonen politely asking me to not comment on his talkpage. I never said creating article about Aftican Americans was bad, but you clearly shouldn't be the one doing it. You continue to not listen and it's completely astounding.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are you sure it was closed? Anyway, I'm not sure it's time to close the thread, frankly. I'm pretty tired of CrazyAces' monumental timewasting IDHT behaviour lately, not least on my page. In April, I undid his indefinite ban. Because of the systemic bias angle, I gave a lot of extra chances and assumed a lot of good faith, and so have others. It seems to me that by now the only alternative to a renewed site ban is a ban against creating articles other than through WP:AfC. CrazyAces escaped such a ban by the skin of his teeth in April, pleading (reasonably) the backlog at AfC (though with the unreasonable rider "I create so others can work").[124] I told him I would no longer insist he go through AfC, on condition that he started focusing more on quality than quantity and gave his creations more love before posting them in mainspace.[125] Perhaps he did give them more love, and stopped intentionally relying on others to fix all problems; I don't know. But in that case — if he's doing his best with these new articles — then he still needs to go through AfC, where experienced editors can help him and inform him. It's not working as it is, and the use of several accounts concerns me very much also. See also this discussion on User talk:Tokyogirl79. This is my proposal:

Proposed: CrazyAces489 banned from creating new articles

It appears that a persistent UK vandal, the cause of death vandal, has begun using Greek IPs. Compare the following pairs of edits, one made by the UK vandal and the other made by newly active Greek IPs:

• Elaine Stritch, cause of death.[148][149]
• Patrick Macnee, cause of death.[150][151]

These UK and Greek IPs have recently been changing a lot of infoboxes from one sort to another, that is changing Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Infobox person, most likely because the former template does not support parameters for spouse or cause of death.

• A British IP changes the infobox for Ne-Yo.
• A British IP changes the infobox for Pink.
• Mary J. Blige infobox changed by Greek IPs 176.92.64.150 and 78.87.41.113.
• Joe Cocker gets visited by the UK IP 86.8.78.35 changing a header to "Death", and then by the Greek IP 46.103.174.17 changing the infobox, followed by more Greek IPs 87.202.0.191 changing the infobox, and changing the cause of death parameter 176.92.64.150, finally changing the infobox 46.198.23.4.

Here are the most recent IPs involved:

• 78.87.41.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 4 July
• 46.198.23.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 3 July
• 176.92.64.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 2 July
• 178.59.239.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 1 July
• 87.202.0.191 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 30 June – 2 July
• 46.103.174.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 30 June
• 86.8.78.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 27–28 June (This Leeds-based IP is already listed in the LTA case page)

So it appears that our LTA vandal has shifted his activity to Greece, either physically or by proxy. Any suggestions for stopping this guy? Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps he's on holiday in Greece? It's a very common destination for UK tourists. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes! So we're thinking that he's vandalizing Wikipedia while on vacation?!! That's just all kinds of wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This place lost the ability to surprise me a long time ago. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacation to consistent vandals=unsecured shop/hotel wifi and IP's free from blocks and simple collateral damage they don't have to take responsibility from once the trip ends. The children's TV/broadcast vandal community loves when they get away and go to town on their favorite articles while their parents/SO sees the sights, so sadly this is hardly new. Nate • (chatter) 04:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains: what to do about this guy? Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With them operating from random IP ranges at the moment and hitting random articles, there's nothing really that can be done through blocking or protection. However, if they're making very similar edits over and over, an edit-filter could be useful. I'll post over there. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the guy is starting to use IPv6 addresses. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 2A02:582:7440:8000:48A8:5EA6:2D59:66FD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:582:7440:8000:49D8:BF0B:1220:2B76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This user has been discussed previously, when he was adding repeated copyright violations and acting uncivilly. See the past discussion.

Since then, this user deleted all articles he contributed to the wiki as he said he would in the past discussion. He also edited multiple articles about specific cartoons and removed information about their availability on VHS or laserdisc. It appears that he intended to remove all references regarding Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki, as he feels "wronged" due to the previous warnings regarding copyright infringement and unsourced content. As he stated in the previous discussion (linked above), "It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs." Examples of removal of content: [152], [153]

He's also continued to be combative towards other editors. See examples: [154], [155].

