Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Current events[edit]

Okay, so we have a problem with Portal:Current events. Two IP addresses have vandalized the page multiple times, and I suspect that they are the same person. In any case, This,and this show a pattern of blatant and persistent vandalism. I suggest that a CheckUser look into this to find out if indeed the same person simply switched their IP address to dodge detection, and an admin deal with it. I have already given both a "level 1" warning.--RM (Be my friend) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Syring[edit]

I previously posted this here, but got minimal response, so I'm trying again in a more concise manner.

I have reason to believe that Patrick Syring, a man sent to prison for threatening James Zogby and other members of the Arab American Institute, has been editing Zogby's article, the articles of other prominent Arab Americans, as well as his own article. I've found evidence that he has used multiple accounts and multiple IP addresses to do this over the last few years (the latest IP address being, as well as evidence that ties those accounts to Patrick Syring himself. What is the best way to handle this situation? Wikixote (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Who the editor is aside, I'd support a block of the IP based on this kind of thing. I don't care if he/she has already been warned for it; it's totally intolerable. There's vandalism and then there's extreme libel. See also [1] and [2]. The IP has been warned enough times. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked User talk: for following his edit with another accusing with no sources a person of being anti-semetic. Clear agenda pushing, not acceptable. The second IP that Mkativerata mentions has not edited since Sept 2009 so I think can be left alone (though if those edits were current I would also endorse a block). For a more long term solution, they are clearly the same person on different computers or rotating IPs. SGGH ping! 09:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Semi protect Patrick Syring perhaps? SGGH ping! 09:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that semi-protecting the James Zogby article would make the most sense, as this editor seems to have quite the fixation (having targetted this article with multiple accounts since at least 2008, and Zogby himself since 2007). I suspect that the Patrick Syring article may need extensive reworking, or possible deletion, as it was mostly written by Syring himself. Wikixote (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Can someone investigate user:THEQUEEN99, who is making all the same disruptive edits as banned sock master user:Polylepsis? (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis is open for further examination. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Another User:Polylepsis sock[edit]

User:Einkleinestier is restoring the reverted edits of user:THEQUEEN99, a banned sock of user:Polylepsis. (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Whacked; will add to the SPI if not done already. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

problem on Ghost[edit]

The RfCs have been closed - move along, nothing to see here. Shell babelfish 09:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unresolved: Classic WP:SHOT: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) blocked for edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (Later unblocked per promise to not edit Ghost article.)

I keep trying to remove or {{Fv}}-tag a footnote on Ghost that has failed verification, but I have a number of editors consistently re-adding it and removing the tag. The statement in question is the bit about 'pseudoscientific belief' (in text, based on footnote 3) which refers to the 2006 version of the NSF's Science and Technology Indicators. the current (2010) version of this document - available here in html and in a more complete form here in pdf - supersedes the 2006 version, and makes no mention of either 'pseudoscientific beliefs' or ghosts. Note that I am not objecting to the NSF or the pseudoscience bit per se, just to this misrepresentation of their position.

I have made this point two or three different times in talk and edit summaries, but none of the editors involved in the page have seen fit to acknowledge it.

If you want to take me to task for being bull-headed about this issue, we can discuss that, but I am bull-headed and right in this case, and I am tired of struggling with non-communicative editors. someone please fix it. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted in an earlier thread, you have set yourself up to not accept consensus, expressed in several places, concerning the NSF report. There's nothing that needs to be fixed here except your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not the place to bring edit conflicts. Woogee (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is, however, the place to report editors who are tendentiously violating wp:V. you've got three or four editors insisting on the inclusion of a quote that appears nowhere in the most current version of the document they are citing - how does that improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia?
to your other points, I'll simply remind you to comment on the topic, not the editor, and then I'll forget all about it. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad to see my powers of observation and extrapolation remain in fairly good shape. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
well, BMK, I do think you misunderstand the nature of consensus. consensus is not a tool for getting what one wants, it's a tool for building an encyclopedia. I am not particularly concerned when a number of editors form a consensus that detracts from the value of the encyclopedia, and I don't mind standing up to such a group even if it causes me some trouble. The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right. I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right, because then I could leave this stinking, stupid, thoroughly irrational conflict and go do something more productive.
Now, if you would care to discuss this with me rationally and demonstrate that I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that. I'll be very surprised if you come up with a feasible argument, but I will appreciate it and accept it if you do. On the other hand, if you don't have a feasible, rational argument... what are you criticizing me for? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am criticizing you for ignoring a clear consensus when it is put in front of you, because it's not the result you wanted, and for continuing to attempt to manipulate things to get the result you want in the face of that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right." ----> see WP:TRUTH, get bonus points from implying that other editors are using irrational perspectives. "I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right (...)" ---> us people have been trying to do that at Talk:Ghost and WT:NPOV. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not really possible to demonstrate that someone is not right when they excell in the practice of not hearing what's being said, which is clearly what's going on here, and will continue to go on until Ludwigs2 is in some fashion compelled to follow the community consensus he doesn't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me - what part of "The quote being used does not appear in the source being cited" are you having trouble with? BMK, you can attack me personally until the cows come home (I really don't give a flying f#ck what you think about me), but you seem to be arguing that we should violate wikipedia policy because you don't like the person pointing it out.
Policy is on my side here - it's too bad that you're too blinded by your own emotions to see that to see that, but I really don't care. argue the point or go away. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Hopeless. I suggest this thread be closed, as there's no admin action to be taken here, unless someone wants to look into L2's intransigence and deliberate ignoring of consensus; certainly nobody that L2 is complaining about has done anything against policy, no matter how often he pounds his chest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

so, in other words, you're not going to make an argument, you're simply going to ask to have the thread closed without due consideration? yes, hopeless is a good word: complete incapacity to understand policy or engage in rational discussion. very sad. Honestly, you'd server yourself better by taking the time to explain your position than by continuing in this kind of... heck, I can't think of a polite word, so I'll leave it hanging. go away, and allow someone who is willing to discuss the matter to explain it to me.
Unfortunately, you may have a significant wait, since no one is willing to discuss it with you, because you don't hear them. Toodles! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm patient, that's fine. it's not like the problem is going anywhere. thanks for contributing, at any rate. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, this is not about scientific research, where new findings replace old and outdated ones. The NSF report changes slightly from year to year. In the absence of any evidence that they have changed their POV, the contents of ALL the NSF reports are legitimate sources. The part that's relevant and fits the ArbCom wording exactly is found in the 2006 version and possibly others. Just because the NSF declared belief in ten concepts to be "pseudoscientific beliefs" in 2006, doesn't mean they are suddenly not pseudoscientific beliefs today. What you say above really doesn't matter. It's just another diversionary attempt (by substituting a different version for the one which contains the content overwhelmingly approved by two RfCs). The National Science Foundation is a legitimate source and my simple proposal has overwhelmingly passed muster in two different RfCs found at Talk:Ghost and at Talk:NPOV. There are two overwhelming consensus against you. I invite you to bow to the consensus as any good Wikipedian does. Your continual violation of consensus isn't taken lightly here. You have just been blocked and unblocked based on a promise not to edit the Ghost article, but your disruption is still very evident on talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer: Your entire argument has been that this 'pseudoscientific belief' terminology - which only appears (to my knowledge) in the 2006 revision of this document - is significant enough to the NSF that we can justify the claim that the NSF objects to any non-scientific belief, whether or not it was ever presented as scientific. The fact that this terminology only appears in that revision, and was subsequently revised away completely so that it is no longer used in the current version of this document (or anywhere else), is a pretty clear indication that the NSF does not mean to say what you consistently claim it means to say.
Even scientists make mistakes. The hallmark of a good scientist is that s/he corrects the mistake and moves on, which is what the NSF has done. You, by contrast, are clinging to an unsupported, outdated statement simply because you want it to be true. You had very thin grounds for making this assertion in the first place, and even those grounds have slipped away with the NSF revisions.
Let me be frank here. I am being a hard-assed bitch about this issue (yes, I know that), and I'm doing it for a very particular reason. You spent a good month insulting me, misrepresenting me, defaming me, and otherwise acting like a hysterical fool (I have a couple of hundred diffs that will demonstrate that, which I will bring up when I take you to RfC) all so that you could reach this point where you could dismiss a logical argument on purely emotional/personal grounds. It is a masterful and thoroughly disgusting example of political gamesmanship, and I salute you for your perseverance, if not for the ethics or intelligence of the act. I will continue to argue this point (yes, like a hard-assed bitch) until the wikipedia community makes it clear that (a) I have misunderstood the situation, or (b) that they prefer your brand of poison to my brand of reason. Frankly, the difference between your position and mine is minor enough that I would have given this up as pointless ages ago, except that I cannot stand this kind of political manipulation.
So, I thank you for your reasoned response above; as I have shown, your reasoning is flawed. would you care to make a stronger case for your position, or are you going to go back to ad hominem attacks? posted by Ludwigs2 at 12:51, 12 March 2010
BINGO!       (Pointy too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, was that an actual argument, or another ad hominem? As you can see, I heard him perfectly well, I just think he has a rather stupid argument. can you do better? I'm sorry BMK, but if you haven't got anything intelligent to say, it's probably time for you to stop talking. I mean, it's fine by me either way - the more you harass me like this, the stronger my case gets - but I'd rather this were decided by reasoned discussion. --Ludwigs2 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You really need to review the definition of an ad hominem argument. Tan | 39 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
"IDHT" accusations are at least a borderline ad hominem if they are patently false, as here. Hans Adler 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not. I'm not making any judgment as to who is right or wrong, or the validity of the claims. I am just saying that Ludwigs2 repeatedly claims that other people are using ad hominem arguments, when they are not. Ad hominem != personal attack. Tan | 39 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the fact that "BINGO!" above is linked to WP:IDHT. Beyond my Ken is clearly accusing Ludwigs2 of using the "I didn't hear that" technique. While such an accusation can be justified in some cases, it is not so in this case because Ludwigs2 actually has the better arguments, which are simply being ignored by the opposite side. Therefore when Beyond my Ken linked to WP:IDHT, it was at least a borderline ad hominem. Clear now? Hans Adler 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh, no, it's not "clear" at all. I think that you, like Ludwigs2, have a misconception of what an ad hominem argument is. Tan | 39 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This is extremely off-topic, but I maintain that it is a borderline case of the definition of "ad hominem abusive" under Ad hominem#Types of ad hominems. Basically, Beyond my Ken said: "Ludwigs2's arguments are invalid because he is in the minority on Talk:Ghost and has been so for some time." (The reason the IDHT link must be interpreted in this way is that Ludwigs2 has an extremely strong argument – that this is an egregious case of quote-mining – which nobody is addressing. I.e. the IDHT actually occurs on the other side.) There is a connection between Ludwigs2's situation and his credibility, but it is weak.
Ludwigs2 is absolutely right here, in every respect. The IDHT is clearly going on on the side of Brangifer, as usual (I can give you a few more examples if you are interested) and resisting against an attempt to push a policy violation through by bullying is never a POINT violation, even if the policy violation itself is not a big deal when taken in isolation (i.e. without the attempt to push it through).
I think we have a problem here with people who have no idea how scholarly citation works and who think quote-mining is good academic practice. Hans Adler 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Hans, this has gotten blown all out of proportion by User:Ludwigs2, User:Dbachmann, and now by yourself. If I'm wrong, then my fault is the extremely serious policy violation of believing the overwhelming majority of editors, including notable admins, who have clearly stated that they support my proposition in two RfCs, and who have actively resisted their arguments. They haven't convinced them, but have apparently fooled you into joining them. Abiding by such a great consensus is apparently a very serious offense! After all, in the world of Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, CONSENSUS has NOTHING to do with how Wikipedia works. In Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's world it obviously doesn't, so they must be right and I must be mercilessly hounded by them in all venues, talk pages, and noticeboards (as I have been!), including a planned REVENGE RfC/U.

