Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Consensus page vandalism by JC37[edit]

No vandalism found, only a good faith actions by an uninvolved admin to fix a problem. Fortunately for RC, I'm not big on boomerangs. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:15, 27 August 2012 (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.

JC37 has reverted the Consensus page to last October and locked the page. This is highly disruptive and unrelated to the rather small discussion ongoing for the last few days on a proposed edit to the page that is about one sentence long. No idea what he is up to, since the last change reflected the discussion on the talk page. Positively bizarre behavior.

[1]

and

[2]

seem to cover it.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema - Your bad faith comments here and elsewhere aren't helping you.

Anyway, it's not vandalism, and it's not disruptive. On the other hand, the slow motion revert warring that's been going on over the last 9 months at WP:CON, could very well be considered disruptive.

I understand that you've all been attempting to hash about somewhat about the policy, but constantly doing this back-n-forth especially with the seemingly bullying of each other through edit summaries (of bold or reversion edits) is just inappropriate.

At this point, I think you're all past the Be bold stage, and should go back to the Discuss phase. Maybe collaboratively working up a draft, before going "live" with it.

But the constant back-n-forth isn't good for anyone, Wikipedia in particular, especially on a core policy such as CON.

As I said in the edit summary, you all should know better. You all could be showing by example how to positively and collaboratively and collegiately discuss, so to bring a policy page better in line with what has been long standing policy, and common practice.

You're all arguing these things, but seemingly not practicing them.

Anyway, per WP:PROTECT: "...administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."

As there has been editwarring going back months by the same handful of individuals, I tried to pick a spot before it all began.

If another uninvolved admin thinks it is appropriate to undo the reversion, or thinks they see a better place to revert to, they're welcome to do so.

But I suggest that the page stay protected until the constant players in this long term edit warring come up with a plan that has actual consensus at this point, in particular as this is the page that concerns consensus.

I welcome others' thoughts on this of course. - jc37 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe your actions were correct, and I, too, encourage the editors to discuss and gain consensus. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a very strange time for JC37 to be expressing all this. Something could have been said at any time in the last ten months, but I believe he or she has been silent. Well, we have to assume it was a good faith silence. In fact, to the point, there is no reason to undo ten months. It is a sign of contempt toward the editors and has no place on Wikipedia. That he or she has the power to do it clearly is no justification. Rather, the abuse of the power shows it was placed in the wrong hands. There was a discussion ongoing, the edits were in response to the discussion, and no one made a complaint. It's really beyond absurd, since the remedy proposed by JoeS is the activity that was underway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess if anyone was looking for more examples, they need only look at User:Ring Cinema's comments directly above, and on my talk page. Not much need for me to add anything, I think. - jc37 20:03, 26 August 2012 (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.

Wikihounding by Justice007[edit]

Justice007 started Wikihounding my edits immediately after I posted under the Articles for Deletion/Nandini Sahu, supporting deletion of that article. Also, Justice007 attacked and highly criticized every editor who supported deletion of that article to a point that he was advised by another editor/administrator "If you want the article to be kept you need to find reliable sources, not absurd statements calling other editors views as nonsense, especially when the best source you point to is a user submissions aggregator.—SpacemanSpiff". He did not take that advise and went on WP:Wikihounding me. First, he attacked Seyamak R. Payek ‎that I authored by posting BLP-sources and Notability tags on those articles. I advised him to stop retaliating. He did not take notice of it and immediately went on attacking Mohsen Esmaeili‎ which is another article I authored. This is a clear case of WP:Wikihounding by Justice007.

Justice007 seems to argue and believe an associate professor of English Nandini Sahu (not even a full professor) is notable enough to deserve an article of her own in Wikipedia, but at the same time attacked notability of Seyamak R. Payek and Mohsen Esmaeili‎ who are clearly notable by virtue of being Guardian Councilmen of the Constitution of Iran in the Parliament of Iran in addition to holding senior academic positions. By the way, Guardian Council in Iran functions as that country's guardian of the Constitution of Iran and is comprised of six Councilmen who are the most senior legal academics and distinguished jurists in Iran. The point that I am trying to make is that Justice007 is clearly not being civil nor honorable (to say the least) and is WP:Wikihounding me. I hope he stops Wikihounding other editors who contribute to Wikipedia and focus on improving articles he authors or contributes to.

It is note worthy that since May 2012 this is the second time Justice007 is brought for discussion here. Obviously, Justice007 is not progressing toward civility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talkcontribs) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as you should have done when posting this on the board here. Remember that if youa re bringing an issue to ANI, you need to be sure you notify all the parties involved. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have notified Justice007 and will be notifying SpacemanSpiff, since I named it above. Thanks for reminding me though.--Juristicweb (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
He notified him before posting here which is fine.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply

  • We should not lose our cool, it has realy not been my intention to any kind of reliatation to edit this, it seems to just happend that he commented his view before my edit, actually I am improving and expanding articles everywhere, where is needed tags, I first tags and then search the reliable sources to cite and remove the tags, that can be access on my user page which I have done many other articles. This privilege I have from be bold. I assume always good faith, regarding Mohsen Esmaeili‎,I just added and fixed wikilink, the tags were already there. He asked Help request on his talk page, I replied his concerns here. My comments and questions are valid, should be answered. Neither I have done any wrong thing nore violated any wiki rule that I am accused. We mush realise that no one own here any thing. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Justice007, the community's response to your choice of words, editing, responses and interactions with other editors has been one of disapproval as it was gently put to you by SpacemanSpiff in Articles for Deletion/Nandini Sahu. I believe once a gentle advice is ignored a more effective response is appropriate. That is why I started the discussion here so that other more experienced editors would be able to render better approaches for resolution than I may be aware of. By the way, if it turns out that what you've been doing as referenced above is fine with Wikipedia rules, then I will respect that. However, your reply clearly admits actions that fall under WP:Wikihounding, but you insist that they are not. More reason for having this discussing. We should not Wikihound and once the rule is intentionally and repeatedly ignored, as was the case here, after being advised of it, there should be a consequence for the editor who violated it, which is you.--Juristicweb (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes at CBS Records[edit]