Unfortunately, this editor is simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Even after several attempts by multiple users to reach out to him and interact in a constructive manner, he continues to snap at anyone who disagrees with him and has acted in bad faith by attempting to remove all references to Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki after not being allowed to continue adding unsourced articles with major copyright infringements. At this point, he's making exclusively disruptive edits. ~ Rob^Talk 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• LooneyTunerIan (talk · contribs · logs) userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this sort of thing is bothering everyone, someone should issue a warning watermark stamp/template on my talk page. It's the only way I'll back off. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LooneyTunerIan – please review WP:POINT. At this point, one of us could add a {{Uw-point}} warning message to your Talk page, but is it really still necessary?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall If it's the only way to refrain myself from editing all those articles, SO BE IT. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's another way. An admin could take a look at your edits, take a look at the copyvios, take a look at all the deleted artcles, amd finally take a look at your deliberately pointy behavior, and simply decide that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and block you from editing. Is that what you're looking for, or would you rather moderate your behavior on your own and continue editing? BMK (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per user request, I placed a level4/disruption warning on his talkpage. Please don't consider this prejudicial against any blocking others might be considering. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommending 6 month block. It may be possible that there are some constructive edits among their 328 mainspace edits but the overall persistent unconstructive edits and infringements of policy and the refusal to 'backoff' unfortunately conclude that LooneyTunerIan's presence on Wikipedia is a net negative at least for the time being until they can demonstrate some level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung - I've already gotten my warning. I've learned my lesson. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't block you yet myself and am asking for input from other admins, LooneyTunerIan. However, other admins may suggest that it's time for you to go per WP:NOTHERE. Only time will tell and a six month prevention of disruption would also give you time to think how you would prefer to edit the encyclopedia in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung - Well, then how about a perma-block or a foreva-block? If you think I'm causing trouble on Wikipedia, maybe you should recommend that I should be banished forever. And you can even add a message for me, just to make sure I stay gone. Maybe it can say something like: "LooneyTunerIan, you are hereby blocked and banned from Wikipedia, forever. As such you will not have permission to edit any articles. Now go find your own wiki to edit as much as you please and never come back. Ever." Honestly, Kudpung, why can't we just leave me with a warning and leave it like that? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Law of holes and WP:Wikipedia does not need you. BMK (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support permanent block, good suggestion. Flat Out (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Out - If you're going to support it, don't forget the message I've included in the previous reply above. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LooneyTunerIan your proposal of a total ban, and the manner in which you raised it, shows that you have learnt nothing. Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LooneyTunerIan is obviously quite upset, and a short block is in order given the disruptive behavior. It is not clear to me why anyone thinks long blocks (6 months or more) are appropriate -- it seems extremely likely that LooneyTunerIan will cool down and not return to disruption after a short break, and if I'm wrong then we can deal with that later easily. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He;s lucky I'm recommending only 6 months. I was originally tempted to unilaterally indef him per WP:NOTHERE without the tralala of this ANI thread.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3-6 month block, LooneyTunerIan may cool down, his facetious comments here, don't suggest that he has yet 'learnt his lesson'.Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef block; standard offer if s/he wishes: WP:NOTHERE. Six months plus several hundred good-faith edits on Wikibooks or Wikivoyage is enough to think again before demanding allegiance. Esquivalience ^t 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felipeedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to ignore warnings given by myself, Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie concerning their disruptive editing time and time again. They've continued to remove reliable sources for those of blog-like websites and continued addition of original research to several music-related articles. User has a long-standing history of disruptive editing, and is also a sock-puppet account. It seems to me that the user is not here to edit in a cohesive, collaborative way, and instead is editing for their own personal beliefs. User also refuses to talk with other editors, instead deciding to continue on with their pattern of disruptive edits. The latest string of disruptiveness is happening at List of 2015 albums where (s)he continues to remove valid sources (ex: Billboard, Herald Sun) and replaces them with blog-like websites which have been deemed unreliable (ex: Ultimate Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2015(UTC)

Definitely time for another block per WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most disruptive thing is that the editor doesn't communicate. Their edits are not AIV material, since they are not vandalism (they do make valid edits too) and I can't see the user acting in bad faith. I get the feeling that they either don't understand RS policies or simply don't care. Probably latter, considering how many "final warnings" they have received. If it is a competence issue, I doubt that bans would make any difference. Widr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find Felipeedit's most recent edit disturbing. I dunno if it's "bad faith" or "good faith", but it's the unexplained removal of sourced content with zero edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FWIW, Felipeedit has now contacted several editors on their Talk pages about this, and I've left them a note on their own Talk page. So this is moving closer to a potential resolution... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it's leading to resolution; they've failed to communicate with any editor, until days following the opening of this report. And even following your note, they still do not add edit summaries, and their past behaviors lead me to believe that no resolution may come. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

96.228.52.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

72.84.207.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breanna4567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Into_The_Fray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filer of this report)

I am not sure whether this constitutes vandalism, sockpuppetry, a WP:RFPP matter or an edit war at this point, so I am asking an admin to take a look. Along with another editor (and ClueBOT), I reverted some persistent editing to the article as vandalism. This initially resulted in the IP user being blocked. A glance at the history page for the article tells a pretty clear story of what is going on. The user initially began making significant, disruptive changes to the article (WP:POV issues, removing sources, some edits that look like pure vandalism) and has continued to do so. You can see the initial discussion between myself, another editor and the individual as 96.228.52.184 on that IP's talk page, as well as the block notification. There is some further discussion on my talk page. The same individual has returned as the 72.84.207.76 IP and continued to make persistent changes to the article. Here are diffs for some of the edits I am talking about: [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163] and so on. To me, it borders on pure vandalism, but in the interest of WP:AGF and understanding that this individual feels passionately about it, I thought I would bring it here. Thanks for your time. I'll put a note on the 72.84.207.76 IP's talk page immediately after this. Into The Fray ^T/C 04:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also User:Breanna4567 - clearly the same person. Note this post at Talk:Main Page [164] "What happened to the article "meat"??" AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now Breanna4567 has blanked this thread.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So Breanna4567 has been indef blocked. IP 96.228.52.184 was recently blocked by by Kudpung, but that block has already expired. IP 72.84.207.76 was temporarily blocked back in April 26, but not since then... I'm wondering if maybe an WP:SPI report might be the way to go here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly do that if needed. It was my initial inclination but as far as sock puppetry goes, it's not the most egregious of cases and perhaps I am being trolled, but at least as far as some of the more recent edits to Meat went, it did appear that there might have been some . . . however misguided . . . intent to add sourced content to the article. Hence bringing it here. If WP:SPI is the way to go, I'll put it there. Into The Fray ^T/C 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've tried to resolve this in every other way I can, and this is out of control.

