Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive806

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

Noticeboard archives



No appetite here for admin action against Giano. Although in my opinion Giano's teasing, needling style of interaction is unnecessary and, yes, uncivil it falls well short of causing the level of disruption needed for a block. Moxy is advised to steer clear of interactions with Giano, and ideally to learn how not to respond when being goaded. A trout to both editors, although I suspect that each sees themselves so firmly in the right that this will go unheeded, and my exhortations here will be seen (by both sides) as further examples of how WP is going to the dogs. Another productive day at AN/I...Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:25, 29 July 2013 (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 am not sure how to proceed with the editor User:Giano - that seems to have a problem communication in a mature fashion and is attacking me every time I come across them. What has lead me here is the most recent blanking of a post as seen here. I have only encountered this editor on 2 or 3 occasions. My problem with this editor started when they simply called me lazy - then progressed with post making fun of my MS as seen at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility dos and don'ts#Quotations. I let all this go as I assumed I would not see the editor again - but then I encountered them at Talk:Montacute House#Article mentioned at Manual of Style and the same type of behavior started again - that progressed to calling me a troll at an MOS conversation, deleting my post ect. The editor seems to believe I have some sort of an associations with infoboxes and related editors - for the recorded I don't add or removed infoboxes and have never reverted the editor in question contributions. They seem to have a problem that I am an advocate for accessibility for the disable and our readers at large.I am looking for a small sanction - so that this type of behavior has been documented In case it happens again in the future. This is the type of behavior needs to be nipped in the butt. Moxy (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Prior to this notice, I reverted the edits which deleted Moxy's post; and left a note on both editors' talk pages, pointing that out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) How Freudian. Giano has been nipped in the butt before now. Andy, surely you're aware that you're the absolutely last person who should leave notes on Giano's page. That's completely not constructive. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen, I would not bother to get too involved, nobody in their right mind is going to take this seriously. Moxy is always very Freudian, he found me 'appealing' earlier today. Mabbit and Moxy patrolling in union remind me of a Wikipedia essay I wrote years ago [1]. Don't bother commenting to them, it will only serve as encouragement.  Giano  18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You think I should not have notified him of the revert? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, that's what I think. The new notification system informs users when their edits are reverted. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC).
It doesn't tell them why. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I will let each of our reputations and interactions with editors speak for themselves. if you where to actually investigate before making wild accusations you would see that I and Mabbit dont see eye to eye on many things (currently in a civil dispute that is progressing well) . -- Moxy (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any of the history of this, particularly betweeen Giano and Andy apparently, but I could really live without the continous self-indulgent sarcasm. Giano, Moxy clearly meant appalling, not appealing, and your constant mocking is not constructive - and you do it with such relish. On that one talk page, it was unrelenting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh no <sob> are you telling me that Moxy does not find me 'appealing'? Why not - is it something I've done? Next you'll be telling me that Moxy doesn't want to 'nip my butt' - I was rather looking forward to that. You North Americans are all tease and no action.  Giano  19:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It is very clear you dont have the maturity to engage editors in a respectful manner. I think you need a holiday to reflect on how you could better interact with people in the future. I am now formally asking for a 1 month block in light of the ongoing incivility and mockery. -- Moxy (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, telling Giano he looks like a fool in this exchange and telling him to "grow up" in your edit summary does not advance the cause of civility either. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You are correct after being attack many many many times I voiced my concern - then posted here. As would anyone who is being bullied and harassed. -- Moxy (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You really can't have it both ways Moxy. If Giano is blocked for incivility then so should you be. Eric Corbett 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
And how is that? Show me how I was anything but very tolerant of his behavior for the past few months. All can see the events that took place and the order things happened in. We are simply tired of having to deal with editors like this. You may personally like the person and think there cool, but that does not excuse the behavior all of us can see clear as day. if this were an IP there would not even be this tlak. -- Moxy (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, Giano has always engaged me in a respectful manner, and I have fired back in the same spirit. A quick overview of clashes between English and Italian battleships will give an idea of the results! If a holiday is needed, we could all meet up in Malta. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This may be your experiences with this editor - but as demonstrated above if the editor in question does not like you they go out of there way to make sure they insult you and even go so far as to delete posts. Not sure what others think but this type of behavior is simply not acceptable to us older editors. -- Moxy (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you're taking this entirely too personally. I very much doubt that Giano has an opinion of you at all as a person, as I assume you don't know each other in real life. But you have to remind yourself that he worked hard on the Montacute House article to get it to where it is today, and inevitably he'd prefer not to see it turn into the usual WP grey goo. Mabbett's involvement has clearly not helpful either, given his long-standing dispute with all and sundry about infoboxes. Eric Corbett 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant spin on NPA. If you don't know each other in real-life, and you don't have a declared "opinion" of that person as a person, there logically can be no "personal attacks". Doc talk 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I never mentioned NPA, so I can only assume that you must be among those who see "personal attacks" around every corner and in every word. Eric Corbett 10:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You all can do or say whatever you like, but my view is that Giano has been and will probably continue to be uncivil. And warning him of it will do scant good as he seems to be protected. If I were you, Moxy, I'd ignore him completely. He'll just feed on any response you make. Indifference is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree will just ignore the person - But do think the community needs address editors of this nature - they are a determent to the project at large and the community needs to step-up and confront bullies like this -- Moxy (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion but if Giano is being uncivil then someone should block him for a day or 2 to think about it. He's not an admin, just a regular old run of the mill editor so it shouldn't be a problem. Part of the problem with this place is that we are too tolerant of bullies and uncivil editors, especially those with admin tools. We shouldn't be afraid to block them for it. Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not start by blocking a few of the bullying and uncivil admins if you want to make a difference? If there was no bullying from them and their acolytes there would be no temptation to respond to it. Eric Corbett 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree, unfortunately the only thing harder than becoming an admin is getting rid of one. With that said though at the rate the admins are resigning their tools or stopping editing due to things like VE it may not matter. In a few months time there won't be anyone left. Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I left Wikipedia for a year, and come back and the same people are being discussed about at AN/I for the same reasons and with the same results ("let's ignore them"). How sad admins will block some people but not others, and those that get bullied and stand up for themselves are told "well you were uncivil too". There's a difference between standing up for yourself and just being an ass; we should never attack the victim. I remember one person who I took to AN/I saying "I don't have to defend my actions, I just have to bloody the victim" which is a statement that comes from rape cases where the defense was to bloody the victim. Some here are pros at doing that. It should be against policy. Instead we enshrine in policy that you shouldn't be bringing this to AN/I unless you yourself are spotless. It's a shame and at least in the real world our laws have been changed to prevent such defense. Wikipedia however has not been so advanced.Camelbinky (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Very disappointing to see no actions has been taken yet on the concerns raised by a long time editor like myself. Not sure what type of community can run smoothly when concerns of this nature are not addressed on the spot. We spend lots of time and effort trying to have a collaborative environment and even set out policies to guide us all. Editors have an expectation of being able to work and voice an opinion without being insulted or posts deleted. I find it discouraging that the admin community does not take things of this nature seriously despite all the concerns raised about theses problems as of late. Moxy (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I've argued for the past year, how the administrative system seems to have changed. It all depends on who they want to keep tabs on the most. If it's not so blatantly obvious it's someone who is INTENTIONALLY doing harm, then they'll act. but lately, ANI has been moving very sluggish. i brought up a topic of edit war three times over something an editor had no consensus. and although, it is claimed to be an offense of temporary block. It has never been addressed.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not up to speed on all the admins - but do have a question - do we still have admins that were here 6 or 7 years ago? There was a time that things of this nature were handled with hast and gusto. I think all the badgering (hate posts) admins have had as of late may have cause many to question their actions and leads to no action being taken at all sometimes. Us normal editors seem to be left in the wind trying to deal with all the incivility that has gotten out of control in the past few years. -- Moxy (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason that no one has taken up your ridiculous request to block me Moxy is because I have not been uncivil to you; speaking bluntly and frankly are not the same as being uncivil at all. Most people (including me) when they realise that another editor finds them grossly irritating do their best to stay away from them - they do not pursue them around the project commenting and wanting absurd changes to their edits - especially when those pages are about subjects on which they know nothing. I could say that goes for Mabbitt too. Now as I have told you before, for your own sake, it would be a good idea for you to find something productive to do and put your silly vendetta aside. There are millions of terrible Wiki-pages and stubs desperate for your earnest attention - I suggest you go and find them and leave perfectly good GAs alone, that way you won't be making a fool of yourself here.  Giano  06:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be right no one cares about your odd behavior and the way you conduct yourself. As for making a fool of my self - I disagree we all here can see that your not up to par when it come to your interaction skills. I can only hope in the future as you become an adult and enter the real world you will come to understand how to communicate with your peers and those that disagree with you. Surprised I did not even get a sorry - the youth of today simply have no manners. I also hope this does not embolden you and others to not give a shit and keep being uncivil. -- Moxy (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Where have you got this strange idea from that Giano is a youth? And why in the context of your complaint do you consider it acceptable for you to make such personal remarks? Eric Corbett 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The destructiveness of those pursuing the technophile line in the infobox wars against those who build content cannot be overstated. Re the OP question ("I am not sure how to proceed with the editor User:Giano"), the answer is to leave them alone. If you notice Giano damaging an article or driving off content builders, please post at ANI, but until then, just drop the matter. Who knows, perhaps WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes will resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Ahem, I'd advise Moxy to drop the stick. Otherwise I may have to bring up evidence about a certain editor logging out to attack others anonymously back in April. This particular guy used his IP address (a Canadian one, no less) so he could make up a new identity and pretend to be an "ex-Wikipedian" who had been treated so badly he had had to leave the whole project. Unfortunately, said editor failed to disguise some very striking stylistic quirks, making identification rather easy. In fact, the whole attempt was so laughably bad and immature that I and another editor decided not to seek any admin action at the time. However, circumstances can change... --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Great just great - an old editor come here with some concerns about behavior and gets threaten by those hes asking for assistance from. Great work guys just great. This whole process has been very eye opening.-- Moxy (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Um, it wasn't an old editor, it was a certain user pretending to be an old editor. As you probably remember. --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and you should probably familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG before brinnging complaints to ANI. --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I see Giano has a huge group of friends willing to stick up for him at every turn. There is simply noting a lone content editor that does not engage in Wikipedia friendships can do here. I simply dont have the network of friends to help as he does. -- Moxy (talk)
Give it a rest. --Folantin (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (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.