Can someone disentangle all the changes made at CBS Records and CBS Records International and CBS Records (2006). Consensus was established on the talk page on how to handle the various business entities called CBS Records, and one author has come up with a fix on his own that had lost the history for each article by cutting and pasting. The page history and discussion is now at Talk:CBS Records (2006). The problem is that there are 1,300 incoming links to the business entity known as CBS Records which is not the same as CBS Records International, both had their own presidents: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. ... Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Since you are both participating in the WP:DRN discussion about this I don't think we need a separate discussion here. Hopefully they can sort this mess out. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on Jimmy Henchman page[edit]

Jimmy Henchman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this diff and note that there is more than a content dispute here. Especially note the edit summary recorded with the diff. Inspection of the article history will then be useful

I had thought previously that this might have been a BLP Noticeboard issue, but it seems to need a wider set of eyes on it and an administrative conclusion reached. I will allow the facts to speak for themselves.

My own interest is as an uninvolved editor who has this article on his watchlist Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Note please that there was an attempt by one of the editors to handle this at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which was closed as inappropriate for a number of reasons. There may be other forums where an attempt is also being made, or is about to be made. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The discussion on my talk page here is relevant to the issue. There is obvious strength of feeling here and a genuine perception of injustice. I am stating it as a genuine perception, but not as my perception. I am remaining wholly neutral. I simply wish to see the issues resolved in order that the article may benefit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I see that Scholarlyarticles (talk · contribs) is new and has some misconceptions about Wikipedia. I'm going to dig a bit deeper and see how deep this hole goes. Likely, some mentoring is going to be a good idea to help prevent them from getting into trouble. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that, however new an editor is, it should not have degenerated into a fisticuff. Somehow it needs to be rescued from that status with honour intact. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I've added a note on their talk page, offering to help mentor a bit. I have plenty to do but think this would be a better step at this point, to offer a helping hand and get them up to speed on some policies. Often, a lack of understanding of the complex web of policy leads to frustration, which leads to snippy remarks, so I'm confident that this is the best option to deal with the problem at this stage. Hopefully, they will accept the offer and I will help then along the way for a few weeks and they can be contributing in a more compliant way. At this time, my opinion is that this the proper way to deal with the issue. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, SA had an editor go through every one of SA's edits to check them (declared by the editor). Many were reverted / removed for reasons that did not require immediate attention (not copyvios, etc). That would be enough to irritate most editors, I'd imagine, and wasn't likely the best course of action. It's not a good excuse, but it may explain some of what has happened. --Nouniquenames (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That would try the patience of a saint. I think it is becoming clear that no-one who has interacted at edit/revert level here is blameless. This diff shows that SA seems to choose not to understand advice, however. I have reinforced the offer from Dennis Brown to mentor SA, both on my talk page and on SA's. I have not looked at all at the merits of SA's position nor at Diannaa's (spelling). That was the secondary reason I brought this topic here. The primary reason was the ad hominen words used in SA's frustration. I am very much hoping that consensus will prevail in the article and in assisting those concerned towards an amicable resolution. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nouniquenames: I'd like to outline the difficulty here as I see it. I hope perhaps you could refer it to the Administrators complaint board. I would also like to take you up on your kind offer for mentorship (as you seem to be aware of what has happened.) . Here is my analysis of the situation.

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.

Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.

Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)

Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?

She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.

Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.

Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...

She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page.

I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.

Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa

This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.

Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.

I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.

That's all for now. I will come back though with more thorough documentations of the Jimmy Henchman references I'm sure ya'll are dying to hear more (joke). Thanks for your time in thinking about this Scholarlyarticles (talk)

One thing that has really made Scholarlyarticles angry was content I removed from Robert Hilburn: "Hilburn published a biography of Bruce Springsteen in 1985 as one in a series of Rolling Stone Press books. Hilburn left the Los Angeles Times in 2005, after 36 years." became "Hilburn published a biography of Bruce Springsteen in 1985 as one in a series of Rolling Stone Press books. Hilburn left the paper in 2005." The reason I did that is because saying "after 36 years" is redundant; both the starting date and the leaving date are present, and the usual thing is to let the reader do the math. This results in an article that is a little more neutrally worded. Obviously if I had known it would cause so much heartache I would have left that phrase in. I apologise.

The problem started on Sean Combs. I removed an addition of some 300 words to the article about the Tupac incident from the article, firstly because adding 300 words on the incident gives it undue weight. On further examination I discovered that the sourcing is inadequate, in my opinion, to tie Henchman to the crime. The main source Scholarlyarticles used for the allegation is a blog written by reporter Chuck Philips. One of their primary activities on this wiki has been to try to link Henchman to the attack on Tupac, across a whole suite of articles, including Sean Combs, Jimmy Henchman, Tupak Shakur, and The Notorious B.I.G. As I was convinced that the sourcing was inadequate I removed the content from several of these articles, but I did not get finished. I began to go through their other contributions and discovered other BLP violations and copyright violations. Here's some examples of my edits:

Here's some other examples of copyright violations introduced by this editor:

Another activity they've been doing is inserting information about reporter Chuck Philips into many articles, not neutrally worded additions, but more like promotional pieces. For example, in their version of the Ticketmaster article, Chuck Philips is mentioned nine times. So I undertook clean-up of some of that stuff too. Note this diff, where Scholarlyarticles threatened to smear my good name on a bunch of articles. The Jimmy Henchman talk page is loaded with personal attacks and bad faith. I stand behind my edits as being what I thought was right for the wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted by Scholarlyarticles[edit]