GaryColemanFan is completely ignoring the rules of WP:BLP even after being advised thereof by Darkwind that the onus is on him to reliably and independently source information. Despite this, he persistently adds contentious sources for a claim as to who trained current WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy. The latest of which is a podcast which I am having checked for reliability over on the RS Noticeboard. Despite this good faith checking, Gary has now regarded my removal of what stands as an unreliable source per BLP (until RS confirms otherwise) as vandalism and in the process is using bullying tactics against WP:CIVIL to get his way - including indirect personal attacks based on comments I have made about my back up reasons (not core reasons) for my own editing simply being OR and should for that reason be ignored. It is not and never has been my core reason and anyway if there is controversy about a source, BLP places the onus on the claimer (in this case Gary) to back it up. He has not done so with proven reliable sources yet.

His last reversion can't be reverted by me because I'll be in violation of WP:3RR which is very frustrating because now we have an unproven source on the page identifying Carlo Cannon as having trained Buddy Murphy. I make this report because of Gary's conduct throughout this issue and his insistence in effect that WP:IAR be applied over and above WP:BLP and WP:V. Right throughout this I have been acting in good faith, and I believe that Gary is not and is behaving in such a manner that a block should be considered or at the very least a warning. The RS Noticeboard will hopefully carry the solution and Gary should have waited for the ruling there. As it stands, his edit is against WP:BLP as stated. If his source is verified by an admin on the RS Noticeboard that will change matters, but until then my edit should be maintained. Either way, Gary is out of line at present and I ask that action be taken. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't recall ever having seen such a protracted and inflamed argument over something of so little objective importance: this stands out even in the context of lame edit wars over wrestling topics generally. The whole lot of you need slapping with the WP:TROUT. The content should be removed pending consensus on Talk, and the best way to fix that is an RfC. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we've been through the BLPN already, and I took the issue to the RSN as well. So I doubt under the current conditions a consensus is even possible until Gary and the IP's treat the BLP rules with more respect. Having said that, if an RS admin can provide a definitive answer to my latest query there that may be the closure that's needed without RfC being needed. I agree in the meantime that the Carlo Cannon reference should be removed. I can't - as mentioned above. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you shouted loudly to all sorts of people about the thing you don't like, but you didn't even try to resolve it in a civilised manner. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's hard to be civil to the standard you're talking about when people have their blinkers on over the rules of BLP - which was a problem from the very beginning. I've tried, believe me, but it has been extremely difficult - especially when I know I'm being bullied and my automatic reaction is to strike back strongly just to show I won't be intimidated. It's very hard to go in another direction (LOL at below). Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wot yo' talkin' 'bout, Willis? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. (How long have you been waiting to use that one?!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well now. I left a polite warning on GaryColemanFan's talk page about his characterisation of edits he doesn't like as "vandalism" and he removed it with the edit summary stay off my talk page forever. This is now looking like a user who is actively rejecting any attempt to influence him. I do not think this behaviour is at all appropriate. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, looking quickly at GaryColemanFan's talk page, I couldn't see any notification of this ANI. Shouldn't that be first step? (apologies if it was under my nose).Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He removed it at around the same time he gave JzG the above edit summary. He gave me the same chorus by the way. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this edit of yours "vandalism" does not look promising either, though I will note that it looks like the two of you have been in a content dispute for days. My other comment here is that GaryColemanFan looks like an account whose sole interest is professional wrestling articles, and that seems to be one of those areas that's ripe with problematic editing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, IJBall. It is ripe for problematic editing, and all I was doing was trying to uphold the rules of BLP in perfectly good faith. All Gary wanted to do was fill the seven year gap in Buddy Murphy's training and in effect put WP:IAR ahead of BLP to that end - ie refusing to be influenced as JzG said, even by admins like him and Darkwind. It's stubborn and it doesn't help provide encyclopaedic content, particularly truly reliable sourcing. One of the reasons why I left WP for a long time was the lack of respect for the Australian wrestling scene. This is an example of it although it's a little different to the previous batch in that the definition of "industry professional" is being applied way too freely. As noted below I have bailed on the core dispute simply because I'm tired of arguing with another editor who refused to listen, but it doesn't alter the fact that Gary has been uncivil in his dealings here and he has been a bully in the process. In fact if I remember from my last stint here he was doing it even then, so it would appear a leopard doesn't change their spots. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the edit from JzG because he has a history of incivility toward me, calling me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit" on my talk page. Regardless of the situation, any communication from him on my talk page will be removed on sight. That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand, though. I'm not rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy non-issue. I just don't like JzG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, anyone find some irony in the user who reported me for supposed incivility making this edit when bowing out of the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is between me and 94, and has nothing to do with this ANI. Deflecting like that is typical behaviour of a bully. Way to provide further proof against you. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point. Five years ago you were already calling good-faith edits you disagreed with, "vandalism". And yes I called you on it - I had entirely forgotten. So now we have data points showing that you've been doing this for over five years, and that makes it even more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at what we've got here: a discussion about my civility initiated by an editor who, just today, told another editor to "fuck off", "screw off", and called his edit "stupid". We've got an administrator who has called me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit". And my supposed crime is calling the removal of sourced information "vandalism"? Even if you don't agree with me that the edit was vandalism, you can still obviously see that my supposed incivility pales in comparison. JzG - I'm hoping you can now understand why I deleted your edit from my talk page. Keep in mind, though, that no other administrator would have received that reception. It is your history of incivility that has compromised your ability to perform the role of an administrator. If you were to remove yourself from the situation, it would have been over a while ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look at Gary deflect again. Refusing to address what he has done, preferring to have a crack at me and JzG as a clear diversion. This is about more than calling a legit edit 'vandalism'. This is about ignoring WP:BLP and trying to add a source that was not reliable (and has since been ruled as such - I'm talking about the PCW link, not the podcast) and being rude in the edit summaries towards both me and JzG again. Nice to see it pointed out that I'm not the only one who has seen that Gary has a history of incivility through bullying and avoiding his responsibilities. Oh, and he was rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy issue - and just as an aside he wasn't the only one but that's not the core issue here. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another rude edit summary that seeks to bully. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already