What was it that the overwhelming majority endorsed so clearly in TWO RfCs?:

  • That the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for what it states. It stated that belief in the ten items they listed in a very independently clear manner (in relation to the original source) were "pseudoscientific beliefs". (There is no evidence they have ever changed their position, and lack of mention in a later version is irrelevant to that point. The pseudoscientific concepts they mentioned are still pseudoscientific.)

Is that such a radical proposition when they stated it so clearly? Am I such a terrible person for innocently believing what they say? Is that "quote mining"?

Ludwigs2 expressed very clearly that the RfC at Ghost was formulated improperly, and based on that Ludwigs2 has refused to accept the consensus from the RfC and the RfC at Talk:NPOV. Well, it really is irrelevant whether Ludwigs2 was right or wrong in that matter. Even if they were right, that wasn't the question dealt with in those two RfCs, and Ludwigs2's rage over losing two RfCs is misplaced and simply disruptive revenge, which he's planning on wreaking on me in an upcoming RfC/U. I have already told him that the gun is in his hand, and if he's going to shoot, then do it. It's not my fault that the gun is pointed at his own foot, since he's the one who has violated multiple policies since this started, most notably the rule of consensus, which generally trumps nearly all other policies. (Note that when and if a consensus is wrong, the solution is not to persecute those who followed consensus, but to change policy.)

My three faults are in

  1. believing and abiding by the overwhelming consensus of a large number of editors in two RfCs, and
  2. believing the arguments made by many of those editors who have debated this with Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, and then
  3. pointing out very clearly that Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's behavior (personal attacks, edit warring to the point of Ludwigs2 being blocked), and other policy violations were/are against consensus, disruptive, and very improper. (They obviously consider such "revealings" to be incivil.) Face-wink.svg

Are those three things punishable offenses? Let's see what the result of the RfC/U against me shows. If editors here fail to defend me and allow these two (or three) editors (the "gang of three") to use the RfC/U to distract from the real issues, then we have a serious problem. If the gang of three can convince other editors that my actions (in pointing out the improper nature of their policy violations, refusal to accept consensus, and edit warring) are gross incivility violations that are worse than their offenses, well, then those editors will have succeeded in fooling everyone and elevating refusal to abide by a consensus and edit warring against it to acceptable practices.

Why do I say that this has been blown out of proportion? Because my fault is in refusing to address a very different matter that wasn't dealt with in the two RfCs. I refuse to let the gang of three divert this away from what the overwhelming consensus has approved. They approved those two RfCs as they were worded, and they obviously believed they were worded properly. And ever since then the consensus editors have resisted the efforts of this "disruptive" (is that really so incivil a word?) gang of three who refuse to abide by the consensus. No one says they have to believe it, but they should be silent and let Wikipedia continue to function. Instead they are pursuing this matter in many venues, noticeboards, and a planned revenge against me personally in a coming RfC/U. That's serious disruption and a classic example of tendentious editing: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Read that essay and you'll see it was written with the gang of three in mind.

In fact, if editors here fail to meet up at the RfC/U and make their voices count, they will by default have voted for such a change of practice here. Consensus will mean nothing. Is that what we want? Are those three "faults" of mine really faults, or are they the proper way to defend Wikipedia against the two editors (Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann) who have declared ownership of the Ghost article and have grossly ignored and warred against a very clear consensus? What think ye? (Frankly I think they should have already been blocked and then topic banned from all fringe (paranormal/pseudoscience/alternative medicine) subjects (articles and talk pages), and if they start an RfC/U against me, they should have their blocks reinstated and lengthened for frivolous and disruptive misuse of RfC. Dbachmann should also be desysopped no matter what. He should know better than to do the dastardly things he's already done.) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, consensus means nothing if it's only based on random sociological factors rather than reasoned debate, if it obviously needs to be revised because its result is absurd, and if it will be revised as a matter of course once the wider community looks at the matter.
According to you, the NSF has claimed with its full scientific weight that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience.
The purported NSF claim is patently absurd because it implies that belief in most religions is pseudoscience. Ghosts feature in Christianity (resurrection of Jesus), Islam (genies) and many other religions. Therefore belief in Christianity or Islam would be belief in pseudoscience. Similarly, belief in Buddhism and Hinduism implies belief in reincarnation and therefore belief in pseudoscience.
A definition of pseudoscience compatible with this claim would be so broad as to be essentially meaningless and contradicts the very paragraph before the one that you are quote-minging: "Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility'". (My italics) Hans Adler 11:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hans, your comment is based on a misunderstanding and is therefore misleading and a straw man argument, which you then use to discuss religion, even though religion isn't part of the quote or my argument. You write "according to you", but even a relatively careless reading of my wording and the quote makes it clear that neither I nor the NSF have "claimed...that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience." The NSF statement and their reference to the Gallup Poll clearly focuses on beliefs, not the items listed. That doesn't mean they couldn't have done it, but they didn't in this instance. They clearly state that beliefs in the ten items are "pseudoscientific beliefs". That's not the same as stating that the items are pseudoscientific. That's your interpretation. Although it's an accurate interpretation of fact, it's not accurate to make the quote say that. What can accurately and justifiably be concluded from the Gallup Poll and the way the NSF use it is that the NSF equates paranormal beliefs with pseudoscientific beliefs because Gallup never used the word "pseudoscience", but repeatedly used the word "paranormal". The NSF then took that and used the word "pseudoscience" when referring to those items. I hope that ends the use of this misunderstanding of the quote. I totally AGF since it's an easy mistake to make. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The misunderstanding is entirely on your side. I maintain that your distinction is meaningless pedantry.
If it was true that it did not follow that these subjects themselves are pseudosciences, the your proposed addition to WP:POV would be completely off-topic. You have advertised this list of ten subjects with the words: "In fact, I can hardly think of a better or more authoritative example". Now that you are under pressure, now that you realise that your position is indefensible, you are moving the goalposts. I am not surprised because that's exactly the kind of disruptive debating to which I am used from you. And this is precisely why we need WP:Requests for comment/BullRangifer. This and your habit of conducting character assassination campaigns on other users. (To any pseudo-pro-science civility police admin considering to punish me for the last sentence with a block: Diffs proving the allegation beyond doubt are of course available. Better look for a different pretext.) Hans Adler 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You are missing my point. I didn't say that "it did not follow that these subjects themselves are pseudosciences". I actually implied that such was the case. My point is that isn't what the quote actually says. Let's not engage in OR by making the NSF state something they didn't state. That's all. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? BTW, I'm not proposing to "add" anything to the actual wording of NPOV, only add a ref. You seem to be loading your guns, while I'm offering to smoke a peace pipe with Ludwigs2 on my talk page. I hope that you will join in and accept my offer. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Of interest to other editors, Hans did appear on my talk page and totally and deceptively baited me. I naively AGF and offered to settle differences, but he than took my offer, turned it around, and showed he had set me up in the worst manner. Very unethical and a total lack of good faith. That's a serious policy violation for which he should be blocked. He cannot be trusted. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
For the peanut galley (anybody left?): You can find the things that were actually said at User talk:BullRangifer. Short version:
  • Hans: "You can prevent [the RfC/U] by convincing us that it's not necessary. You would have to convince us that you finally understand what is wrong about your behaviour and that it has to stop."
  • Brangifer: "Your comments reveal that what you wrote above regarding seeking to lay this behind us if I admitted that my comments had hurt you were just baiting, lies, entrapment and deception".
I hope I am not the only one who sees the disconnect between these two versions. Hans Adler 14:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

────────── Oh, that is what you are driving at. I see. So you are making the same distinction that you made (under your former user name "Fyslee") in your character assassination campaign against Unomi: You knew that the fishing expedition against Unomi had ended with the result: "Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates." You knew that the admin who had blocked Unomi as a sockpuppet had apologised for the error afterwards. Yet here is what you wrote on ANI:

"You were User_talk:Unomi#Indefinitely_blocked_-_apparent_sockpuppet_of_User:Immortale and a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through. See case again." [5]

Later you defended this behaviour as perfectly OK. Things are beginning to make sense now. Apparently you believe that anything goes so long as what one says can be interpreted as only extremely and intentionally misleading rather than literally false.