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.
Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.
Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)
Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?
She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.
Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.
Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...
She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page. I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.
Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa
This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.
Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.
I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.
Extended content
Edit history

21:47, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,759)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (Undid revision 508667248 by Scholarlyarticles; material is well-sourcedto the NY 21:46, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-781)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Undid revision 508674024 by Scholarlyarticles; WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case) (top)‬‬‬‬ 20:50, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+360)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ‎ (→‎User-reported: report user:Scholarlyarticles)‬‬ 20:32, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+116)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎You have a new message on Diannaa's talk page: new section)‬‬ 21:47, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,759)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (Undid revision 508667248 by Scholarlyarticles; material is well-sourcedto the NY Times and Washington Post; these are considered very reliable sources indeed) (top)‬‬ 21:46, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-781)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Undid revision 508674024 by Scholarlyarticles; WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case) (top)‬‬ 20:50, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+360)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ‎ (→‎User-reported: report user:Scholarlyarticles)‬‬ 20:32, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+116)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎You have a new message on Diannaa's talk page: new section)‬‬ 20:29, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+5,319)‬‎ . . User talk:Diannaa ‎ (→‎Message from Scholarlyarticles: My reply)‬‬ 19:30, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,504)‬‎ . . Talk:Albert Speer ‎ (→‎Introduction to Albert Speer Article: My 2p)‬‬ 22:57, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-10)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (Silly bot)‬‬ 21:58, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+35)‬‎ . . User:Diannaa ‎ (add different tool) (top)‬‬ 21:00, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-76)‬‎ . . Robert Hilburn ‎ (clean up)‬‬ 20:53, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-803)‬‎ . . Milli Vanilli ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; restore citation from revision 495861358)‬‬ 20:51, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-269)‬‎ . . Girl You Know It's True ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; clean up)‬‬ 20:43, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-624)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Remove WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case)‬‬ 20:41, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,794)‬‎ . . Talk:Jimmy Henchman ‎ (top)‬‬ 20:39, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-3,161)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Restore version 496211151 from June 6; add Isaac confession)‬‬ 20:27, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-455)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (restore lost content; clean up former copyvio and BLP violations, remover over-long quotation)‬‬ 20:08, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-367)‬‎ . . Ozzy Osbourne ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; remove poorly sourced content and copyvio content fromhttp://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/07/entertainment/ca-ozzy7; other edits)‬‬ 19:50, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-569)‬‎ . . Don Simpson ‎ (wikilink; remove unsourced pop culture trivia) (top)‬‬ 19:47, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-313)‬‎ . . Don Simpson ‎ (→‎Death: tidy content; remove unsourced speculation;)‬‬ 19:32, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+60)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talkcontribs) )‬‬

04:25, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-851)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Criticism: Link is dead and not archived; the other source does not back up this claim.‬)‬‬‬‬ 04:20, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-178)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: remove speculation‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:17, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-276)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: Remove content; WP:COPYVIO‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:15, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+48)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (revert unexplained removal of citation)‬‬ 04:11, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+139)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Eli Broad: forgot something‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:10, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+990)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Eli Broad: new section‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:04, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-832)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (Remove addition: none of this material is in the quoted source.)‬‬ 03:58, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-331)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Arts: Clean up: remove unsourced speculation‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:56, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-313)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: remove WP:COPYVIO from http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-margo-leavin-closing-20120815,0,5070346.story?track=rss&dlvrit=104530‬)‬‬‬‬ 03:47, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+13)‬‎ . . User talk:Penyulap ‎ (→‎‪For the pirate king who helped the girl who leapt through time: A little help for folks who are zoomed in‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:40, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+36)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 ‎ (→‎‪Articles 101 through 120: Remove completed revisions; see article edit summaries for outcomes‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:36, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+570)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Sean Combs: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Sean Combs have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.‬) ‬‬‬‬ ▪ 03:33, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+289)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (→‎‪Recent additions about Tupac incident: I have studied it more closely, and believe it's a BLP violation as well.‬) ‬‬‬‬ ▪ 03:25, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+2,689)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Sean Combs: new section‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:23, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+520)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (→‎‪R‬‬‬‬

    • I see from your talk page that Dennis Brown has offered to mentor you. I think that would be the best way to work out the problems. He's very good at doing this, and very patient. If you accept, we can simply close this for now. It would be an enormously more helpful way to go than continuing here. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • On his talk page SA has indicated that he would value the help form Dennis Brown. Indications are that once accepted this incident may be closed successfully. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask, Scholarlyarticles, are you at all familiar with WP:TLDR? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that I made SA aware, and that it seems a positive choice was taken to rehash the entire set of posts and arguments here. This, too, will be helped by accepting Dennis Brown's extremely generous offer of mentoring. I cannot commend the offer highly enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle Gupta and copyvios[edit]

Twinkle Gupta blocked indef by Floquenbeam De728631 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2012 (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.

Twinkle Gupta (talk · contribs) is persistently removing {{copyvio}} templates from articles ([3] [4] [5] [6]). He's been warned each time against doing so (see User talk:Twinkle Gupta), and has been invited to discuss the matters on Wikipedia:Copyright problems ([7]) but continues to remove the templates as "unnecessary".

He's compounded the problem by recreating a deleted article by copy-pasting; the deleted article was itself copy-pasted from another article, so if the article in its current state is to be kept, two different contribution histories need to be merged and acknowledged. (Since one of the sources is a deleted article, only an administrator can get the contribution history for us.)