Slavić (talk · contribs) has thrown yet another hissy fit at Talk:Bulcsú László, IMO proving they're not here to build an encyclopedia - they seem to have an agenda in promoting the subject of that article and when people call them out on these fringe views, they respond with assorted insults. I gave them the benefit of the doubt in June when they re-created the article deleted after AfD, but it only led to a civility block enforced by myself. Today they started pushing their POV again, I was less patient but I again tried to reason with them on Talk, but it was apparently just delaying the inevitable - they still treated the other editors with nationalist slurs in their last talk page post.

Note also that the same person has already been blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia for pushing the same agenda. This is almost amusing - the Croatian wiki editors have engaged in a public feud with the English wiki editors over the Croatian language issue, and yet Slavić has managed to alienate both. We might need a new kind of an anti-barnstar for this kind of a feat.

So, would another admin please wield the axe the second time so that I don't have to. Thanks in advance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800#Slavić for some more background. I agree this is a case of WP:NOTHERE: combination of obvious tendentious agenda, frequent personal attacks and a deliberately impenetrable idiosyncratic style of talkpage contributions that makes constructive collaboration with him near-impossible. This [2] latest affectation of a "purist" mangled English really was the straw that broke the camel's back. (Seriously, "does not havest a clue", from an editor who prides himself of his linguistic achievements, deserves a block for mangling English grammar if nothing else.) Fut.Perf. 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons[edit]

Drgao and Erythema are indefinitely topic-banned from articles and talk pages within the realm of WP:MEDICINE. Sierraparis is cautioned not to follow them down this path. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:36, 29 July 2013 (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.

For the past couple of months or so we have had continuous problems at Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons. Most of these problems have been caused by tenditious editing by two users, User:Drgao and to a lesser extent, User:Erythema. They have repeatedly attempted to add low quality primary fringe studies to this medical article rather than secondary sources. There are numerous examples on the talk page, including this one [3] which is now in the archives (which, as an aside, gives a good indication of how long this has gone on). Many of us have explained WP:MEDRS and countless other policies to both of them, to no avail. Drgao has been asked, on his talk page to avoid personal attacks, to avoid commenting on editors and instead to comment on content, again to no avail [4]. Finally, User:Zad68 took the issue to WP:DRN [[5]. A clear decision was reached at DRN and the sources were deemed inappropriate. However, yesterday Drgao took these same sources to WP:RSN [6]. When this was done Drgao did not inform other parties to the DRN process that (s)he was doing this, so Zad68 let others know. Drgao then complained that Zad68 was stalking him/her and continued beating the dead horse of these unreliable sources [7]. I am asking that both Drgao and Erythema be topic banned from Morgellons and related articles. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is grossly misrepresenting the situation here. I was entitled to submit my inquiry to the WP:RSN page, because as far as I understand, the sources in question were only deemed unreliable by the DRN for the Morgellons article, but not deemed unreliable in general. Therefore, since I was considering using these sources in other Wikipedia articles, I wanted to get an opinion on their general reliability.
So Dbrodbeck is grossly misrepresents the situation when he says I was "beating the dead horse of these unreliable sources". My WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. And since my intention was to use these sources in unrelated articles, there would be no particular requirement to inform the editors at the Morgellons article. Furthermore, since I have found these editors to be quite adversarial towards my suggestions, I was hoping to leave these people behind, but to no avail. In fact, their group presence at my WP:RSN inquiry only served to derail that inquiry. I suggest that they need not have derailed that inquiry, and could have helped me instead, but they chose not to.