Here is news for you: That's not how the world works. When you work actively on making people believe something that is not true, then you are lying. Hans Adler 20:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: BullRangifer has moved my above comment from here [6] to his talk page [7], where it now appears under the heading "Moved from NPOV talk" as if this was WT:NPOV, (See new heading below.) which of course it isn't. If ANI is not the place to discuss problematic editor behaviour then somebody please tell me where the right place is. Hans Adler 08:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion. I have retitled it to Moved from Talk:AN/I. I have stricken the no longer accurate wording. Sorry again. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hans, the proper thing to do is to respond to my comment above, rather than bring up old conflicts (which I thoroughly explain on my talk page) as an ad hominem attack, which is designed to do what ad homs are supposed to do -- distract from the real point. As such your comment is a totally misplaced personal attack of the worst kind. It's character assassination and poisoning the well.
Please repond to my comment properly and civilly. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems you forgot the point of this section: Ludwigs2 had to come here because a bunch of editors were bullying him while protecting an inaccurate claim supported by a misquotation. You were one of the worst bullies: You opened no less than two frivolous RfCs. The first one begged the question: It asked whether the NSF is a reliable source for a certain statement (which it didn't actually make in a meaningful way) and whether it can be considered to express the scientific consensus (when it claims to do so, which it didn't). The second tried to change a policy in order to further your position.
While trying to address these problems I became aware that the underlying conflict and your complete failure to grasp what is wrong with the problematic article content that you are supporting is part of a wider behavioural pattern that already became apparent in your earlier behaviour in relation to Unomi. You don't just make up your mind and refuse to change it much longer than most reasonable people do. You also make very forceful statements which, while not being entirely false (assuming some weird interpretation) at least strongly suggest something that you know not to be true. And you insist that this is not lying, is perfectly OK, and (in the latest instance) even we as Wikipedia are allowed to do this in our articles.
This is very much the core of the present ANI dispute. Hans Adler 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hans, that's a very deceptive misrepresentation of the facts, which are attested to by the multiple supporters of the two RfCs. I would never be able to fool them with such shoddy tactics as you propose. Your consistent failures to AGF are affecting your judgment.
Your first paragraph is misleading in several ways, most notably that I am not changing policy in any manner. I'm only adding a ref. That's all. Nothing would be changed. Your next paragraph is also misleading. I did not lie. Period. AGF. Thirdly you are returning to your attacks on me, rather than replying to my comment ("You are missing my point...") above which pointed out your error. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghost, arbitrary break[edit]

It seems to be clear what's going on. For some reason Ludwigs2 has acquired a reputation of being in the "pseudoscience" side, and so a lot of people have made up their minds that he must be wrong when he holds his opinion against so many others. But it turns out that he isn't. Which is why dab is on the same side at Talk:Ghost. I would have done the same if I had seen earlier what's going on there. Unfortunately I first saw the mess when I became aware of an RfC about editing a policy. The RfC was started by Brangifer. The RfC did not even have a link to the NSF source on which it was ostensibly based. When I looked for that, I eventually found it at an earlier RfC also started by Brangifer, which was still open. Both RfCs already were extremely messy. So I simply stayed out of the matter. My apologies to Ludwigs2 and dab, but I don't have that much time to waste for fighting against WP:Randy in Boise. Hans Adler 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have your attention, hopefully, may I ask everybody to turn on your brains and ask yourselves how likely it is that the NSF really meant to say, with its full scientific weight, that certain fields are pseudosciences without any further qualification, but instead of publishing this important contribution to the demarcation problem, a known-hard philosophical problem, they did it casually and even omitted this significant contribution to the pseudoscience debate from later versions of the paper. Hans Adler 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hans, you are very mistaken on four points:
  1. The RfC at Talk:NPOV -- Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference has always contained a link to the original source. Look again and click the link. It looks like this:

    --- Source: "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006", National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Belief in Pseudoscience". (See Note 29)

  2. While your linking to "Randy" is amusing, it's also very deceptive, offensive, and incivil. It is Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann who are acting in a tendentious manner, not I. If they had the RfC consensus on their side, you would be right, but that's undeniably not the case, so your argument carries no weight at all. It's totally wrong and thus also adds to the disruption.
  3. The NSF statement did not state that the ten items "are pseudosciences". The NSF carefully declared that "belief" in those items were "pseudoscientific beliefs". There's a huge difference. While that does, in effect, label the ten items as pseudoscientific in some manner or other, your statement is just plain wrong. Read the actual quote above in the RfC. What's really interesting, and what proves they were very deliberate in their statement, is that they were referring to a Gallup Poll which only used the word "paranormal". The NSF then used the word "pseudoscience" instead of paranormal, thus demonstrating their understanding of an obvious truth, that paranormal beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs.
  4. Their "omission" from any later editions really means nothing. There is no evidence (but some OR indulged by certain members of the gang of three) that the NSF has changed their opinion, and those items have most certainly not ceased to be pseudoscientific in some manner. The NSF report is a yearly report and it varies somewhat from year to year, often citing research, articles, polls, etc., which are actual at the time of publication. All of those reports are valid sources. None of them supercedes another later version, since they aren't scientific research, where newer research supercedes outdated and incorrect previous research. These are different. When one actually adds up the various things they have labelled as pseudoscientific in some manner during the years in all those reports, it adds up to quite a few more than just the ten they mentioned in 2006, and we could/should justifiably create a properly sourced list of all of them and state in an NPOV manner that the NSF has declared them all to be pseudoscientific in some manner or other. We have the NSF as a V & RS to do it.
Brangifer (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a matter for unambiguous attribution. "In <year>, <source> said <statement>" should work. If the source has since come out with a conflicting statement that would be a problem but to simply drop it does not indicate that it is no longer the case. Aside: one wonders if they have had as many griefers badgering them about it as we have and have simply decided to walk away from the advocates of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 10:18, March 13, 2010 UTC
Sorry, but I have refactored the above comment to include nowiki tags as the tags used in it were interpreted as real by the software and broke this page.— dαlus Contribs 10:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Saved me doing exactly that, thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Guy, that doesn't work because this claim has been assembled from something in the main text of the NSF document and a footnote. (See my hatted paragraph "What the NSF really said" below.) It also wouldn't solve the problem that it's quote-mining in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

─────── Re 1: I stand corrected. (I did end up at the other RfC when trying to make sense of things and looking for the reference itself. I guess it has something to do with the weird formatting of your proposal, but I shouldn't have mentioned this at all.)

Re 2: You are using a strategy that I have often observed: Some of the most disruptive editors are very liberal with certain accusations which accurately describe their own behaviour. (I guess this is not because they understand they are guilty of it themselves and they try to anticipate corresponding accusations so they can claim that their opponent is just mirroring them. Although that would be a very efficient rhetorical technique. But rather, I guess, they use these accusations after being targeted by them and being defenceless. Their conclusion, then, is not: "It's true and I must change my behaviour." Their conclusion is: "This is a highly efficient personal attack that I should take into my repertoire.")

Detailed argument condensed for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You are also using the same unethical rhetorical trick here that Beyond my Ken used above (see my discussion with Tan):

A: There is a consensus here to use [...] quotation in [...] way, but it is wrong. This is not what the authors meant, because [...].
B: You are wrong.
A: Why?
B: We all agree to use the quotation in this way. It's consensus. [Therefore] it's not a misquotation.
A: That's not a valid argument.
B: Ha! Now he is practising I didn't hear that and tendentious editing.

There are at least three factors that can lead to a consensus: (1) Everybody sees the truth. (2) Everybody sees what is most convenient to reach a certain goal, even if it is false. (3) A bunch of people agree with each other because they are friends or have a common enemy. Do we have a consensus of type (1) here? Let's test this hypothesis. What's the dynamic when we take matters to a more public place?

Oppose and objection (by the black sheep, Ludwigs2), Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Objection (by the other black sheep, dab), Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Support, (*) Oppose, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Support, Oppose, Support, Support, Comment, Support.

Look at the place marked (*). Before that we have 2 objections and 2 instances of words of caution. And a whopping 11 Support !votes. After the (*) we have 6 Support !votes and 6 Oppose !votes. Doesn't look like a stable consensus to me. (For simplicity I have argued as if the two RfC's were discussing the same question. Yes, I know it's a simplification.)

Re 3: Granted, the passage that you are trying to push into WP:NPOV says this:

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the [NSF], has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...] reincarnation, [...].

So you are making a distinction between subjects and belief in the subjects. OK, that's a distinction you can make if you are pedantic. But it is not a distinction that makes much sense when you are quote-mining in the first place.