That said, I find it extremely suspicious that he happened to have the wikitext source of the deleted article lying around so that he could recreate it. Probably he is the banned user who originally created it. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks that way to me, and to User:Floquenbeam, who has blocked them and protected some articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime I opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vibhas Kashyap. Perhaps it's moot now but at least it will contribute to the record for future reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I blocked Twinkle Gupta; I didn't block User:Dellice, who was doing much the same thing, because it looks like they've been around slightly longer, and I suppose there's a small chance they aren't a sock, and they haven't removed a tag again after their final warning. But I already feel like that might have been the wrong move, so another set of eyes on that account would be appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (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.

Disruptive editing by User:Metalvayne[edit]


Possible wikihounding[edit]

No action has been taken here and the evidence of "wikihounding" was inconclusive, and I believe it is time for everyone to move forward. After all, it's entirely my decision to avoid Niemti a little more only if I want to, so things do not escalate to what is actually on ANI, since we both have different theories on policies and guidelines, and I am free to do whatever I think is constructive. No block shopping was intended, and no blocks or sanctions are necessary for this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:07, 27 August 2012 (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.

Moved from WT:AN CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have a rather good reason to believe that for the past several months(!), the user Sjones23 is constantly following me around, even after having repeatedly claimed to "disengage" from me. He's often editing various, even extremely obscure, articles immediately after I did (on the same or next day). Including the articles that he had never edited before. I've repeatedly told him to stop doing that, including recently, which he acknowledged, but apparently didn't stop. My personal opinion is it's being quite obsessive and creepy.

In the link above (while removing my edit), he actually told me to "Kindly stay away from me, please...". Well, that was my line. Simply speaking, I'd like the user Sjones23 to "kindly stay away from me, please" indeed. --Niemti (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry if I was uncivil in any way. I did not want to follow the user around, but I was only trying to help him understand. I only wanted him to stay off of my talk page when I told him to "Kindly stay away from me, please..." last time. I was only trying to help this user out and I did not intend to cause disruption in doing so or end up on another confrontation in doing so. I was only trying to avoid Niemti, and was trying to help clean up the mess the user makes.
By the way, it looks like the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING to me:
Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.
The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.
Niemti has indicated that he has a personal grudge against a perceived slight. This is "wiki-hounding". Also, I am a rule-abiding editor and my edits were correcting related problems on multiple articles and fix violations of relevant policies and guidelines, and were not intended for revenge or causing distress towards a user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask for any "blocks and other editing restrictions" for you, I asked you to "kindly stay away from me, please". I hope you see a slight difference (and stop doing that). --Niemti (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cease fire. The two of you are on the Talk page...not the right place. Trying posting on the correct noticeboard.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

All right. First off, I would like to apologize for closing the discussion on WT:AN unintentionally. My edits were obviously all good faith improvements and were not meant to break protocol in doing so. When using the term "disengaging", I meant that I want to avoid this user. I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with him since discussing his behavior with user Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) and administrators Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In this relevant discussion, Berean told Niemti that he "did not follow #1 in the offer but even as that may be ignored, #2 & #3 shouldn't be" and that if he "promised to avoid incivility which was the chief cause of your ban, I haven't seen it and would prefer to hear you reinforce this." He was also advised to using a "greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off your back. This would help you with regards to #3 in the offer; don't give folks a reason to object to your return. Again, focus on editing and avoid controversy to rebuild editor trust." Unfortunately, Niemti did not respond to the discussion and Berean Hunter's advice does not seem to be working lately. It's only stalking if the edit is not made in good faith, and I would like to reinforce it that I always assume good faith and most of my edits to these obscure articles were obvious improvements. Today, I reverted the addition of the Ninja Turtles page to comply with the WP:NFILM and WP:FUTFILMS and clean up the mess that the user made in question. I had to revert the removal after it was restored by the user in question in violation of these guidelines, only for it to be reverted again with what appears to be a hostile and confrontational message in the edit summary by the user in question. Niemti has also left another possibly uncivil message in the edit summary. These may count as personal attacks, which I do not tolerate and hold a strict policy advising against all personal attacks, as it applies to everyone. I am a civil, rule-abiding editor who tries to avoid confrontations, and I have been trying to be less abrasive. I've been a regular editor of video game and TMNT articles and have those on my watch list and fix errors on them where necessary. Regardless, I have kept Niemti's talk page off my watchlist.

However, I am seriously concerned that Niemti clearly indicates in comments this thread and on this discussion that he holds a grudge against a perceived slight per my comments above. I do not hold a grudge against any user and have no problem with them editing here, as long as we obey the policies and guidelines. Also per WP:BATTLEGROUND, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." There's no need for me to do any bear poking on Niemti, even if I was trying to help him and give him the fair chance he has been given to return. I fear that he has used up all of his rope and he is attempting to muddy the waters. With that said, I will be able to answer any questions that anyone involved has about this matter. I did not intend to cause disruption, game the system or harass anyone in doing so, but if I did, then I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention to upset or hurt anyone and I was only trying to help this user. I fear that nothing else can be done, so I would like to ask for a solution to the matter.