Dbrodbeck and other editors at the Morgellons article have been less than helpful in my dealings with them. For example, these editors decided that certain peer-reviewed sources were unreliable, but they would not explain to me their decision process as to why these sources were unreliable, just telling me that only they are properly able to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, as if there is some black art to such interpretation, only known to a special few. I am fully familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, but apparently, according to these editors, there is a special way to interpret Wikipedia guidelines that I don't know, or am not privy to, but Dbrodbeck and other editors at the Morgellons article are privy to. Each time I asked these editors to clarify for me their decision process as to why these sources were unreliable, they failed to provide any explanation, other than saying that only they know how to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't. I found this behavior condescending. I also found it worrying that the process of determining whether a source is reliable is so open to interpretation, with these editors' interpretations being superior to mine (or so they told me).
Even in the DRN decision (which I am honor bound to comply with, and I do so comply), the sources were deemed unreliable, but without any details being given on the decision process. I do not contest the DRN decision, because I agreed to comply, and I keep to my word; but it does seem strange to me how editors can just decide that a source is unreliable, without quoting any specific Wikipedia guidelines on which the decision is based. My view is that more transparency in the decision process in determining reliable sources would be a good thing, and would help prevent disputes like this one. Disputes arise when editors say that "only we know how to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, but you do not". More transparency is required to prevent such condescending remarks and the disputes that ensue from them. Drgao (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
DEADHORSE, IDHT (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
See this conversation Drgao (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support indefinite topic ban, but on all medical articles, as an involved editor. This editor (Drgao) has been a huge time sink, and a distraction to multiple WP:MED editors from content creation through their tendentious WP:IDHT behavior. Despite multiple attempts by multiple editors, they have shown no understanding of the issues involved, specifically correct application of WP:MEDRS. As they have expressed a desire to use the same bad sources in other medical articles (just yesterday in their posting on WP:RSN), it is necessary to topic ban them from medical articles to stop the disruption until they can show an understanding of how our sourcing guidelines work, and can work collaboratively. Yobol (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to medicine for user:Drgao. This user have persistantly refused to abide by a wide range of WP policies, including WP:MEDRS, and this problematic behavior is likely to occur not only on articles directly related to Morgellons disease, but to any other topic related to medicine. The length and intensity of his attempts to introduced unrelaibly sourced material into the article, coupled with his persistant tendentious and disruptive editting and dead horse argumentation, make it reasonable to assume that this behavior will continue both on the Morgellons article and elsewhere. Yesterday, I warned user:Drgao several times myself about numerous violations of both our content and our sourcing policies and guidelines, as several other editors had regularly been also warning him for the same for the past two months. Administrator user:MastCell also told him that his "tendentiousness is becoming a major drain on the time and goodwill of other constructive editors" and that he would block him "for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing, in order to enable other editors to improve the article constructively and in an environment free of disruption." The editors responses indicated that he has numerous fundamental misunderstandings of what WP is and how it works, and has no intention of modifying his uncollaborative behavior, and indeed had plans on using unerliable sources in other articles as well. As such, he is incompetant to edit productively on any article where strict adherence to WP:MEDRS is expected. Would support a total community ban for this editor until he can reassure the community that he will edit in compliance with WP content and behavioral policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think [8] and [9] as well as [10] and [11] show a lack of understanding of our medical article sourcing requirements. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Erythema seems to have only made one post [12] since the dispute resolution process closed a week ago. While this post might well be seen as argumentative, I'd say that in of itself it wouldn't justify a block. I'd suggest that it might be best to give Erythema the benefit of the doubt, and rather than block, warn him/her that future conduct will be under close scrutiny, and that continuing as before isn't an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with that. The caveat about future conduct is important. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban of Drgao (I am an involved editor). I think this version of the user's page illustrates a number of the problems, including this illustrative quote: OK, I will try to avoid ad hominem strikes, and battle only in the arena of the actual subject matter. [13]. -- Scray (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban for user:Drgao on all articles related to medicine. (I've been marginally involved) It seems self-evident that Drago is unwilling to accept the clear consensus over sources, and likewise unwilling to accept the broader principles regarding medical sourcing - his/her suggestion at WP:RSN that the rejected sources might be appropriately used elsewhere [14] is about as clear evidence of tendetiousness as one could get. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comment above for why I thought my WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. I understood that source reliability decisions only apply in the context of the article they were discussed in. So since I was considering using these sources in other articles, my WP:RSN inquiry should have been accepted and considered. Drgao (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block for both users. The Erythema account is abiding by the DRN resolution, but they're clearly a SPA and continue to demonstrate an inability to understand WP policies. The Drgao account is and will continue to be an enormous timesink and even continued to argue with the admin in RSN after being told that doing so would lead to a block; I just don't see a personality like that as being able to maintain a relationship with the WP community that enriches either the community or the user. I'm the IP user posting from home; I usually edit from work. (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban for Drgao, for all the reasons Dbrodbeck outlined above. This user has shown willful disregard for Wikipedia policies on sources, agreed to abide by arbitration and then violated that agreement, repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, and has asserted ownership rights on this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral on block for Erythema. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef WP:MEDICINE topic ban for Drgao (as involved editor) - this would include all articles in WP:MEDICINE scope, biomedical content in all other articles, and associated discussion on Talk pages. What was brought to light at the DRN discussion and the following discussion at Talk:Morgellons was Drgao's inability or unwillingness to understand and apply WP:MEDRS, the biomedical content sourcing guideline, in line with consensus. The DRN discussion listed twelve editors having from modest to extensive editing experience who were able to review the sources against the WP:MEDRS guideline and didn't have trouble all coming to the same conclusion about them: they are not reliable for sourcing biomedical claims. TransporterMan was able to do the same thing without difficulty. At Drgao's RSN discussion, AndyTheGrump and Dominus Vobisdu didn't find a problem with it. Instead of pausing to consider that his/her own interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS might be problematic, Drgao continues to question whether it's everyone else who's got it wrong, demanding repeatedly that WP:MEDRS be explained again and again, despite that fact that Talk:Morgellons is full of hundreds of kilobytes of futile attempts by many different editors to explain it, with only WP:IDHT in response. Further tendentious editing is evidenced by Drgao's continuation of discussing the exact same thing that the DRN participants committed not to discuss after its conclusion - the WP:MEDRS fitness of the exact same sources - with a stated desire to use them in other articles. Because the issue is not with Morgellons in particular but with Drgao's understanding and acceptance of Wikipedia's biomedical sourcing guideline, the topic ban should be WP:MEDICINE-scope content. Regarding Erythema, there's not enough evidence to recommend a sanction at this time. Zad68 19:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comment above for why I thought my WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. I understood that source reliability decisions only apply in the context of the article they were discussed in. So since I was considering using these sources in other articles, my WP:RSN inquiry should have been accepted and considered. Drgao (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral I express no opinion either for or against the actions proposed here, but am available to answer any questions which any closer or administrator might wish to ask about the prior proceedings in which I was involved as a neutral party. (I may be mostly offline from about 22:00 UTC today through about 13:00 UTC on July 29, so if a quicker answer is needed, you might give me a heads up by email.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Drgao. (No comment on Erythema.) When an editor responds to a consensus at RSN with the assertion that other editors are telling lies and are "just not honest enough" about Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing, it throws up a big red flag. It appears, based on the information above, that this is an ongoing, persistent, and otherwise intractable IDHT problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Drgao nor Erythema have done anything wrong. They simply have a more neutral opinion than the editors here who have ganged up on them. Sierraparis (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Experienced editors who review the situation for the first time have unanimously agreed that Drgao and Erythema are in the wrong here.
Would it be possible to also seek similar corrective action for Sierraparis or does a new ANI report need to be opened? Problematic editor at Talk:Morgellons, SPA, IDHT, etc, etc. (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: Sierraparis account just claimed to not be here to edit, but as a "neutral journalist". (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
(involved admin) So, block Sierraparis per WP:NOTHERE? I don't think we're there yet, but, if he fails to rescind his comment that only editors who know Morgellons patients should edit, it should be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
support (involved) medical top ban for Drgao (Btw, it looks like they've been involved in pushing the infectious etiology for conditions other than moregellons, and I don't know if the references are up to snuff their either). Erythema and Sierraparis haven't quite reached the threshold of tendentiousness required for a topic ban, but are rapidly heading in that direction, since neither seem to have any reason to be on wikipedia other than to argue that apparently all of wikipedia is biased against them. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I may be biased, but I think Drgao is doing a great job in improving the Morgellons article. Drgao (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite ban from medical articles, as use seems to be unable to comprehend or abide by WP:MEDRS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "OPPOSE" Drgao has much to contribute to the discussion of this article and there is no reason whatsoever for banning this editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierraparis (talkcontribs) 04:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sierraparis (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support indefinite topic ban for all three users. The disruption and IDHT needs to stop. I'd even support a community imposed indefinite ban. There seems to be an inability to understand our most important policies. While we're at it, User:Sierraparis and User:Erythema need to be included in the topic ban. They are indistinguishable from twins/clones of Drgao. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban The distribution wastes a considerable amount of editor time, and the editor doesn't appear capable of getting the issues. This topic ban should not be lifted until the editor shows an understanding of policy, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef topic ban I've checked the Morgellons talk page & it's last two archives and note that user:Drgao is displaying continual disruptive IDHT behaviour. Suggest swift expansion of the ban if s/he takes this behaviour to other wp:FRINGEy medical matters. Currently Neutral on sanctioning user:Erythema. Now also Support indef topic ban for user:Erythema rgds (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe that Erythema, Drgao, and Sierraparis have honestly tried to abide by WP policies and I still believe that the NPOV of this article could be greatly improved. However, I don't believe in beating a deadhorse, and I do not feel that anything will be achieved by trying to discuss this topic further when the majority of the editors are not receptive. If you feel that Erythema, Sierraparis and Drgao have not followed policy then copying the relevant sections of policy would have been helpful. Many times they have asked for more specific objective justification concerning rejection of their proposals and have been met with hostility or sarcastic comments rather than useful discussion. One example I can think of was something to the effect that "fair and balanced is not what we do here". Erythema (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
comment From the very beginning of when you & Drgao started to edit the talk page (late May) other editors repeatedly gave you links to the relevant policies and explained - again repeatedly - how those policies judged that the sources you were advocating were not suitable, and that your editing/talk page etiquette were failing to adhere to the communities norms of behaviour. The majority of 'hostility & sarcasm' was coming from user:Drgao and if some of the other editors were occasionally testy it was because of the abovementioned & amply evidenced tendentious editing. As for "We don't do fair and balanced here, read WP:UNDUE" This was in the context of the questionable reliability of your supporting sources and was discussed in Archive 9 here. (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. This is further evidence that all three editors (if they are separable in any manner....) still, even now, fail to understand our policies. They have been provided plenty of explanations and links to read. They are not suited for editing here at all, so now I support a total ban from Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (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.