What the NSF really said
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here is what the NSF really wrote:

Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" [...]
[...] about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] [...] (Moore 2005b).
[29]: Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body.
(Moore 2005b) Moore DW. 2005b. Three in four Americans believe in paranormal. Gallup Poll News Service.

The sentence "Obama is a Muslim" is false. If you draw that 'information' from a White House statement then you made a mistake. If instead you draw the 'information' that "Belief that Obama is a Muslim is belief in the truth" from the same statement, it's not more correct, it's just more absurd.

Re 4: Yes, the NSF report varies from year to year. No, they don't do it for your convenience, so that you have more versions to choose from for your quote-mining. E.g. in 2004 they used a more careful formulation: "According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include [...]" with a different list. We don't need evidence that the NSF changed their opinion because we don't have more than very weak circumstantial evidence that they held such an opinion, as a considered opinion with a weight suitable for what you are trying to use it for, in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I read it. NSF basically says that belief in ghosts is pseudoscience, a few people don't like it, tough shit. Sorry, that's an end of it. It's been discussed to death and consensus is clear, it's now got to the point of disruptive refusal to accept consensus. I don't see any willingness on the part of the holdouts to compromise, and the arguments indicate to me that the opposition is rooted in WP:TRUTH rather than commitment to policy. How many RfCs and discussions have to go against before people will finally accept this, I wonder? No, don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. And yes I know this is never going to fix the real world problem that close to 100% of scientists agree that the paranormal is pseudoscience whereas a large proportion of the US public in particular remains wedded to belief in such stuff. We can't and actively don't want to fix that, we're just documenting it. It's no different to creation myths, which remain creation myths however many people sincerely believe them. The term is accurate even though true believers are unable to see it without feeling their belief is being challenged - that is their problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Beleif in ghost is pseudoscience and there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious so that no one gets confused. The reference says that beleif in ghost is pseudoscience. Yes the 2008 version does not mention it specifically but that does not mean that belief has become ligit in the eyes of science. This whole arguement in my opinion is rather strange. I have specifically asked those who disagree to specify the text this quote should be used to support.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(Guy, you are arguing on the level of truth rather than wikilawyering, so I am responding on the same level.) Well, we are still writing an encyclopedia here. That requires intelligent reading of the sources rather than quote-mining to make absurd claims. Of course there are strong connections and similarities between religion, other belief systems and pseudoscience. But that doesn't mean it's OK for an encyclopedia to call religious beliefs pseudoscientific and vice versa where it makes no sense. (By all means do so where it does.) Basing it on a misquotation doesn't make the absurdity better.
We all have a tendency to believe that subjects we don't like are more closely related to each other than subjects we do like. That doesn't make it OK to give up all standard distinctions when dealing with ridiculous topics such as ghosts, reincarnation and pseudoscience.
By calling ghosts and reincarnation pseudoscience in general and without qualification, i.e. in the absence of any pretence at being scientific or copying of the language of science (of course there are plenty of pseudoscientists who play their silly games with these beliefs, but they are not dominant for these topics) you are making the term pseudoscience redundant and basically useless.
Basically you have just told me that yes, a Buddhist or Hindu who believes he will be reincarnated, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, a Muslim who believes that genies exist, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, an African who believes in witches, is believing in pseudoscience. Is that really what you mean? Then what word are you going to use for the distinctive properties of writings such as Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity"? [8] Perhaps it isn't even pseudoscience but something else? Hans Adler 12:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing "absurd" about the idea that most paranormal ideas and nearly all paranormalists are pseudoscientific. My reading of the source (which reading I like to think is intelligent, given that I am a graduate professional) supports the statement we make, undoubtedly some people don't like that and have spent an inordinately long time raising the issue at new venues in the apparent hope of eventually getting an answer they do like. This has now, in my view, reached the point of disruptive stonewalling. Time to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Guy, you seem to have a serious case of IDHT. Do you count all believing Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus as paranormalists? I was under the impression that you are a Christian yourself, which would make you a paranormalist yourself. (I am an atheist, by the way, so I guess I am safe.) The stonewalling is entirely on your side. Most people who believe in ghosts or reincarnation do so because it is part of their religion (or because it is part of the culture in which they grew up). Most of them are not trying to explain or justify ghosts/reincarnation with science, or confusing these things with science, or otherwise of the opinion that they are in any way connected to science. For them it is no more pseudoscience than it is pseudobakery or pseudomusic. Brangifer's second RfC tries to paint all adherents of these religions as believers in pseudoscience. While I am not personally offended by this in the least (just look at some of my statements about religion in the archives of Talk:Creation myth if you don't believe me), it is simply nonsensical disinformation that dilutes the word pseudoscience almost beyond recognition. The few Christians who go stark raving mad and start writing about intelligent design or weak dematerialization are the pseudoscientists, and we need a word for them. If you call all Christians pseudoscientists we don't have an adequate word. But perhaps that's what you are after? You, Brangifer and quite a bunch of others are POV pushing for the pseudoscientists by attempting to dilute the term so that it becomes meaningless. As a firm believer in accuracy and the scientific method I am not going to watch you compromising the intellectual integrity of the encyclopedia in this way. Hans Adler 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Now I am really baffled. Haven't you read anything I've written? Where have I brought religion into this? You are very clearly referring to something I've said, so please provide the quote and diff. If I've written something unclearly, then it needs tweaking. I have clearly distanced myself from those who are painting this feared boogieman on the wall. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you Guy? I didn't think so. Hans Adler 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
So now you want to have a private conversation in a public place and you want to accuse others of not hearing because they don't agree with you. I think we're done. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It was done before it started: no there there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Guy, I find it hard to imagine that you fake misunderstanding me, so here is the explanation: I responded to you, pointing out what I felt logically followed from what you said. Then Brangifer came and insisted it wasn't his opinion, of which I am well aware. Brangifer is of course free to comment on what I say to you, even when it starts with "Guy, ...". But when he does so he needs to take care not to assume that everything I say about you actually refers to him. Hans Adler 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Heavens to mergatroid... I avoid this thread for a day, and all hell breaks loose!
let me make a few points perfectly clear:
  1. If Brangifer held an RfC on the question "Should Wikipedia state as a matter of policy that the sky is orange, based on such-and-such a cite?", I don't care if he got 150 editors to register their support for it; I would still steadfastly and vocally oppose it. RfC's are not intended to be used to insert highly questionable material into the encyclopedia over the reasoned objections of other editors. Using them in that way is a clear and unambiguous perversion of wikipedia's core principles.
  2. pseudoscience contains the word science because it refers to ideas that are improperly presented as scientific. It is not a catch-all for any old application of skeptical disdain one would like to make.
  3. Cherry-picking particular utterances to make absurd points is not responsible editing. sure, you can talk about using 'unambiguous attribution' to justify your cherry-picking - is that an invitation for me to collect a whole series of 'unambiguously attributed' instances where the NSF doesn't use the terminology? Won't that be charming; "The NSF called Ghosts pseudoscientific beliefs in the 2006 version of this document, but the failed to do so in the 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, and 20010 versions". perhaps we could then draw the conclusion that belief in ghosts was only pseudoscientific in the year 2006, but then it... got better? pure silliness...
  4. Hans said, quite clearly "For some reason Ludwigs2 has acquired a reputation of being in the "pseudoscience" side" and I am compelled to point out that that reputation is entirely and intentionally manufactured by brangifer, just so that he could play this particular political game. It still steams me! if you need any other reason to discount brangifer's efforts in this mess, you need look no farther than that.
I'll add - just in the spirit of clarity - that brangifer's "Peace Pipe" to me came in the phrase "If you'll stop now I won't seek to have you banned [...] I'm putting some very good weed from my stash into the peace pipe."[9] talk about a buzzkill... --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Ludwigs2 how would you like to see the source used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Ludwigs and Hans, is this really worth so much debate and hassle? A couple things seem fairly clear to me: 1) a newer NSF report not mentioning something in an older NSF report does not invalidate the earlier report or its information. If the NSF thinks it made an error, it will let us know. That's not to say that we can't exclude something if, as editors, we can agree that it is clearly erroneous. I don't think this is one of those cases. 2) Pseudoscientific and superstitious get conflated sometimes. I'm no expert in the area, but perhaps they shouldn't be. Belief in ghosts is always superstitious. If someone tries to make a scientific case for it, or believes in ghosts based on erroneous science, it is pseudoscientific. The lead as it appears right now [10] conveys this distinction, and it seems quite appropriate. I think this can be dropped. II | (t - c) 04:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This should be closed. Consensus is clearly against Ludwigs and his disruption has now been stopped. Verbal chat 11:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it hasn't been stopped, and he's once again threatening to persist until he gets his way, even to the point of reopening this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this can be closed. Consensus of all editors who are able to think scientifically instead of uncritically jumping on bandwagons is clearly against BullRangifer and his cronies. BullRangifer will be dealt with by RfC/U.
As to the situation at Ghost: Apparently my explanation at Talk:Ghost helped to clarify that this is not a minority pushing pseudoscience against the majority. In fact, the current text implies that if James Randi did an experiment to disprove a "ghost", he would be engaging in pseudoscience, and that a medical researcher researching ghost apparitions as symptoms of mental diseases is also doing pseudoscience. Among other problems. This is of course blatant nonsense, and unsurprisingly was not actually claimed by the NSF. Doc James, who was on Brangifer's side so far, seems to have understood my point and has proposed excellent wording for dealing with it.
I am sick and tired of so often having to go through so much drama after hysterical pseudo-pro-science editors have made up their minds that proposals they don't understand, based on distinctions they don't understand, must be POV pushing just because the same editor has earlier argued for another position they didn't understand.
Can't we ban this entire crowd of people who think they are scientists because they are wearing the right T-shirts, once and forever, so that we can finally concentrate our efforts on dealing with the never-ending stream of fringers who join the project? Hans Adler 14:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That's about the most deceptively worded comment I've seen on this page. The consensus in both RfCs are against you. Suck it up. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Support per Hans Alder. So much time is wasted on knee-jerk reactions and simplistic/specious reasoning that serve a POV rather than informative content. Unomi (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, the !voting occurs above, and your vote would be "Disagree", not support. Look at the RfC before making such comments based on Hans Adler's deceptively worded comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Forgot which page I was on. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
@ Doc James: I've discussed the proper way to use the quote previously, but (as normal) it was drowned in a sea of confused rhetoric. recapping in brief, the quote is usable to display the NSF's stand on critical thinking (at least with respect to the US) - something like "The NSF notes that large segments of the US population still believe in paranormal phenomena like ghosts, despite the lack of scientific evidence" would be perfectly reasonable, and completely in tune with the greater context of the document in question. I'm more than open to discussing any particular wording, I'm just opposed to the kind of extreme misrepresentation of the NSF's position that brangifer keeps stumping for
@ verbal: yeah, yeah... I was wondering when you'd start throwing spitballs.
@ II: sorry, but you've misunderstood the issue. the problem here is that brangifer has seized on the earlier report and fabricated a position for the NSF which there is no real evidence it holds. It's not a question of arguing that the NSF 'stopped claiming' or 'neglected to add' this position; There is no reason to suppose they were making the claim in the first place.
@ others: I have no real position on closing this debate, but if you try to close it in favor of the irrational position that brangifer is pushing here, I will simply re-open it and continue arguing for reason. If reason has prevailed here, say so; if it hasn't, let's keep at it until it has. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
More deception and threats of persistent disruption by Ludwigs2. The consensus in both RfCs are overwhelmingly against you. Suck it up instead of repeatedly insisting on disruptively keeping this alive until you get your way. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD and block those who then refuse to abide by the overwhelming consensus in both RfCs. This disruption and the incessant harassment here and elsewhere by these few editors are insufferable violations of multiple policies. This little gang needs to be placed in a wikijail for some time. How about topic bans for them all and letting them know that harassment, including revenge RfC/Us, will not be tolerated? -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick summary for any admin wondering about BullRangifer's plea:
Did the NSF say A in document B2006?
With some effort one can draw something like A from B2006 by assembling the main text with a footnote and ignoring the general context of B2006. One can (almost) do the same with B2004, but not with B2008 or B2010.
Is the NSF a reliable source for saying A?
To change WP:NPOV so that a footnote in it claims that the NSF said A.
Hans Adler 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hans, that's a very deceptive misrepresentation of the facts, which are attested to by the multiple supporters of both RfCs. I would never be able to fool them with such shoddy tactics as you propose. Your consistent failures to AGF are affecting your judgment. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think I count 4 or 5 times that brangifer has accused other people of misrepresentation and deception, on this thread alone. methinks he has a guilty conscience... Face-wink.svg