An interaction ban is unlikely to work (it would just be a question of dividing up the articles between the two warring parties, since much of the dispute is edit-warring in mainspace not talk page argy-bargy). I therefore propose: user:Curse of Fenric and user:GaryColemanFan be topic banned from the area of professional wrestling for a period of six months. The implication is that this is broadly construed, though pro wrestling is essentially a walled garden. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It looks like it resolved itself. Appears to have been a misunderstanding regarding BLP & RS. Editors could have been more civil and patient, but it appears issue was settled. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening this thread to seek guidance on how to handle the increasingly un-civil behavior of another editor, HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), towards me and others (including DaltonCastle, Comatmebro, Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin, and One15969). This editor, myself, and a number of other editors have been involved in a series of content disputes at Americans for Prosperity. HughD has been blocked several times in the past few months for edit warring on that article. He has recently escalated a campaign of personal attacks against me and others. Without providing diffs, he has accused me of "whitewashing" and "section blanking." His behavior is contributing to an increasingly toxic editing environment. His extraordinarily condescending talk page comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Last time he was blocked for edit warring, the blocking admin wrote: "This is getting out of hand; if you continue editing in this manner, you may face a topic ban or indefinite block. Please reconsider your behavior before that becomes necessary" [165]. I have asked HughD a number of times (most recently, here [166]) to discuss content over contributors to no avail. Some recent examples of uncivil remarks/personal attacks include:

• "You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss...I think you think you know better than our pillars." (No examples of my alleged refusal to discuss, or egging on of other editors are given. I find the accusation of refusing to discuss odd given the dozens of talk page edits I've made on the article in question) [167]

• "It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion." [168]

• "We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar." [169]

• "I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed...Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk." [170]

• "In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position...a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. " [171]

• "Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial." [172]

• "Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says?" [173]

• "This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors." [174]

• "You have taken your first, small step to understanding NPOV!" [175]

• "I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong." [176]

• "It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it." [177]

• "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." [178]

• "Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking... because you are not hypocrites." [179]

I would like guidance on how to handle this user's increasingly hostile and unproductive comments. I want to ensure this user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to continue posting snarky, incendiary talk page comments. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other user involved on the page

I am in agreement with Champaign Supernova. Not only has Hugh become increasingly hostile and dragged other users into it with him, but more importantly it has been for the sake of POV-pushing and COATRACKING the page. I had previously wanted to make a post here on this user's conduct but held off hoping he had made the effort to improve. However, he has not.

User:HughD has in effect taken sole authority of the page and disallowed any editors from significantly altering the page. This user repeatedly uses arguments such as “restoring community consensus” to justify their reversion of edits. However, reviewing the article's talk page, it is apparent that the community consensus is far from HughD's version. He is undoubtedly acting as a rogue editor without heeding any questions concerns or criticisms from other editors involved on the page.

I cannot standby and allow these actions to be unnoticed by the greater Wikipedia community. Almost every other user involved on the page disagrees with HughD's version and yet he has assumed complete authority over the page to block any revisions that are not his. There's a major difference between gaining a community consensus over a content dispute, and the actions of HughD (which some consider COATRACKING or POV-PUSHING).

POV content

This editor consistently adds information in a manner to make the article an attack page. Almost every instance I am referencing adds undue weight to some aspect of the article. Am I suggesting there should be ZERO mention of Koch-funding, or opposition to environmental regulation, or organized labor reform? No. But trust me, what is present on the page is undue, and very likely Coatracking. Now since the page has come under more scrutiny this user has avoided 3RR, but still they have a POV push.

This user wanted to turn the page into an attack page against conservative organizations by making it appear as though the Kochs are behind every single action of this organization with nefarious goals. This user also tried to add blatantly POV statements to the article such as:

* “In September, The Washington Post editorialized that voters should know who is funding AFP's citizen education efforts.”