Legal threat?[edit]

Ranleewright blocked indefinitely (not permanently) pending removal of legal threat. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:44, 29 July 2013 (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.

"Because of this website(s) widespread use by million of people I may refer this information to the FBI in regard to how their information is being used to mislead people". Talk:Homosexuality#Violence against Gays and Lesbians from User: Ranleewright.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you expect a person interested in truth to do, the edits to entry and its subsections of this page are going further away from the truth everyday, it is misleading the public who use Wikipedia, a public who feels it is a unbiased resource? I have not as yet went to the step of sending copies of the information to the FBI or other outside organizations, that is why I said I may refer. Are you so determined to mislead and be biased that you would have me blocked or removed from Wikipedia? This further proves you want no criticism of your edits on this resource, your not interested in improving your wording in regard to the references, this is a very sad outcome for Wikipedia as far as use and being unbiased. Ranleewright (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

These are valid concerns / issues I wish to draw and direct attention to, misleading or information skirting falsehood should not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia if you want it to be regarded as well regarded resource for the public in general as an encyclopedia and such. Now if you have no concern in regard to the information being unbiased and non-misleading then go for it but put a disclaimer on each page to show that is the fact of the matter. Ranleewright (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The statement by Ranleewright is not a legal threat. The material is apparently sourced to an FBI report, and the user is saying that they would report that the report is being miscited. That said, the comments by Ranleewright strike me as, at best, unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a simple content dispute. But accusing other editors of misleading the public is uncivil behaviour and it will not contribute to the resolution of any outstanding issues. -- Taroaldo 23:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think is more than a content dispute. The editor appears to have an agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
If Ranleewright was truly interested in improving wording in regard to references, one might expect that as a first step, they may have responded or passed some comment on the 3 suggestions I made on the article talk page in which I indeed attempted to improve the wording. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Bbb23. Only meant insofar as the ANI report goes, there does not appear to be a legal threat. The problem remains with the content...and certain conduct. Taroaldo 23:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I respect Bbb23's opinion on this. I feel that the wording when looked at with the previous comment: "I hold forth no hope that this will be corrected or mitigated because this seems to be Wikipedia's purpose to spread biased and misleading material to the general public, even allowing pornographic material displaying sexual themes, relations and organs to underage children without restriction, this is illegal in every other form of media." makes it appear that the intent is a legal matter of finding Wikipedia liable for its content and an accusation of a misuse of an Official US Government agency. This seems a borderline legal threat and could be interpreted to mean that they intend to seek legal action. I feel the issue can be left as is, unless the editor continues to make threats of off Wiki action.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This, as quoted by the OP here, does indeed qualify as a legal threat: "You better fix this, or I'm calling the FBI." The rest of his posts are loaded with accusations of the "conspiracy theory" type. Certainly that SPA has an agenda, though it's not clear just what that agenda is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
That was my basic, original thought.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note - This is why it is helpful to add all the relevant diffs at the beginning of the discussion. Still, "calling the FBI" does not constitute a threat of litigation. WP:LEGAL -- Taroaldo 00:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It does constitute a "Perceived legal threat". The language was meant to create a chill effect and stop editing and intimidate editors. I'm back to calling this enough of a legal threat that intervention may be needed for prevention as the editor is making it clear they intend some action.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That point seems to come up here from time to time. It's not the specific nature of the threat that forbids it - it's the attempt to intimidate editors. That's why threatening to call the FBI is every bit as much a "legal threat" as threatening to call Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement is, indeed, intended to chill the discussion and to get their way in the argument. As such, I believe it is a clear legal threat, in violation of WP:NLT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
While our interpretations of WP:LEGAL may differ slightly, I concur that contributions in the talk page appear to be an attempt to intimidate or bully other editors. I think most of us can probably agree that some kind of action would be appropriate in this case. Taroaldo 01:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW I'm with Bbb here. I normally consider 'I will report you to some LEO' claims as in NLT territory since they have the same chilling effect but in this case as the comment appears to be 'I will report you to some LEO because it's their source you're misusing' not 'I will report you to some LEO for criminal investigation', I don't think this is auite in NLT territory. That said, I would discourage further comments of this nature as it does risk having the same chilling effect because we are ultimately talking about a LEO and it's unlikely to help matters. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