Also, please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a long post. I just want you to not follow me around, like I don't follow you. --Niemti (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm clearly frustrated with these accusations, as none of my edits involved bad edits or deliberate confrontations, as I am trying to help fix errors that Niemti edits so we can comply with the relevant policies and guidelines and manuals of style. There is no policy against me going around and fixing things any user would do is wrong. Regarding Niemti's edit summaries in my previous comment, the user in question has seemingly made personal remarks and was aggressive towards me in his edit summaries, which is a possible violation of the edit summary dos and don'ts in our civility policy ([8], [9]). As for Wikihounding, the edits by the user in question appear to clearly fit the description of WP:WIKIHOUNDING due to expression of perceived slights on AN/I, the "errors" "corrected" are not unambiguous, and the hounding is being accompanied by tendentiousness, edit warring, personal attacks ([10], [11], [12], [13]). Also per WP:WIAPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered a personal attack, and "serious accusations require serious evidence." No personal attacks also applies to everyone here as well and I cannot tolerate any more attacks. I am not responding to Niemti, but I want to explain what I did and also express concern about it so fresh eyes from other users and administrators will get a clear idea about this. The previous resolution on Berean's talk page might not have worked out and I am also concerned that Niemti has violated #2 of the standard offer, and I seriously think this is preventing me from moving forward. I am going to remain civil, maintain good faith and I would like to kindly ask that more fresh eyes on the matter would be appreciated. I am waiting for a solution and also hope to end WP:BATTLEGROUND and commenting editors instead of discussing the content and if we can bring up a productive result, we should be able to move forward. We should also watch out for the boomerang as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about the origin of this grudge you have. I noticed it in the discussions concerning Niemti's unblock. The only good will you've shown towards him is after the consensus has turned against your proposals to discipline him. So please, enlighten us. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Just so everyone is aware, I am always a fairly civil person and always maintain good faith in my edits when I interact with other users, but some of them can be difficult. I do not intend to wikihound or stalk anyone in doing so. The community has given Niemti a fair chance to edit and I have no objections to his return despite my initial doubts, but I was frustrated with Niemti's apparently poor behavior, and I spoke with Dennis Brown and Ched (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about this, but Niemti followed me to this discussion with a confrontational attitude and Dennis Brown suggested that I should avoid Niemti while waiting for a response to Berean Hunter (see also this discussion). In this resulting discussion, Berean Hunter suggested that we should move forward and said that Niemti "did not follow #1 in the offer but even as that may be ignored, #2 & #3 shouldn't be" and that if he "promised to avoid incivility which was the chief cause of your ban, I haven't seen it and would prefer to hear you reinforce this." He was also advised to using a "greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off your back. This would help you with regards to #3 in the offer; don't give folks a reason to object to your return. Again, focus on editing and avoid controversy to rebuild editor trust." I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with him. When I spoke with Ryan Vasey, I took Niemti's talk page off my watchlist and everything seemed fine. However, when I was only trying to help clean up issues more recently and seemed to frustrate me even more as Niemti's edits might have caused controversy. I do not have a grudge against Niemti, but would like to have a more productive resolution. I am clearly frustrated by his behavior that led to what happened today, as Niemti has clearly indicated in this thread and elsewhere that he has a grudge against a perceived slight (this is Wikihounding) and I was only intending to help out, but I am concerned that I do not want to turn this into a battleground. That's why I explained what is going on in the comments above. I fear that he has used too much rope and right now, I feel that these issues are preventing me from moving forward, and want to have more fresh eyes from other administrators and users on the matter here to provide a more proper and productive resolution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Despite all your links and references to policies, it's just white noise. I've just been seeing soapboxing, even in the diffs you try and use against Niemti: [14] - "Please stop"? You removed more than the disputed edits with that revert and he even told you but you reverted anyway. You just seem to be baiting him so you can gather 'evidence'. There's just so much crap that I couldn't be bothered going through it all. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, I gave out relevant and important information about this situation and I wanted Niemti not to edit war when I reverted him and was on the verge of violating WP:3RR, as his edits to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (film series) caused controversy by almost getting into an edit war ([15], [16], [17]). The disputed edits on Ninja Turtles was moved back and forth per WP:NFILM and WP:FUTFILM, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." That's why I had to reverse them as well. This edit in which Niemti said about the indiscriminate edits was referring to Oknazevad (talk · contribs), not myself, as I was only trying to help him. And no, I am not baiting him to gather evidence. As what Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) pointed out to me on a recent discussion, a fair opportunity must be given for him to demonstrate he can work here since he is unblocked. I am still waiting for a solution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Niemti came here looking for a solution and I want one too. I'm not sure what it could be though. Maybe a "100% disengagement"? Acoma Magic (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I also want a solution as well, but I would also like to request that some of the Wikipedia administrators comment on this matter and I will be guided by what they say about the situation. My very best wishes (talk · contribs) has already asked Niemti to seek advice from an administrator prior to posting it. For now, I would like to make a suggestion that per Dennis Brown, we should focus on other article work for a while and per Berean Hunter, we should have Niemti follow #3 in the standard offer, have him use a greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off his back and I also want him to be careful in his words and work to build collegial relationships with other editors especially those working in his areas of interests. If there are problems with Niemti's behavior, I will defer them to Berean Hunter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That statement was bad enough before your rewrite. This is just so annoying lol. I think I'll go now. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The logical solution seems to be (granted I've only spent the last 10 min. or so gather information etc.) that the two users find different interest areas and edit articles on those specific areas. A good faith resolution to the problem would be following that, however if that doesn't work, one editor will likely have to receive a topic ban from where ever the other wants to edit. As of now, I'm thinking Sjones23 should be on the receiving end of the proposed ban from whatever area Niemti wants to edit. This is out of control and frankly somewhat childish, so I recommend heeding my advice or previous advice before an administrator comes in and blocks one or both of you. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I did any type of misbehavior on the article. I think we should find different interests and I want to end the hostility between Niemti and myself. I apologize if I was uncivil in any way. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Two things: a.) please stop sucking up to whomever tries to resolve the issue, it is unnecessary and frankly makes me understand why Niemti is annoyed, b.) I would strongly recommend what I said below, an arbitration. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps you should seek a arbitration, but the nonsense needs to stop. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Go Phightins, that's a great idea! I agree that this is getting out of control and we want to end this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I know, I'm brilliant...(sarcasm), please request it and be bound by whatever the committee's decision is. Niemti, is that all right with you? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I already said I don't want any "blocks and other editing restrictions" for him and I seriously don't. Just to stop what it seems to check my edits every day (the following edits were not bad at all, don't get me wrong, but it's very clear how he discovered this article the next day after I edited it). And I'm sure he's got enough self-contol to stop doing that on his own. And, if he wants, he can actually watch my talk page (he claims he doesn't, but I have no problem with this), from which I practically never remove anything (just archiving). --Niemti (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Niemti is very active in the project. He makes good improvements in a number of articles, he is willing to discuss content disagreements [18], and he knows these subjects. Speaking about this ANI request, I do not think it was unreasonable. Looking at the edit histories: [19], [20], it's obvious that both articles were first edited by Niemti; then Sjones23 came to revert his edits. Sjones23 did not act "by the rules" by reverting edits of Niemti without talking. He effectively deletes an article, but there was no discussion to delete or merge. In the past, Sjones23 promised to "disengage" from following Niemti, and I think he should do just that. I made this suggestion, but he apparently did not like it and expressed his intention to continue following edits by Niemti [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. I initially did not wish to interact with Niemti at the time, but now, I've changed my mind and I intend to edit collaboratively with Niemti. As Dennis Brown pointed out to me, sometimes, it's better to simply just walk away and let others deal with the problems, particularly if we have been too "involved". He also said that things don't happen in a vacuum here, if he is doing something wrong, it will likely get noticed by someone else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I cannot comment on the "wilkihounding" allegation per se, but the reverts by User:Lord Sjones23 in the recent dispute at Ninja Turtles were entirely justified. WP:BRD does not require to you to discuss before reverting, it requires discussion to take place if you feel the revert was unjustified. WP:NFF is very clear about when it is appropriate to create new film articles, and User:Niemti wasn't editing consistently with them. Sjones23 brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Ninja Turtles article, which was the correct course of action, where it was confirmed the film did not meet the criteria for its own article. To give Niemti his due he stopped creating the article once the relevant guideline was pointed out, so it seems to me this dispute was resolved without sanctionable impropriety by either side. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, they were justified. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • @Betty Logan. As a note of order, BRD is not a policy, it is not about deletion of articles, and it tells about only one revert prior to talking at article talk page. This is not what had happened here [22] [23]. But I am mainly concerned about this response by Sjones23 which does not seem to be encouraging. @Sjones23. Would you agree not to follow edits by Nietmi and not revert them? There are many other people around. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think in regards to this particular dispute, it was resolved in a relative proper manner. There was a bit of spat, but Sjones23 pointed out the relevant guideline and solicited a third opinion at the Film project and Niemti acceded. Personally I don't think there isn't a problem with how the Ninja Turtles disputed was resolved. As for the wider harrassment allegation, I agree it is not productive to rake over someone's contribution history looking for stuff to revert, if indeed that is what is happening. Sjones is a proven competent editor and I am sure it is not is not his intention for Niemti to feel harrassed, so what I suggest is that he refrains from reverting Niemti on articles he himself has never edited, and instead drops a note at the relevant project if he thinks something needs to be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I think this thread could be closed if Sjones promise to refrain from reverting Niemti on articles he himself has never edited. Other than that, both sides must realize that bringing complaints about fellow editors to ANI (or to attention of individual administrators) can only be appropriate in the case of very serious problems. Otherwise, this looks like block shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Refraining from reverting Niemti on articles I have never edited and notifying the project is also a very a good idea for me. It was actually not my intention make Niemti feel harassed by anyone here, as I am a trusted and competent editor. Per the relevant policy at WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I am always careful with these policies and I did not cause anyone distress, nor did I want revenge for a perceived slight in doing so, so I apologize for that. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been uncivil or condescending towards anyone here. My comments were not intended to be offensive or disruptive in any way. For me, I feel like the best solution to the problem is to work this out between myself. Also, I clearly explained in my edit summaries during the dispute at the Ninja Turtles article ([24] [25]) that the article did not comply with the relevant WP:FILM guidelines: WP:NFF and WP:FUTFILMS. Unless there is a reliable source confirming the start date of the principal photography, we should not create a new film article. In maintaining good faith, the best option was to move it into the film series article, but I had no intention of wikihounding in doing so. I had to bring it up at the wikiproject's talk page and the situation was resolved and I did not want to get into an edit war. FWIW, I am willing to apologize to Niemti and edit collaboratively with him if he is willing to do the same, as I do not want to be incivil towards anyone. Dennis Brown also suggested that it might be better to remove myself from noticing for a while. I did not intend to follow Niemti's edits, cause distress or break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. If he has made a major violation of some policy, I should contact Berean Hunter, who is familiar with the situation, and let him make a determination. I will be patient and hold out for more users and administrators to respond. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm here because Sjones23 asked me yesterday to voice my opinion, but I couldn't until now. I have not done any research into the contributions of Niemti or Sjones23. I have read, sometimes skimmed, this topic. The thing that jumps out at me is that Niemti hasn't made their case for wikihounding. In the original post, Niemti has precisely one diff, which despite its odd dissonance, is hardly enough to constitute wikihounding. After that, Niemti posts to this thread only to repeat their request, which is for Sjones23 to stop following Niemti around. I see lots of posts by Sjones23 who seems to be earnestly trying to find a solution, although, honestly, some of his posts are a bit confusing. Although I commend Sjones23 for seeking advice from various admins, I'm not quite sure what he's proposing just above. Being a rule-oriented fellow, I would have recommended closing this because Niemti didn't meet what I believe is their burden to demonstrate a problem, but it seems to have gone beyond that with Sjones23 sort of conceding there is a problem but it's not really wikihounding. I'd still like to see a good set of diffs from Niemti that show wikihounding. Absent that, although Sjones23 is free to voluntarily do whatever he thinks is constructive, I'm loath to endorse any sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This difference posted by Niemti is hardly enough to constitute wikihounding and I am also concerned that Niemti has not made his case for my supposed wikihounding. As a rule-abiding user, I usually seek advice from various administrators to see what they feel about the matter, as I am earnestly trying to find a swift and earnest solution to solve the problem (no soapboxing is intended, of course). However, I am concerned that my posts were confusing at times. I did concede that there is a problem, and it is not really wikihounding. I would also like to have more differences from Niemti to show the alleged wikihounding. Other than that, I also agree with your concerns about your reluctance to endorsing any sanctions, despite my will to freely voluntarily do whatever I know is constructive. Also, I have no intention of block shopping around here, as I don't want to get blocked because of bad issues. Bbb23, your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My two cents, since I come across both of them frequently. This isn't a case of "wikihounding", it's just a matter of two editors that butt heads a lot. They have very different theories and interpretations of policy and guidelines, and both work on a lot of similar articles. (We all work on video game articles a lot.) If anything, I take issue in how Niemti is frequently condescending in his/her comments to others in general, that I don't especially think is always constructive. But even there, it's usually more of a "That was kind of rude" reaction than anything that goes agains WP:INCIVIL or WP:NPA. Neither one has broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of disclipline.