• and “According to The Washington Post, NBC News, and others, AFP's policy agenda is aligned with the Koch brothers' business interests, for example, in opposing environmental regulation.” *and “Journalist Lee Fang, who has written about AFP for The Nation magazine, wrote in his 2013 book The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right that the Obama re-election campaign erred in challenging AFP rather than confronting the Kochs directly.”

Time and time again this user pushed their POV without any community consensus, and then reverts any other editors' activity citing “no consensus”. I can not reiterate enough that no one else involved is pushing a POV of ZERO Koch mention, or policy stances, etc... But we have attempted dozens of times now to address our NPOV concerns on the page with Hugh directly to no avail.

Now I could probably list hundreds of diffs here that illustrate this users edits that create a NPOV or COATRACKING issue. But for the sake of simplicity I will only add a select few. I am sure other editors will note several POV and COATRACKING pushes in this user's edits:

Community consensus

If any admins were to read through the talk page they would notice that the community consensus is generally in opposition to Hugh's edits. Again, it would be rather tedious to list all these diffs as well and only jumble this so I will only add a select few.

In only the most recent days has Hugh begun consulting the talk page at all to ask for a consensus of his edits. Still, for the most part they ignore the talk page consensus.

Wikiproject ratings & Canvassing

This user has continually rated the very same pages they have worked on as “B-Class” on the talk pages despite their very major stake on the pages and their POV-push. This user then justified many of their reversions on articles by saying something like “your edits diminish the already quality article”. Several editors have opposed Hugh's actions here since AFP is only tangentially a part of environmentalism or organized labor.

Hugh has presently succeeded in rating the page as B-class despite its many issues. In my personal opinion, as an editor who has rated pages often, I would give this a C-Class at best. With so many NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues I would not consider it nearly a B-Class article. This B-Class rating allows Hugh to revert any edits opposed to his views again and again, reinforcing my claims he has taken sole authority of the page.

Also, here is an example of this user's hypocrisy to push their POV. When I first opposed Hugh's edits, I had sought other opinions on Wikiproject conservatism. I was wrong in doing so as per WP:CANVASSING. Hugh took the opportunity to jump on me and demand I be more drastically punished and blocked despite my voluntary removal of the canvass. He then violated WP:CANVASSING himself and when caught simply removed any mention of it from his talk page.

You can ask all the other editors involved on this page as well. Hugh is routinely accusatory of anyone who opposes his edits and then makes himself appear to be the victim, when in fact it is he who has attempted to push us all off “his” page. In typical WP:BOOMERANG fashion it has been detrimental to him as well. But, in typical Hugh fashion, he removes any mention from his talk page.

(Also, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969_misuse_of_rollback, this user has illustrated their determination to pursue WP:WIKILAWYERING,WP:BULLYING, & WP:HARASS to discourage users from challenging him).

Blocks

As an ancillary incident, I would like to call attention to the events found here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DaltonCastle#May_2015_edit_war_warning

HughD accused me of edit-warring since we had differing opinions on a select piece of content on the page. While I justify my edits here with WP:BRD I understood the logic behind calling my edits and edit-war. However, since it was HughD who began the reverting cycle initially, I place the same edit-warring warning on his talk page that he had placed on mine. No big deal then, we had a content dispute. But then he reported me to the edit-warring noticeboard the exact same time he removed any mention of these warning from his talk page. I believe this was done to deliberately mask any mention of his wrongdoing while he accused me of the same thing he had done in an attempt to have me blocked and not him.

I reverted his removals on his talk page, believing him acting in a manner nonconstructive to the Wikipedia community. Although I now admit I was wrong in violating the 3RR rule, I do believe my intentions were good as I had hoped to provide full disclosure to any and all admins or users passing by. The checking administrator had only noticed my violation of 3RR and that was it. He did not dig any further into HughD's edit-warring, or his masking of the warnings he too had received despite his actions.

Some days later I removed more contentious material from the page as per WP:BOLD. Again, HughD accused me of edit-warring after his reversions of my edits, then reported me, then removed any mention of the same warning I had placed on his talk page. The Admin who first took notice blocked both of us for a period of 48 hours. I believe this was made in error, as HughD was, and has remained through much of the page's history, the aggressor in any edit-warring. If you review his talk page history, you'll notice he has a habit of removing any warnings or notices placed there by other editors, not just me.

Here are warnings and mentions of misconduct removed by Hugh from his own page:

Hugh has himself been warned about edit-warring several times in the past:

I know that as per WP:OWNTALK he is allowed to remove anything he wishes from his page, but he is not left looking good when he did so. Its difficult for other users to assume good faith when he so blatantly attempts to mask other editors' disapproval of his edits or any mention of his violation.

In this regard I am humbly requesting that my previous blocks be removed from my record or at least have it noted that my actions were not disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Although I recognize violating 3RR was wrong, I stand by my belief that I attempted to shed light on another user's wrongdoing.

In recent edits this editor has again engaged in edit-wars to revert changes made by other editors. No one has taken notice of this. It is not constructive to the WP Community to let him get away with accusing others of a violation he frequently commits. I cannot reiterate enough that the consensus on the talk page leaves Hugh in the minority opinion.