No, exactly what they are saying is: "Submit to my moral judgment that this article violates pornography laws by depicting relations between same sex couples or I will contact the FBI to begin a legal battle to make Wikipedia liable for the content. THAT is what they are saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Truth painful and is intimidating and bullying, hmmmm that sounds unreasonable to me. You can not get consensus when individuals for what ever reason choose not look at the independent facts of a matter. Just the same who ever has the power to stifle freedom of speech exercise it, the power always makes right I guess. Ranleewright (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Here look at the conversation more closely: Violence against Gays and Lesbians[edit] Ranleewright (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (Copyright/Attribution violation removed)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Two things you should read: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Make that three because they need to read our terms of use it seems as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What gives? Copyright/attribution violation when it was a group of posts between me and several other editors, how could that be so, are you making up rules as you go? What are you doing deleting my posts, is that not a violation of freedom of speech? Are you disrespecting me because I'm new to this forum or are you bulling me? Ranleewright (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WE can violate your 'free speech' all we like here. Or rather, you don't have any right to 'free speech' on Wikipedia, any more than anyone else does - see Wikipedia:Free speech. As for removing the huge chunk of text you copy-pasted here, whether it was a copyright violation to do so or not (it might be, due to lack of proper attribution, but I'm no lawyer..), it shouldn't have been pasted anyway. Either post a link, or at least tell us where it is - filling the page with walls of copy-pasted text is disruptive and unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may post only your own text without the need to attribute others. However, if you copy text from one place to another within Wikipedia that belongs to other contributors you are required to give attribution to all those who's work you copy. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. But, the original post I made already has a link to the discussion so copy pasting that entire chunk was very disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So your saying it is a copyright violation to copy or link information in any form from one place to another in the entries or in the talk forums unless it is you. If it is not you then it is disruptive, in violation and unnecessary. No one has any right to free speech on here but you, you can move, delete, rewrite, block, ever what you want to do, you have the freedom to do that but no one else does. You don't want anyone to see what has really been posted so you obscure it or delete it. Sounds strongly of communism in some form to me. Ranleewright (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what the founder of Wikipedia would think about a statement like that? Ranleewright (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not to say that the Wikimedia Foundation intends to extensively exercise that legal right, if it can be avoided. Wikipedia welcomes all constructive contributors, and is dedicated to assuming good faith with those here to contribute constructively and assist in helping expand access to the sum of human knowledge. I have given constructive cpmtrobitions and have done all in good faith to assist in helping expand human knowledge, but have been blocked, ridiculed to an extent and bullied. The information I put forth was from the FBI website that contains the reports that were used. Also the edits I made were from the same source word for word in some cases to clarify the information being used in the entry, but no that was not good enough. Ranleewright (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone threatening to call the FBI in can fairly accuse others of 'bullying'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist AndyTheGrump Is abusing their powers as administrators on Wikipedia, I have given constructive contributions and have done all in good faith to assist in helping expand human knowledge, but have been blocked, ridiculed to an extent and bullied when all I have done is put forth factual information from the same sources / reports as in some of the entries on Wikipedia. In this way they are causing the information in these entries to misrepresent the statistics, percentages and facts put forth in these reports. This seems to be contrary to what Wikipedia should represent. Ranleewright (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. Does this not include administrators??? Ranleewright (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. I never claimed to be one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Then who is acting like one and deleting some of the stuff I put up? Who says they are going to block me on here? Ranleewright (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Also why are you AndyTheGrump changing my edits on entries when I put up the sources for those edits? Ranleewright (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"why are you AndyTheGrump changing my edits on entries when I put up the sources for those edits"? What exactly are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Before you do anything else, you need to remove and disavow your threat to contact the FBI, or you will be blocked from editing here - guaranteed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So now we go past bullying and have the threats, I have used Wikipedia as a resource since 2007 and I get threats for my loyalty. Like I posted before, who ever has the power to stifle freedom of speech exercise it, the power always makes right I guess, your doing the same thing you say your fighting against. Ranleewright (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The threats came from you. Withdraw them. Or expect to be prevented from making further threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, I don't make threats. Ranleewright (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Well? Ranleewright (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Come on abuse me AndyTheGrump, come on ol powerful one??? Whats going on nothing is happening? Ranleewright (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Enough of this unproductive WP:TE nonsense. Issue a block and be done with it. Taroaldo 08:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes issue a block don't even consider the truth, facts and be done with it, break all the grand words of Wikipedia,Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented, the roots on what it is based, show your true colors, prove what you are. Ranleewright (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