As I said (and will maintain) I will continue to argue for my side of this debate until it is resolved through reasoned discussion. brangifer's steadfast refusal to discuss the matter calmly and reasonably (as well as his fairly hysterical pleas that the thread must be closed before any such calm, reasoned discussion can take place) just lead me to believe that he should be ignored until the rest of us have discussed the matter properly and come to some kind of conclusion. Let's do that, shall we? --Ludwigs2 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party: it has been discussed, you just don't like the answer. Ghosts = pseudoscience. There's really nothing left to discuss. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
...and 40% of Americans claim to believe the world was made according to the biblical creation story. if wikipedia were interested in the mass of uninformed opinions that people hold, it would be a very different creature - entertaining, perhaps, but useless as an encyclopedia. I don't frankly care about your beliefs on the matter (I don't even care much about my beliefs, which are not at all what you seem to think). There is no proper attribution for the use of the term in this manner, and this garbage is a clear and obvious misrepresentation of the document in question and of the NSF's position. That is what matters. Thanks for sharing your views, though, I'll keep them in mind. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Blanking of Content on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party by User:PCPP[edit]

The below discussion was moved from WP:AE and the case adapted for presentation on ANI.

Multiple instances of Sneaky Vandalism, POV editing and violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. in spite of multiple warnings. A behavior the user has engaged in for years.

In presenting this, I hope to bring to the attention of admins the continual disruption and removal of content by User:PCPP on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party.

The user's editing pattern involves:

1. Repetitive blanking of vast amounts of sourced and centrally relevant material, with no discussion on talk, and often under edit summaries like “rv pov material.”

2. Distortion of sourced content and the addition of personal commentary, which he misattributes to sources already present in the article.

3. And, when under close scrutiny, the watering down of critical sources, with unsubstantiated claims to the effect that they are the content is “pov”, is undue, etc.

4. Attack of other editors to deviate attention when the issue is raised with him.

Even a superficial analysis can reveal his scouring of articles pertinent to the CCP’s human rights violations, from which he removes critical material, while simultaneously piling accusations against those attempting to contribute to those articles.

What I present below is but a sample of such behavior, all from within the past few months, by the user.

1. Article:6-10 Office

Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user.

The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article.

"According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong."[1] The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."[1]"

The diffs:[11] [12][13][14][15][16].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[17][18] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking.

Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[19]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source.

2. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking of 12 paragraphs of sourced, centrally relevant material, with no discussion.

Shortly following the expansion and addition of sources to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, PCPP blanks almost all the content added. He offers no explanation for this act. And his edit summary runs “rv POV material.”

3. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking

The above was preceded by a similar blanking of content here. Before this, an editor who has continually supported, worked with, and encouraged PCPP, blanks a portion of the content added to the article[20] with an argument to the effect that its good enough for the article to remain a “catalogue.”

4. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Whole-scale blanking

In the same article, the user, despite attempts to engage him in discussion, continues to blank a quarter of the article - 10K of content. He attacks the sources themselves, alleging their origin in US makes them anti-China and hence not RS. Kindly review the comments regarding this on talk:[21]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [22]

5. Article: Falun Gong

Nature of Disruption: Blanking.

Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[23].

6. Article: Falun Gong

Blanks almost the same content as above , this time labeling the sources “questionable” in the edit summary – no supporting discussion on talk. [24]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[25]

7. Article: Media of the People's Republic of China

Nature of Disruption: Blanking of material under a misleading edit summary

Content removed in edits with misleading edit summaries: [26]

8. Article: Mass line

Nature of Disruption: Repetitive addition of unsourced material and blanking of sourced content.

Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [27]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[28] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [29]

9. Article:Thought reform in the People's Republic of China

'Nature of disruption: Removes an entire section.

Edit summary makes no mention of it and no discussion on talk. [30]

10. Article:List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China

Comparatively minor disruptions such as repetitive changing of “Persection of Falun Gong” ( term used by academic sources, HRW, UN, Amnesty, US Congress reports, etc) to “Banning of Falun Gong”[31] [32][33]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [34]

11. Article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Blanks a para while falsely claiming in his edit summary that the content he blanked is a “misattribution”:[35]

12. Attacking reliable sources on talk to justify blanking of material .

The editor routinely attacks sources which do not align with his POV. Here, as a justification of his blanking of content from that source, the user attacks a Freedom House article by China expert Kurlantzick with claims that : "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts"[36] and here he attacks a Reporters Sans Frontiers source on 'grounds' that: " A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS"[37]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[38]. The user also continually engages in personal attack on those attempting to contribute to the article.


The above are just a few instances illustrative of the kind of the disruption the user engages in. The arguments the user presents on talk are often of a disruptive nature as well, and often invovles personal attacks on those contributing to the article.

PCPP also repeatedly changes the words from sources to weaken or distort the claims they make, the case often being the latter - distortion of the perspective of the source. These edits he labels: "clarifying", "per WP:NPOV", etc.[39],[40],[41]. In all these cases, the sources said those precise words as were in the article. He provides no other explanation for the changes he makes to them.

PCPP also rarely, if ever, adds any research to the articles. He focuses pulling apart these articles and simultaneously discrediting the contributions of others. This behaviour of his has gone on for a long time and above are but recent instances. I request admins to kindly review PCPP's contribution history. In it is apparent a clear pattern of removal of material critical of the CCP from articles through out wikipedia.