Conclusion

This user has been severely disrupting the articles for at least two months. Every community consensus opposes their edits yet they continue their behavior. These same edits push a POV and coatrack the page. When other users attempt to challenge this, this user makes it nearly impossible to make any progress. I am confident I am not the only editor who holds this opinion.

In conclusion, I believe Hugh has violated WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:DUE & WP:UNDUE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, WP:WIKILAWYERING,WP:BULLYING, and WP:HARASS. This user has exhibited a continued abuse of Wikipedia policy that does not improve the encyclopedia. As such I believe an administrator should take appropriate actions.

I am available to provide additional details and evidence, or answer any questions that any administrators of involved users have. I did not want to resort to this, but as can be seen by Hugh's extensive efforts, there was no other option. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang

• Support boomerang on Champaign Supernova and DaltonCastle for deliberately targeting HughD and turning a content dispute into a behavioral dispute by misrepresenting the actual dispute under discussion, portraying HughD as the problem (when in fact the problem is biased editing by the above editors), and taking Hugh's quotes from talk pages out of context to misrepresent his position and attitude. The above editors seem to be working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles. This is a violation of basic policies regarding content, and their railroading of HughD is an attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing diffs of me engaging in "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles"? There have undoubtedly been a number of content disputes on the article's talk page, but perhaps you are mistaking me with another editor(s)? Earlier today I made this edit to the talk page [180] "This article has ebbed and flowed between 'washes,' both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground..." Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of boomerangs, Viriditas, maybe don't call other editors "trolls"? [181] Your entirely unprovoked rage-spiral at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour looks a lot like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ive made zero changes on the page since I was told to avoid edit-warring. I havent edited it in weeks. I have only noticed the changes made by Hugh. Viriditas is rather new to the page. I can assure you that Hugh was not improving the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After all the chest thumping and bluster, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff showing a problem with HughD that requires admin intervention. Instead, the diffs show HughD calling out other editors on their policy violations, quite the opposite of what you intended to portray. If this isn't a classic case for a boomerang, then I don't know what is. This is an attempt to silence the other side in a content dispute, and what we have here are trumped up charges with no basis in reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for jumping in, however, I feel that I have also been affected by HughD's actions in regards to the AFP talk page, as well as DaltonCastle and Champaign Supernova have been. I'm sure you are aware, Viriditas, of the simple distinction between "calling out other editors on their policy violations" and personally attacking them as being "rookies" and "cowards." There are polite and professional ways to discuss policy violations without offending users, and HughD has simply not been successful at this. Thank you. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for the diffs showing my apparent "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles" that you accused me of. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Perhaps you missed the diffs I placed above?

DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reject this claim. I took a few weeks off, and I return to this article to find that HughD has unfortunately been baited into making some unfortunate personal remarks about two or three editors that have been sniping at him for quite some time. In my early interaction with HughD, before I took a slight absence from this project, I found him extremely polite (sometimes obsequiously so), and I believe any fallback from his previous often-unctuous persona was due entirely to the hammering he received from those opposed to his rather perceptive edits. There is just no reason for this editor to be raked over the coals as this "incident" is doing right now. I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary. (In other words, never use the word "you": On a Talk Page a good editor should just forget that the second-person singular exists.) Any administrator reading this might just wrap up the discussion with an admonition to all concerned to WP:Assume good faith and get on with improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reasonable start. It would be helpful if Viriditas took the same pledge. It might be adequate to allow the article to attain some semblance of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of making this incredibly long post readable, remotely. I have no comment on the matter at hand, just making it easier for admins and editors. DaltonCastle would be well reminded that excessive lists of diffs may not actually serve the purpose intended. Blackmane (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the jumble. I had hoped to get my points across but totally understand I failed to meet TLDR. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few of the supposed POV diffs and didn't see obvious problems (stuff seemed to be sourced and matter-of-factly written). I did notice a couple looked very similar to each other, i.e. at least one was a revert. No opinion at all about surrounding conduct allegations that I haven't tried at all to examine--it's late here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, DaltonCastle's homework assignment today is to read WP:TLDR. I see good faith disagreements, not any incivility. Reading the talk page, it is clear that HughD disagrees with the consensus on most issues, and is right on a few issues. The correct way to proceed when you think the local consensus is wrong, is to open an RfC. And at some point, you need to accept the consensus and drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

understood. I do apologize for that jumble. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute

There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, while we make no mention on our Rockefeller Foundation page of the Rockefeller Brothers bankrolling Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,[182] just to pick an obvious example.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

Top Organization Contributors
RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%
2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%
3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%
4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%
5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%
6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%
7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%
8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%
10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%
11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%
12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%
13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%
14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%
15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%
Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]

It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

Wikipedia should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support.