That being said, I do think it would probably be in both of their interests to at least try to avoid each other a little more if possible, so that things don't even escalate to something that actually belongs at WP:ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the concerns by Sergecross73. Although I have some issues with Niemti being frequently condescending in his comments to others in general, I also do not think these are always constructive and is a bit more "that was kind of rude" reaction than any violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This discussion is not really a case of "wikihounding" for me either. Not only have Niemti and I having very different theories and interpretation of policies or guidelines, we have not broken any policy or done anything that warrants any sort of discipline. I believe that this positive solution for Niemti and I to avoid each other a little more if possible, in order to prevent things from escalating into something that actually belongs at ANI, will help my moral support as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Final thoughts to administrators[edit]

I would like to offer my final thoughts to the administrators who are watching this case. After Bbb23 and Sergecross73's responses, I have concluded that Niemti's case of "wikihounding" towards me was unsubstantiated. We have different theories and interpretations of policies and guidelines, and work on a lot of similar articles. I find issues with Niemti being frequently condescending in his comments towards others in general, they are not always constructive and is a bit more of a rude reaction than anything that goes against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Since we have not broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of discipline. As such, per Sergecross73's suggestion, I think we should try to avoid each other a little more if possible. However, I am concerned that if I should avoid him, I won't be able to edit the articles I want to edit if there is a large overlap between my editing areas. As what Betty Logan pointed out to me, just because I watch and edit the same articles at Niemti does not mean that it is wikihounding. If I did anything wrong or did something to upset anyone, them I am sorry. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • No one really seems to be pushing anything against you here, (not even Niemti) so I think you'd be safe to let this one sink into the archives.
  • As far as working on the same articles: I think it would just be best to informally operate out of a WP:1RR moreso, and be quick to bring it to the talk page to discuss after that. If no one's commenting, bring it to WP:VG's attention like usual. I think it'd be best if you guys stick to one main comment each, rather than responding to each other over and over again. I'm sure you'd think "Well, I can keep it to one comment, but what if Niemti doesn't?" To that, I say, let him, because I honestly I don't think excessive arguing helps him much. His hard-to-follow, condescending responses don't seem to bring him much support. But anyways, I think that if you have the consensus speak for you, he shouldn't have any grounds for being upset with you in particular. (And vice versa.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, this should be closed without action. It's noteworthy that Niemti did not demand any sanctions at the first place. Possibly for that reason he did not care to provide supporting diffs. But as someone who watched this story, I must tell that some supporting diffs of wikihounding and block shopping could be easily provided. So, I would strongly suggest for both participants to stay away of each other. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To the responders, thank you very much and they were very helpful. There's nothing we can do at ANI for now. I will operate out of a WP:1RR rule and be quick to bring it to the talk page to discuss it after that, but if no one's commenting, I should drop a line at the WikiProject talk page. It would be best to stick to one main comment each. If we have the consensus to speak for me, Niemti should not have any grounds for being upset with me. I understand that Niemti did not demand sanctions in the first place and I should avoid him as much as possible, as it is entirely my decision. Excessive arguing does not help everyone much. As such, there is no action to be taken at ANI and I am going to close this thread. Thank you very much for your time looking into this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (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.

Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics[edit]

The talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics has begun to descend in to frankly personalising madness. Can a few users please cast an eye over this page and attempt to calm this down as some users are getting highly personal. I also think that some issues of ownership may need to be resolved regarding this article. At the moment very little productive discussion is occurring, it is just basically tit-for-tat with lots of personalising claims and wild unfounded statements about the article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I think you are taking this a bit too personal. "Spirited debate" is part of the process as long as it stays away from being personal attacks. And to clarify one point, WP:V is defined at verifiable, not easily verified. Being behind a pay wall or only in a library doesn't reduce the quality of source nor the validity of it, and all those types of sources are acceptable. For many articles, the best sources are usually not found online anyway. You might consider WP:DRN as an option if you can't work it out on the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist[edit]

A number of editors have urged Amadscientist to withdraw from the GA review of Paul Ryan because of possible bias. There's no consensus for a topic ban, and no other admin action called for here, so the ball is in Amadscientist's court, unless someone wants to open an WP:RFC/U. NAC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2012 (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.

I've noticed a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist and request the community consider a topic ban or other action as appropriate.