In addition, I would also like to draw attention to a systematic blanking of critical content and images on articles related to the CPP and its human rights violations which, I notice, has been happening on articles throughout wikipedia. Academic and news sources state that the Chinese Communist Party employs an army, hundreds of thousands strong, targeting Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia, Twitter and youtube[42]. My intent is not to imply that editors involved in such removal of material are all directly related to the CCP, but, to point out that the presence of research and reports, which uncover such activism by CCP’s propaganda departments, makes the issue deserving of further attention of the Wikipedia Community. I humbly request a careful analysis of the issue be done, before any judgment is made on the merits of this concern I raise, and if evidence is found of such activity, the necessary steps be taken to counter it. A lot of evidence exists in Falun Gong related pages themselves. For instance, the Persecution of Falun Gong article has had almost all information regarding the persecution( sourced to Amnesty, HRW, UN CAT, Congressional Executive Reports, academic sources, etc.) , blanked from it. Blanking has been done to the point that in the lead of the article itself, it is made to seem as if this major international crisis is but a mere claim made by practitioners. I point out the issue here on talk[43] In the past, these articles have witnessed attack from self-declared propagandists such as User:Bobby_fletcher. Identified by David Kilgour, and David Matas, and articles such as the ones here: [44][], as a major online activist for the CCP, “Bobbly Fletcher” engaged in presenting CCP propaganda on talk, de-tracking discussions, removal of content from the articles, etc. His presence on Wikipedia, and his disruptive activities were continually encouraged and supported by User:PCPP, who himself, as evidence above clearly demonstrates, has blanked vast amounts of info critical of the CCP from these articles.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [45] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)
  2. [46] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
  3. [47] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
  4. [48] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  5. [49] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]])

Since the user is obviously active on these pages with a political agenda of white washing the CCP, and since the behavior has continued for years, I believe a topic ban from articles related to the Chinese Communist Party is in order.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, in another recent instance of dishonest editing / "sneaky vandalism", the user removes a sentence completely under the edit summary "copyedit"(In the article: Media of the People's Republic of China) Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that almost all of the below claims by PCPP are distortions and lies, as may be verified. FOr instance #1 is not an acurate summary of the content he removed. #2. The source he mentions is an article by Kurlantzick, a China Expert. He plays on that some political website hosted the article. The rest are not even replies to the issues raised - but mere statements made for diverting attention from the real issues. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning PCPP[edit]

Statement by PCPP[edit]

I really don't see how the FLG sanctions can apply to any CCP-related article, as Dilip claimed. Dilip's personal attacks again Bobby Fletcher and rant about the PRC's "web spies" demonstrates exactly why I have difficulties working with him.


I in fact shortened the paragraph to:

The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."[1]

I summarized the statement into proper English, which is perfectly acceptable within editing guidelines. When Dilip doesn't agree with with such changes, he reverts the entire article, along with everything else that goes along with it.


Dilip himself added a large amount of questionable statements from a single unverified source from a political website [50], and completely destroyed the POV balance of the article. The only source I ended up removing was his; which is neither peer-reviewed or have any results on google scholar per WP:RS. I've rearranged most of the article in a more readable fasion, and restored and attributed several others.


That was a content dispute between me and another editor. I've since discussed with the editor, [51] who agreed that my edits has merits.


All I did was shuffle a couple of paragraphs around and removed one sentence that is not relevent to the article topic. I only edited that article once, and was immediatle reverted by asdfg in its entirity. [52]


Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[53]. I restored the sources and properly attributed them.


And ignore the fact that I added a large amount of info regarding the thought reform movement. The source I removed was from 1969 and no longer up to date, and contradicted by the info I added. I even searched google scholar for asdfg's claims, and found nothing as it claimed.


The terminology itself was highly disputed, the sources themselves didn't even come to an conclusion, and an AFD on the terminology didn't even come to a clear concensus [54]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per WP:NAME


The source is disputed on talk page [55] and reached the concensus that it is misattributed.


I am within my right to question such sources per WP:RS, and within my right to remove sources that lacks peer review or citation and is used to push a single POV.

I find the current situation utterly ridiculous. No matter what I add, the FLG camp always find minor excuses over a couple of paragraphs or labels, and revert my edits entirely because of it. Dilip himself has a habit of disappearing for months, completely ignore the changes and concensus that has since ocurred, and revert back to his preferred version with little discussion. It's even more ludicrous that I have to document every change to single-purpose accounts that are used to promot Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note Dilip's response only highlighted his own editing problems. He provides misleading diffs and expects it to stick, when a closer examination shows that the paragraph has been replaced, not removed. He lawyers around WP policies and completely disregards WP:RS and WP:NPOV, refers to all of his favorite sources as "experts", no matter how unsubstantiated the claims are [56], while dismissing anything from China as "propaganda" [57] [58] [59].--PCPP (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jtrainor[edit]

LMAO, FYI I'm Australian, and neither am a Chinese govt employee nor Chinese citizen, and I don't even live there. And there's plenty of complaints about the neutrality and editing problems present in the FLG articles [60] by editors of a wide range of backgrounds including a Canadian, American, Swede, New Zealander, and Hong Kong resident.--PCPP (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jayen466[edit]

I find it hilarious to see me being single out and dismissed as a Chinese "web spy" by the creator who runs a FLG promotional website and advocates on Wikipedia [61] [62] . I am neither a member of the CCP nor an anti-FLG activist, and am not editing Wikipedia to promote these causes. My concern is over the POV problem present in the FLG articles and the existance of promoters here to spread their cause[63] [64], and due to their pervasive editing habits and constant attacks [65] [66] [67] [68] [69], it's obvious these people aren't interested in building Wikipedia, and I've adopted a no-nonsense approach to their behavior. --PCPP (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP[edit]

Comment by Asdfg12345[edit]

PCPP focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. His behaviour is consistently destructive, and it, along with the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) Recently he has refined his methods, too. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. He is a drag on contributing, and exerts a net negative influence. He only destroys the value of others' contributions, rather than bringing his own ideas and sources to the table and working together for how to incorporate the different viewpoints. He only says the viewpoint of this or that scholar (it would seem, actually, every scholar who has documented the crimes of the CCP) is POV and tries to delete it or weaken it, without any regard for NPOV, which calls for all significant views to be represented. He has recently deleted swathes of material from several articles, then writes misleading edit summaries and notes on the talk page. What's even more bizarre is how the editors calling for my downfall don't care when he does this stuff. It's a bit farcical. I have left maybe a dozen notes to PCPP saying how I would like to work with him, asking him to explain himself, asking him to bring sources to the table that support the POV he wants to see introduced. But he doesn't play ball and just rebukes it all, going right ahead with the deletions and whatnot. It's a very effective technique, to be honest. At the very least, it's dampened my usually boundless enthusiasm--at least enough to take a break from all this for a while. I'll be back, but hopefully he won't be around. (Note: if he changed his approach and started doing research, and discussed his changes nicely, I would love to work with him. He has robust opinions on these subjects that, if sources can be found to support them, need to be represented and explained. But his focus on destroying my work really gets to me. I asked him to just paste onto the talk page stuff he deletes from now on. Maybe that will help. Though his deletions of any mention of the word "indoctrination" or "struggle session" goes on.) --Asdfg12345 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight[edit]

The only relevant evidence is that which relates to the Falun Gong. The rest could be relevant to the user conduct Request for Comment, but shouldn't be listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I second PhilKnight. Long-term behavious is better addressed through an User RfC. ANI is more appropriate for dealing with issues that require more immediate admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The RfCU has not seen a lot of traffic, and it is mostly the usual suspects who have commented. I would urge uninvolved administrators to look into the allegations properly, and either clear PCPP's name or substantiate the allegations. --JN466 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I present here conduct, as recent as a few days back when the such behaviour of the user escalated. RfC has proved ineffective since there is a group of editors covering him up for and encouraging these edits. They win by democracy. This is precisely the cover that has allowed for such behavior of the user to carry on for long. I hope that admins would take a careful look at the case as many of the diffs I present are just a few days old, and constitute evidence of clearly disruptive behavior( for instance, the large-scale blanking in "Propaganda in the PRC" article) which calls for admin intervention. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Epeefleche[edit]

The nom raises some points here that deserve close examination (which I've not had time for at the moment), and if which accurate should likely be addressed in some manner, though I agree with Phil that the only relevant information is that which relates to the Falun Gong, which does not appear to be the focus of many of the above diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor[edit]

Would be interesting to see if this guy's IP resolves to a Chinese government server. Jtrainor (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jtrainor, I have had concerns along the same lines, and the issue is certainly worth investigating. But having explored this subject a bit, I have a feeling the issue could be more complex than that. You may want to skip through these articles:[70][71], and this material ( a significant portion of which was also recently blanked by PCPP). Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Gladys J Cortez[edit]

All eleventeen-squazillion of these evidentiary bytes seem (to me, at least) to have a better home than AN/I--has anyone tried adding all this info (ALLLLL this info!) here?? I mean, if we're having an RFC, it seems silly to have evidence spread in multiple places like this...esp since some of it seems relevant to the stuff already being discussed there AND I don't see a view by Dilip rajeev anywhere over there. Might be a thought......(Plus this bundle-o-text makes my scroll-wheel sad.) GJC 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466[edit]

PCPP's top mainspace edits: [72][73] 7 of the top 10 articles are Falun Gong-related, another 2 are related to the Communist Party of China. We have scrutinised pro-Falun Gong SPAs, we should do the same to SPAs on the other side. And if anyone has a spare afternoon, the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP needs outside input. Moderated discussions may be the way forward. JN466 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Edward130603[edit]

Thinking that PCPP is a PRC gov't agent or something similar is really stupid. It doesn't mean that Dilip is paid/hired by FLG to push their POV and massage their image on Wikipedia, right? Funny how this ANI comes from a person that reverts constructive material of other users all the time.--Edward130603 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by[edit]


- IP seems to have cooled down (at least for now) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added some links to a commercial course on Permanent makeup. [74] I removed it, it got re-added, so I removed it again, and used the normal template for spam warnings [75] and since then the user has been harassing me, refactoring comments [76], accusing me of edit warring [77], personal attacks [78], "highly offensive profanity" [79] and "swearing" [80] and all sorts of things. I decided to try to ignore the person, and archived the conversations of my talk page as a part of this, but he/she keeps reverting it [81], so obviously ignoring doesn't work either.