This is a content dispute, and those involved should go to WP:DRR if they cannot resolve the dispute on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not up to speed on the issues listed above, this comment caught my eye - mainly because it seems to be totally and completely irrelevant. If this were AFD, I'd link WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other organizations/individuals give more money doesn't mean that the donations of the individuals in question are not relevant to their articles. Especially if there are proportionally more sources discussing their donations than the ones you list. I don't edit in this area much, but it seems to be that $28 Million is a pretty significant number, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are content disputes on this article, but that's not why I opened this thread. I came here to seek help with negative user conduct directed toward me. I'm focused on the behavior issue. Does anyone have recommendations on how to handle that aspect? Thanks you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely this is a content dispute and shouldn't be at this board. Civility is not obsequious politeness. HughD has indeed been blocked once or twice but this noticeboard should be used if he returns to edit warring. I think he is way too snarky when calling out logical errors to make rapid progress in disputes, but I will settle for slower progress. But it is not reasonable to infer from the diffs in context that he has erred so far from civility as to be routinely making personal attacks (or other incivilities) and thus requiring administrator intervention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a content dispute here; however, HughD has never accepted consensus except when it can be interpreted to agree with his POV. When it cannot be, he finds another noticeboard to seek "consensus". Few of his proposed edits are unrepresentative of the source, which is often reliable; but he includes only statements from a particular viewpoint, and adds more of them than are warranted. I cannot give a specific example of "cherry-picking" except his removal of third-party approval of "secrecy" of donor lists, but the entire funding and transparency sections are much too long with respect to the weight given in reliable sources. Even that would be a content dispute, except for the edit warring and his refusal to understand that his stated interpretation of guidelines can be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a single diff supporting any or all of your allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment seems to have been misplaced. I do much of my editing on a smartphone, and cannot easily copy diffs into my text. However, I might be more easily convinced that Hugh is not being intentionally disruptive if someone could point out a single edit which could be considered "pro-Koch". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be interesting. He has posted here [183] that he views AFP as "a key player in the organized, corporate-funded suppression of unions in the US" and here [184] that "I would say AFP has done more to raise the avg temp of our planet than Watts ever will" [185] The attempts (here's another [186]) to convince members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour to adopt the article seem like an attempt to recruit like-minded editors to edit the page in a certain way, AKA Wikipedia:Canvassing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, those quotes look like canvassing. In context, they emerged in longer, more neutral, discussions, to increase awareness among editors interested in a topic. One sentence at the climate change task force talk page displays HughD's unfortunate tendency toward polemic in talk pages. Collaboration is always going to be difficult on articles about political 501(c)(4) organizations (Dark money), but I don't see a pattern, or an individual diff, from any of the 3 named editors (HughD, Champaign Supernova, Dalton Castle) that crosses any line that requires administrator involvement. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HughD's behavior

I was "pinged" about this discussion when it was first opened, and have given some thought to responding here in the intervening days, not least of which was due to HughD's seeming targeting of those who disagree with him. While HughD's behavior is based on a content dispute, it has led to inappropriate behavior by HughD. I'll try to keep it brief; while the length and breadth of HughD's behavior makes that difficult, I'll try to summarize below.

Here are the actions which HughD has directed at me:

On 6/15 this notice. The DS notice on the talkpage was put there by HughD, not an admin. This was done so that Hugh could then post the DS warnings on the talkpages of editors who were in disagreement with him. This is a course of action I've actually never seen attempted before.

On 6/18, he posted this incorrect notice, in violation of ANI requirements. The result of that ANI discussion was no action against me.

On 6/29, he posted this (unsigned). The result of that posting was no action against me.

Not satisfied with that result, HughD then posted this notice on 6/30, which again resulted in no action against me. However, while it was still on-going, Hugh posted this notice on 7/1.

During the last week or so of June, Hugh filed the following:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner
2. a link to HughD's previous ANI report filing
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD .28Result: Page restriction applied.29
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity

In addition, he has opened numerous discussions regarding his viewpoint on the article talkpage in the last two months (a very nice recap can be found Talk:Americans for Prosperity#NPOV issue HERE on the talkpage - the response by Champaigne Supernova. Every one of which consensus has been against, e.g. over inclusion of Koch Brothers, too much detail on funding, and most specifically, NPOV. Even after consensus has been reached on the NPOV issue, he then tagged the article for an NPOV issue. After consensus. I think Hugh confuses consensus with unanimity.

His disruptive behavior goes back to at least 2012, when this occurred:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive195#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: Final warning issued) 09/12 - where he vowed to "never edit war again"

I didn't do a search on the intervening years. But in the last 3 months, he's been involved in numerous actions, and been blocked 4 times:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:HughD reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked) April 2015

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked) May 2015 - Even here, EdJohnston wrote, "HughD doesn't come out of this dispute looking good. Articles on American politics can be extremely divisive and they have used up a lot of Arbcom's time. Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem."

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:HughD reported by User:Comatmebro (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive274#User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action) The only reason he was not blocked was he apologized, and the admin accepted that.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Safehaven86 reported by User:HughD (Result: Referred to ANI) see the end of that thread.