1. User refuses to "get the point"
The user has been urged by three experienced editors—Rschen7754 (dif), Homunq (dif), and myself (dif)—to relinquish his position as reviewer for Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1 since he is a significant contributor to Paul Ryan, ranking #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. Editors are not allowed to review GANs related to articles in which they have been significant contributors, in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the review.
After being notified that according to the significant contributor tool, he has made 275 edits to the Paul Ryan talk page and 52 edits to its main page, he requested, "Please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined" (dif). He was then made aware of the WP:GAN guideline that "You cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." His response: "In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit. That is NOT a significant amount" (dif).
What's more, the user put up a similar fight after his nomination for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 was speedily closed by Hamiltonstone (dif), even accusing the GAR steward of assuming bad faith (dif) on the GAR talk page.
2. User continually rejects or ignores community input
In response to requests for him to step aside as the GAN reviewer as mentioned above, the user defiantly stated, "There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw." (dif). He has since proceeded to prepare for the review. In his introductory review comments, he intimated that things that need to be addressed in Paul Ryan include "obvious [things] like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately" (dif), which is troubling since a lengthy discussion already came to consensus on the current lead of the article—a discussion Amadscientist was involved in and with which he was one of the lone dissenting voices with regards to expanding the lead further.

Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress talk 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He should recuse himself. He broke the rules by taking on the GAN. Just because there are no dedicated GAN police does not mean he can stand his ground and declare victory. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Which goes to show you believe that he can not be a GA reviewer, but does not show any violation of Wikipedia policy, nor that he is "disruptive" in his edits. Perhaos you can catch more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar -- complaining here is, by the way, considered very sour vinegar. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Collect, refusing to get the point and rejecting or ignoring community input are both violations of WP:DISRUPT. I and others have tried to reason with the editor in other forums to no avail, so coming to ANI seemed prudent. —Eustress talk 23:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You may view his conduct as disruptive, I suppose (YMMV} but the specific charge of "disruptive edits" is not bron out by your material presented. The proper place for all this is on the GA talkpages themselves - this is not really the best forum for your dispute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Amadscientist should step down as a reviewer in this nomination, but I think a topic ban (other than excluding him from the GAN discussion) is somewhat overzealous. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I also support Amadscientist stepping down as review for this nomination. Excluding him from the GAN discussion seems to be reasonable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removing Amadscientist from the GAN, either voluntarily or by force (CSD G6'ing page if need be). --Rschen7754 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This all sounds quite drastic, and doesn't sound like an incident as much as a desire to have him not review the article. It would seem that WP:RFC/U would be the proper venue, not ANI. As for topic bans, again quite drastic and this need thoughtful deliberation, not the kneejerk "fireman" routine we are forced to do at ANI. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with others that a topic ban is unwarranted. My preference would be for Amadscientist to acknowledge that there is a sufficient number of editors who believe it would be inappropriate for him to do the review and withdraw. That would accomplish two things. One, it would satisfy those who believe he shouldn't review the nomination. Two, it would demonstrate that he is willing to defer to the community's wishes. I also liked Homunq's suggestion, i.e., that if the editor who reviews the nomination wishes to rely on Amadscientist, they can.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. Homunq (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with the other editors here it would be improper for Amadscientist to review considering his past contributions. I don't understand the 7 day comment; if someone is a heavy contributor and stops contributing for 7 days it's not like their internal biases disappear. I believe it's always pertinent to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and the fact of the matter is if one person drops a task someone else will pick it up. Contrary to popular belief we have more than enough editors to handle this sort of a thing. Additionally, I completely reject that a topic ban is warranted at this point but would be willing to change my mind if more compelling evidence were introduced. Sædontalk 00:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree per Saedon. As the editor mentioned above in relation to the Mitt Romney review issue, thought i would comment further. I slightly mishandled the close of the Mitt Romney GAR, which I regret and for which I apologised. However, I took another look at actions there. Amadscientist's actions didn't make the best use of the various WP processes. For example, Mitt Romney is obviously a contentious subject at the moment, and being very actively edited. This includes constructive contributions from the original GA nominator, Wasted Time R, working to keep the article at a high standard, and with regular debate with other editors. On 16 August Wasted Time R put the article up for Peer Review. There was active discussion on the article talk page. There was no more edit warring than I would expect on the page of a presidential candidate in an election year. I did not, and still don't, see what was to be gained by starting a GAR page (without going through the individual reassessment stage either) on 21 August. Amadscientist was making constructive suggestions on the article talk page, but when I came along as an uninvolved and closed off the GAR, consistent with the views of other editors, Amadsci (in my view) overreacted and made accusations that didn't square with my actions at all. I just think the editor is making some constructive contributions on substance and talk, but needs to take a closer look at the spirit as well as the letter of GAN/GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had some conflicts with Amadscientist over content but he never struck me as particularly unreasonable. While he should be excluded from being a GA reviewer when there's a conflict of interest, even discussion of a topic ban seems premature. This may be a teachable moment; let's treat it as one and see if it helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support forced withdrawal from Paul Ryan GAN. 276 edits to the talk page and 54 edits to the article before taking the review makes him ineligible. That he refuses to acknowledge this fact makes a topic ban in the future likely with my support. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Apart from being among the article's 10 most active editors (with 52 non-minor and 2 minor edits), Amadscientist has conducted polls regarding the article's content, expressed strong opinions about it, and has participated in discussions on the talk page more than any other editor. It should be clear that they can not be considered an uninvolved editor and the GAN should be reviewed by someone else. Deliberately trying to interpret "prior to the review" to mean "seven days prior to the review" seems like pure wikilawyering. Despite several people telling him that he should not be reviewing the article, somehow Amadscientist is still arguing that there's no consensus for their withdrawal. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "forced withdrawal", whatever that might entail. There's unanimous opposition to the GAN in question both here and on the GAN talk page and he's still providing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT exemplars both there and on his talk page. bridies (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no set in stone procedure for forcibly removing a reviewer. I have moved the GA1 subpage to OldGA without redirect, which should trigger the bot to change the status of the review. Hopefully, this resolves the situation. --