I'm clearly out of my depth here, desperate and can not handle this situation, and need administrator help to get this harassment to stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You listed the wrong IP. It's actually (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, cut and paste error. How did I not see that? Anyway, the IP subsequently of course reported me (see below) and was rebuked by several contributors. Hopefully that should solve it, we'll see. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Abusive profanties by OpenFuture[edit]


- IP did not return. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This contributor did not wish to express his opinions on the discussion page and permit others to consider the merits of his opinions preferring to simply delete the contributions of others and then engaging in edit wars to maintain his dominance over the page content. Attempts were made to point out to OpenFuture that the time stamps on the page clearly indicated that he would not have had sufficient time to evaluate the external links before the first page edit that he made. OpenFuture did not wish to engage in reasonable dialogue on the merits of the information contained on the linked pages and the value to the article in question he preferred to just keep labelling it as spam in multiple locations. OpenFuture was invited to make a positive contribution to the page that he was so keen to edit by providing alternative sources of information that contained the same valuable content as the linked pages but he has chosen not to contribute in a positive way.

OpenFuture then resorted to swearing See History after swearing and being offensive he tries to hide his use of profanities by deleting the entire discussion and edit warring to prevent it being seen by others. Then OpenFuture tries to play a victim.

Is this honestly the type of immature behaviour that wikipedia tolerates from its contributors?

I see where you've added spamlinks but I don't see OpenFuture's use of profanities - please be more specific. --NeilN talk to me 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can of missed it? It is quite clear that an alternative profane term for bovine excrement was used by OpenFuture towards me. That term is both vulgar and is highly offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture's describing your attempts to justify the addition of spamlinks as "bullshit" while not exactly polite, is nowhere near as big a deal as you make it out to be. Suggest you disengage or if you must, take it to WP:WQA. Finally, please stop re-adding comments to OpenFuture's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are going to say that it is OK for participants to abuse others with swear words when they dont like an opposing opinion then wikipedia will just decend into yet another forum for flame wars. The term is both vulgar and highly offensive, a highly respected magistrate once said that the best measure of if a discourse is offensive is would you use the language towards your grandmother? if you would not then it can be reasonably considered as offensive.

Are you going to ask OpenFuture to stop editing the contributioners of others without engaging in discussion first? Are you going to tell him to stop using profanties when communicating with other participants? Or is this the good old USA club where its OK to do as you please and abuse those from other countries who object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with other countries. I suggest you drop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Profanity is currently allowed on Wikipedia. Equazcion (talk) 00:43, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)
The links are clear spam, and were reverted per policy. You were edit-warring to keep spam links. While we don't advocate discourtesy, your determination to keep the links and attack those who remove them might move someone to indelicate language. The article has been a spam magnet, and in late 2007 was the subject of tendentious edit-warring, including legalistic innuendo, from an Australian editor. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the use of a profanity within a literary or artistic context and its use in abuse of another party. I also object to the attitude that a person should not express their opinion if you don't like it, such attitudes are arrogant and unhealthy and I would suggest completely at odds with the stated principles of what wikipedia is supposed to represent. Unless of course all wikipedia wants to represent is USA culture and opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Other discussions here have pointed out that Americans seem to be more sensitive to the use of profanities than other English-speaking nationalities. I have no idea what nationality has to do with permanent makeup. In any case, profanity is allowed, you were spamming and got caught, and are now trying to make trouble for the person who called you out on it. Please drop it. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct nationality has nothing to do with permanent makeup and yet the page contains 6 external links all to USA regulatory and industry sites, not one to another country. How odd considering that the USA has less than 5% of the worlds population. great effort is being exerted to ensure that the opinions, regulations, views and ideals of other countries are excluded. Edit wars are used to maintain the current poor quality content on the page. Any way I have heard enough of your USA is always right Bullshit (apparently abuse and profanties are OK here so enjoy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how things are today, but when I was in school, the instructors new what to call creative writing made up spuriously and designed to baffle readers by drowning them in words. When I was in school we generally abbreviated the term as BS. I find the use of the colloquialism thus described far less troubling than that the adding of spam links and the success in changing the subject form that blockable behavior to calling BS BS. Dlohcierekim 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You have done an admiral job of providing a perfect example of what you are desribing within your own description, well done.

And for the record a link to a commercial site does not automatically constitute spam (which is a misnomer in such use anyway but thats another story), wikipedia is full of external links to commercial sites and even more links to sites that have a 'narrow benefit motive' (sites that claim no profit motive but they have a obvious commerical feel and benefit a narrow group or an individual). The question is not if a site has a commerical focus its whether the site has significant information that is of sufficient interest to make it worthy of linking to and if that information is on topic to the content in question. Of course if a person knows nothing about the subject matter and has no intention of contributing to the subject matter then they may regard it as sport to simply sit back and throw stones from tne sidelines. As is the case.

I would go further and say that the page in question is atrocious and contains a litany of misleading information, its poorly constructed and wait for it .... like many wikipedia pages it has an extreme bias towards the US perspective. In contrast external links provided contain a wealth of factual information.

The thing that can be gleaned from this is that content on wikipedia simply cannot be relied upon, in short much of it is created by the uninformed or to use your favorite vernacular BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be said this is resolved. The IP violated a number of Wikipedia policies in removing OpenFuture's comments on his own talk page. His violations of WP:3RR and WP:TALK probably should result in a block, if any such actions continue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
We'll see what happens tonight, if the IP has given up or will return. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: diff removed Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User: outed User:Jpgordon . Can someone quickly remove the edit? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the diff from your report, please file an oversight request. Nakon 02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Best to err on the side of privacy and contact oversight first. —DoRD (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinda hard to "out" as openly identified a user as I am. Thanks, certainly. (And I'm sure grateful for caller ID.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Try not to post this kind of thing on a highly viewed board such as ANI. Instead contact oversight through email or through IRC.— dαlus Contribs 08:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

English Democrats Political Position[edit]

Resolved: content dispute, no admin action needed at this time

Dear Administrators,

I see that the page about the English Democrats describes them as being 'Right Wing'. The only sources provided for this Political Position is:

1) A link to an article in The Telegraph from 30 Sep 2007 about Christine Constable, but Christine Constable stood down and left the Party in 2008, please see the following link :

2) A link to an article in East London Advertiser

In my opinion these are two very weak sources to use to label a political party. Until better sources can be found with which to label the Party I would like to suggest the 'Political Position' should be left blank.

If something needs to be added to the Political Position shouldn't someone consult the manifesto and make an intelligent informed decision?

Yours faithfully


Link to the English Democrats website: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talkcontribs) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to need administrator attention at present - it should be discussed at Talk:English Democrats Party to find consensus there. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please help[edit]

At Daniel Rodriguez someone keep putting wrong Olympic song sung by tenor. He sang "America The Beautiful".. There are a few mistakes in articles such as Media Wire article that names incorrectly as God Bless America, - that is not correct. There are now 3 sources including from Beijjing that show the correct song, in this article. Can this be helped to keep correct. Thanks (talk)

This comment has been copied to Talk:Daniel Rodríguez#Can someone please help. The editors who are active on that article are the best folks to ask for help. Thanks. — Satori Son 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles[edit]

On noticing the above threads about arguments concerning user conduct at articles related to WP:FRINGE theories about Shakespearian authorship, I've had a look at suich articles as Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Shakespeare authorship question etc. These are written in ways that blatantly violate WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Headings explain that Will Shakespeare is to be referred to as "William Shakespeare of Stratford", fringe terminology is used refering to those who defend the mainsteram theory as "Stratfordian", and the articles are heavilly weighted in support of the fringe theory inviolation of WP:DUE.

Michael Dobson says in the The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:

Most observers, however, have been more impressed by the anti-Stratfordians' dogged immunity to documentary evidence, not only that which confirms that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, but that which establishes that several of the alternative candidates were long dead before he had finished doing so. ‘One thought perhaps offers a crumb of redeeming comfort,’ observed the controversy's most thorough historian, Samuel Schoenbaum, ‘the energy absorbed by the mania might otherwise have gone into politics.’

The doggedness to which Dobson refers has left Wikipedia with a whole swathe of articles that risk turning us into a laughing stock.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said more than once that there is a coordinated effort to use Wikipedia to promote a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Feels like I've stumbled onto a conspiracy theory website by mistake.. Rehevkor 05:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
These articles should of course all be merged. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I used to believe that most of these should be left alone as a harmless playground while the grown-ups concentrated on keeping the more definitive accounts, such as Shakespeare authorship question, sane and stable. The recent history there has shown me how I was deceiving myself and some other way forward, supported by the community, is definitely needed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Making sure the other articles information is accurately reflected in the Shakespeare authorship question and then redirecting seems reasonable to me. But I don't have time for more conspiracies right now, that's for sure. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not around much this week sadly, but I agree that they should be merged into the Saq article, except for the bio, which should only mention the subject briefly. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have duly added merge templaters per the consensus here. I recommend that a thick-skinned admin expedites this.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how this article Baconian_theory achieved Good Article status. It follows the same format as the Oxfordian Theory article.Smatprt (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Some people seem to have short memories - see Talk:Baconian_theory/GA1 (all of it). --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is an excellent archive to reference. It shows that efforts were made to balance the article the exact same way the Oxfordian Theory article is - both have a "mainstream view" section at the beginning of the article which clearly states that the majority of academicians do not subscribe to the theory, and both have a "critical reception" section at the end. With these sections, which I helped to add, the article achieved GA status. As such, it should be the model for other notable theories. Notability has been easily established. The recent NY Times survey of college english professors Did He or Didn’t He? That Is the Question, shows more acceptance than was previously believed (6% of Shakespeare professors agree and another 11% acknowledge that it's "possible"), a major university now offers "Authorship Studies" and another university has just opened a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre. And 3 current Supreme Court justices have recently declared themselves authorship doubters. I sincerely doubt that is the case with Moon Landing Hoaxes or the like. Smatprt (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW it might be useful is an admin checked this merger thread at Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Merging. I have my suspicion thta sockpuppetry is going on.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That is a rather serious charge. I'm wondering what your evidence is to support it? If you feel like a witch-hunt, then by all means, have an administrator check IP's and the like. But I must say that as a successful sock-puppet hunter, I completely disagree with your "suspicion". Smatprt (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of this confusion was brought on by Shake-speare himself. When he received his first royalty check, he informed his family that he was "Bringing home the Bacon". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

POV at Whitefish Mountain Resort[edit]


Starting back in December, various IPs (each an SPA user) have been turning up at the Whitefish Mountain Resort article and inserting the POV statement that a reverse stock split "was regarded as a hostile takeover", a statement which is pure original research. The material has been removed by a handful of editors (mainly myself, but a couple others as well). My best guess is that the user is the same as the IPs who have been characterizing the reverse split as such on the talk page for nearly two years.