I think HughD has displayed a pattern of behavior which is not conducive to the health of Wikipedia. Over the last two-three months, he has consistently failed to adhere to consensus reached on talk pages, he's been involved in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:COATRACK and WP:FORUMSHOP (I think he's up to posting on 8-9 different venues in an attempt to get someone to agree with him: Edit Warring noticeboard; ANI; NPOV board; Reliable sources; 2 project talk pages; the AfP talkpage; and the Wikiproject talkpage). This forum shopping is beginning to bear fruit, since several of the editors now active on the talk page have been recruited from those other forums. Each of those actions, in and of itself is fine. But combined they show a pattern. And it's not a pattern of consensus-building and compromise. During one of HughD's attacks on me, an admin, Monty845, suggested I might take it up at WP:AE, but that did not seem to be an appropriate forum, or at least I couldn't see how it applied, but Monty is more experienced than I am. Not sure what, if anything can be done, but this is getting tiresome at this point. I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles. Thanks for your time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and participation, Onel5969. This supposed "content dispute" has brought up multiple issues regarding HughD's behavior. When it comes to consensus, he ignores it. He is not helpful nor friendly when it comes to understanding differences. I have only received negative comments from HughD, some of which have attacked me personally as a user. There are ways to discuss content in a friendly manner -- and honestly I am not sure if HughD is capable of this at this point in time. I would have to agree with everything the above user has stated, as well as the statement "I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles." Cheers. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the evidence and discussion in this thread indicates a content dispute between involved parties who have been editing in this area. There is no good evidence supporting a topic ban of any kind, at least one that would impact HughD's editing. When asked to provide a single diff supporting their contention, not a single editor can do so. Instead, we are subject to long, off-topic screeds by editors who have been involved on the other side of the content dispute, links to ancient disputes, requests to prove negatives and other fallacious arguments. In conclusion, no diffs supporting a topic ban, just mud flinging. On the other hand, I would certainly support a topic ban on the editors listed above who have been repeatedly caught whitewashing and violating NPOV in the Koch-related area, and who have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy into railroading one of their few critics who has pointed to their problematic edits. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: On Arbitration Enforcement board as well

A filing by HughD against Arthur Rubin on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard is running in parallel with this discussion. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur Rubin.

This does somewhat complicate ANI responses but admins and editors should feel free to review or participate in both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP 190.178.197.152 has admitted to being Mike Bingham, who as IP 190.178.230.223 was blocked for legal threats on 5 July. They are pushing their unsourced version of the article again, and claimed to be Mike Bingham here. Not only is their editing disruptive (they're calling sourced information incorrect, and replacing it with unsourced information), but it's clear block evasion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked with a note saying they cannot edit until they explicitly withdraw the legal threat they made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the IP did attempt to withdraw the legal threat (stating so both in this post and subject line here) prior to being blocked. There's still a WP:COI issue; but it appears the WP:NLT issue is resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that but I've unblocked and apologized. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, while NeilN unblocked 190.178.197.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the original IP, 190.178.230.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is still blocked for legal threats. And the former IP has not contributed since NeilN unblocked. So should this situation be considered resolved?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative attention seems to be needed on Bill Cosby. There appears to be a single editor, Georgeivs vid, editing against consensus to remove information regarding the sexual assault allegations.

Judging from this recent talk page conversation with NeilN, the RfC regarding the allegations (which so far overwhelmingly supports maintaining mention of the allegations in the lead) was needed because User:Georgeivs vid desired to change established version to remove any mention of the sexual assault allegations.

Meanwhile, multiple editors have worked on talk page to create an improved, neutral and brief mention of the allegations for lede summary, including: Cwobeel, Gaijin42, LavaBaron, AtHomeIn神戸, BlueSalix, Anythingyouwant, and Louieoddie but Georgeivs vid keeps reverting. It seems a warning regarding consensus and also that unfavorable does not equal BLP violation might be helpful. If disruption continues a topic ban should perhaps be considered. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, Qualudes are Schedule I in the USA, so there is no way to get them legally in the US unless you are a research facility with permission from the DEA, so his removal of "illegal" to describe them is factually wrong. As to the allegations, WP:WELLKNOWN plus the consensus in Archive 2, plus the ongoing RFC seem to make it clear that there is a strong consensus to include this in the lede of the article. I've skimmed BLP and BLPCRIME again, I don't see any policy justification for excluding it and the allegations are difficult to ignore if we truly follow the sources. Care must be taken, but it would seemingly be irresponsible to have nothing about this string of events. Reading though the archives, it appears he is using obstructionist tactics and hollow wikilawyering to get his preferred version, thus whitewashing the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quaaludes appear to have been widely prescribed in the US until about 1984 as a legal drug. AFAICT, the drug is still available in other countries. Again, AFAICT, Cosby's statements indicate he obtained the drugs by prescription in the 1970s - when the drug was quite legal as such. Collect (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This neglects to consider the required warning label that accompanies such prescriptions in the U.S. which states: "Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed", so illegal seems an appropriate description for Cosby's admitted use of Quaaludes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was made that it was per se an "illegal drug" - that a person can illegally dispense a legally acquired drug is true of every single prescription drug in the US - the edit did not refer to Cosby's act as being illegal, but to the drug itself at the time. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The timetable matters, other countries do not since that is the country where this happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And at the time he appears to have acquired the drug - the statement is that he did o with a prescription for a legal drug. And every scrip drug can be illegally redispensed <g> (including such drugs as Atenolol, Metoprolol, and barf bags [187] ("I once obtained, just for asking, a large plastic measuring cup (of the sort I think you're supposed to pee in). The purpose was because I was driving a friend home who wasn't feeling well, so I asked if we could get a barf bag and that's what they gave me. Even this innocuous-looking plastic item was so labeled.") - the edit alas called it per se an illegal drug. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]