I posted on the talk page about the edits at Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort#POV of "Hostile takeover", but there have been no replies to dispute my comment that there are no reliable sources which describe the transaction as a hostile takeover (and it's a different type of transaction than described at hostile takeover, so it's not a common usage issue).

The article was protected March 8th for one week; the protection expired this morning followed a few hours later by the IP again restoring the POV. I was uncertain as to the best way to respond to such a tenacious editor; either to request longer page protection, to request dispute resolution (which seems pointless as the IP has not posted to the talk page since the start of these edits), or to request here for more eyes to monitor the page. I chose to start with the last of those here, and to move forward from here based on suggestions. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how the admins can help us here, right now. A longer semi-protection might be worthwhile. Or we can just steadily revert the anon. There are at least 2 sets of eyes on the article. Maybe just kill the change steadily a couple of days and if the anon just won't talk and just won't stop, lock it again for a while or request a block for the anon then. Say, Thursday unless the anon breaks 3RR?- Sinneed 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that blocking the anon would be effective - he/she rarely edits more than a couple times under the same IP. And the anon's edits are usually no more than one per day - so it's too slow-motion of an edit war for 3RR to likely ever become an issue. That just leaves extending the semi-protection, or getting more eyes on the article to manual revert the POV material (which, hopefully, this ANI thread will encourage others to also watch and/or comment on the article talk page). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You and I are watching. The reasoning for non-inclusion is pretty clear: fails wp:NPOV and wp:V. The article could certainly use more eyes and editors.- Sinneed 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that this IP editor has worn out his welcome long ago. See the protection log for the background. The article first came to my attention on 16 August, 2008, through a request at WP:RFPP. Since all the edits are so boringly similar, I think we can safely conclude that this is a single individual who has a grievance against the management of the Whitefish Mountain Resort and just never gives up. See Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort if you think there is any glimmer of good faith here. Due to this IP editor's tenacity, and their lack of response to feedback, I suggest that one year of semiprotection would be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
My last revert lasted 26 minutes. I support the long semiprotection, this is a time-waster on a very minor article, and clearly the anon strongly feels this belongs in the article (edit to add) and cannot or will not provide a source.- Sinneed 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
To employ the finance term "hostile takeover" certainly doesn't imply point of view. It has an objective definition.
However, it was not a hostile takeover, but a going-private transaction.
Appears 600+ shareholders were 72% of total shareholders owning less than 3 percent total equity. My guess is, these were locals with emotional attachment to their "ownership" rather than financial. These holders were required by the transaction to get cashed out.

See [[82]]

In this sense, perhaps, the transaction was "hostile" to the emotional interests of some of the shareholders, though this is merely an assumption.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But, as you stated, this is only an assumption - original research that has no source available for it.
I agree with others above that long-term semi-protection is the best available alternative at this stage. Wikipedia isn't the place for soapboxing of opinions, reliable sources are needed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Article has been semi-protected for 1 month. It may be worth marking this resolved. One may hope the anon will be satisfied with the expansion of the section on the reverse split, or at least moved to talk.- Sinneed 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted on March 15, 2010 by User:Binksternet[edit]

Resolved: No admin intervention required yet. Discuss at Talk:Steinway_D-274. —DoRD (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article "Steinway D-274" created on March 13, 2010[83] was deleted today by User:Binksternet. The article was – against the Wikipedia proces – deleted without noticing the creator of the article. Furthermore, the article was deleted before anyone could make the requested changes and before a discussion was started on the discussion page.[84]

If User:Binksternet does nor like the article he still must follow the processes on Wikipeida. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted, the article was just redirected to another. Such disagreements should be sorted out at the article talk page. I do see a budding editwar at the article, which should stop. Ucucha 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Du you have an intern link to the article?
"Such disagreements should be sorted out at the article talk page." – But if one can not find the article and the talk page?
"I do see a budding editwar at the article, which should stop." – Where? Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Steinway & Sons. SGGH ping! 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Steinway D-274. Ucucha 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Links failed. They do not display the article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
See the history. Binksternet changed the page into a redirect to Steinway & Sons. Ucucha 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Steinway_D-274#References there is a discussion forming about the remade article. What has been seen by editors Karljoos and myself is that the article Steinway D-274 is a recreation of a previously deleted article, without any establishment of notability—the same problem that it had last time. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is completely new and created few days ago.[85]
If one has requests about sources/references or other he can write these on a discussion page - not just redirect the page, of course. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble determining what the deleted article was that this is a recreation of. I see no deleted edits in the history of Steinway D-274 or Steinway model D-274 (concert grand piano). I see no discussion at Talk:Steinway_D-274#References about it being a recreation of a deleted article. I have some concerns about the accuracy of some of Binksternet's claims here. -- Atama 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
See Steinway Model D-274 and Steinway model D-274 (concert grand piano). —DoRD (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not an administrator, and I have no ability to delete an article. What I'm referring to is the deletion of all content in an article, to change it into a redirect, as I did here in August 2009 with the article Steinway Model D-274, an action which was arrived at after talk page discussion. That same action was upheld three months later by User:THD3 in this edit here. I am aware that Fanoftheworld considers his creation of the article Steinway D-274 a new one, however, the subject matter is the the same, and the same lack of reliable sources is evident. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
But the article that I have created on March 13, 2010, is a new article. If a new article about the same subject is made, and you think it got the same problem as the old article, you must remember and respect that it is a new article.
If you think an article needs references, you can write that on the talk page instead of redirecting the article.
You claim on the discussion page for the new article that there is a lack of references/sources that mention the model "D-274". The problem is that you do not know that D-274 is also known as "Steinway's concert grand piano" – D-274 is the only Steinway model, which is a concert grand piano. Furthermore, the look of the D-274 is different from all other Steinway models – one of the differences is that the D-274 has a Steinway logo decorated on the side. So there is no lack of references/sources. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This still does not appear to be an ANI issue. --Smashvilletalk 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Errr. Wait a second. It seems we do have a much larger issue here. Fanoftheworld appears to be a Steinway & Sons promotional account. Virtually every single one of his 2000+ edits (yes, 2000+) is either adding Steinway & Sons information to a page, removing the name of competing company in edits such as these, removing positive information about a company, adding fact tags to articles on competing companies on some very mundane sentences. While many of these edits are within policy individually, when looked at as a whole, you kind of get an idea of the motive of this account. --Smashvilletalk 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
To Binksternet... Please keep in mind that a delete and redirect are two very different things. When it comes to article recreation, if an article was previously deleted through a discussion of some kind (such as WP:AFD) then recreating the article with substantially similar content, or not addressing concerns raised in the deletion discussion, might merit an automatic deletion of the article per G4. Also, if the article was previously deleted through speedy deletion the old speedy deletion rationale might apply to the new article which would also result in immediate deletion. Edit summaries such as this one are misleading at best. If someone objects to the previous decision to redirect, then a new discussion is warranted. An edit war to enforce the previous discussion is not acceptable, and at present you are one revert away from violating WP:3RR.
To Fanoftheworld, if you are in any way affiliated with Steinway & Sons, an acknowledgment of that affiliation would go a long way toward gaining the community's trust. I strongly recommend declaring such an affiliation on your user page. -- Atama 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
To User:Atama, I am not affiliated with Steinway & Sons in any way. I am only a young Steinway fan, who is proud of Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Which leads to things like WP:COI anyway through bias. Are you sure your contributions are not affected by your liking of Steinway? SGGH ping! 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The amount of bias coming from his edits is simply astounding. Just some examples in the last week or two: removes brand from one artistbut adds to anotheradds this to dozens of college pagesnominates a competing product for deletiona fact tag on a photo --Smashvilletalk 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It is astounding, but in his defense, Fanoftheworld has taken part in editing a few articles about Freemasonry and lawyers' groups—nothing to do with pianos. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
To Atama: Please forgive me for using the word 'delete' inexactly. Unfortunately for our purposes here, its use in English includes both the deletion of all content from an article, saving its web address, and the deletion of that article's web address along with its text. I will be more careful in the future. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem Binksternet, I just wanted to let you know that it could lead to confusion (at least it did for me, I spent quite a while trying to track down what page got deleted). :)
As to Fanoftheworld, our conflict of interest guidelines cover affiliations, not just bias. Bias alone doesn't constitute a COI, bias leads to POV editing, which is different from, and in most cases much worse than a COI. A COI just means you need to look more carefully at a person's edits, while editing with a POV is just disruptive. Our neutrality policy is a core part of Wikipedia and it's a big deal when someone flouts it. If, as Binksternet suggests, Fanoftheworld is productive outside of Steinway-related topics, then perhaps a topic ban would be appropriate, restricting Fanoftheworld from editing articles about Steinway, or perhaps pianos in general. --