See  • above. Taroaldo 08:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Something isn't right here. I think it's true to say that in the thread on the article talk page, I was the only editor who attempted (repeatedly) to incorporate and address Ranleewright's concerns, yet it seemed to be me who Ranleewright chose to ignore. Ranleewright recently edited the article (see here) to include a note which clarified the FBI's definition of a victim, then afterwards on the talk page stated that "the edit I made to the entry clears up the meaning of the percentages referenced in the FBI report" (see here). Yet the day before on the talk page I had explicitly suggested doing exactly the same thing (see here) - note my sentence "Maybe a footnote could also be added after the use of "victims", explaining the FBI definition of that term" - but Ranleewright's reaction was to completely ignore me and instead get on a soapbox (see here). Maybe this was pure oversight, but a similar thing has happened on this page; if people look higher up, they can see I again referred to the 3 suggestions I had made to change the wording in the article. Does Ranleewright state that they hadn't seen those, and ask me to highlight them? No, I am completely ignored again, whereas Ranleewright proves quite capable of responding to other editors. I think that sometimes, for whatever reason, some people just like fighting. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as the legal threat is concerned, I was not at first convinced as the threat was not credible. However, I find the argument that the editor's intent was to browbeat other editors compelling, and agree that WP:NLT was violated, in spite of the fact that the threat was not credible.
Furthermore, we have a major problem with WP:COMPETENCE here. The editor clearly has fundamental misconceptions about what WP is and how it works. While that is to be expected with a new account, it does not seem that the editor is amenable to improving their competence and constructively edit in a collaborative framework, based on their tendentious comments on the article talk pages and in this discussion. Mentoring and friendly advice are unlikely to be of any avail, as the editor's comments strongly indicate that he is WP:NOTHERE. Because it is reasonable to assume that disruptive and tendentious behavior will continue, an indefinite block would be the best option at this time. If, in the future, the editor can convince an adminitrator that they understand what WP is and how it works, and that they intend to edit productively and collaboratively in compliance with WP policies and guidelines, the account could be unblocked. Until then, this editor is "not ready for prime time". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
All one has to do is look at the editor's contributions list to see that he or she is WP:NOTHERE to help create an encyclopedia. This is clearly a POV-pushing SPA, and not a civil one at that. A block needs to be issued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The only comment I'm going to make about sanctions is I don't think the editor has done enough yet to warrant a block. He might deserve a final warning for his approach, but not a block. His edits are a mixture of various components. He actually makes some good points, but they are mixed up with a poor approach, some incompetence, and a hostile manner, particularly when challenged. In any event, I've made some comments as to content on the homosexuality talk page, taking into account some of the points that Ranleewright made, as well as other problems with the language we use in the article, which, in my view, is not fully supported by the source. That now makes me WP:INVOLVED, so I won't be the admin who takes action against Ranleewright, if any action is justified. By the way, to get a fuller picture of Ranleewright, editors might want to look at his edits to the Vegetarianism talk page. His comments there are sometimes odd, but they are less controversial and more human. Please remember that there are people behind these accounts, and we need to be sensitive to that. I'm not saying that justifies persistent disruption, and for all I know he may be a sock, but let's not be too blood-thirsty at this point. He's made only a few article edits so far, all of which have been poor, but none of which has been vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any of the editors calling for a block are "blood-thirsty", and frankly, it's a blatant violation of WP:AGF on your part to say so. Nipping in the bud what is certain to be continued disruption is a legitimate use of a block so that other editors can edit in peace. Remember, they are people, too, and don't deserve to be subjected to hostility and aggression. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Indef block Legal threats, lack of competence, not here to build an encyclopedia, disruption and "I don't here you".--Amadscientist (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (Uninvolved, non-admin comment) Let's see. Ranleewright's very first post at Talk:Homosexuality was a blatant violation of WP:AGF, alleging "intentional misrepresentation" of the source [my emphasis], and their subsequent posts strongly indicated a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Despite more than one editor's attempts to take Ranleewright seriously and address the substance of the content question they raised, Ranleewright clearly preferred to engage in unconstructive discussion, reiterating the baseless allegation of their first post, calling a good-faith editor's comments "moot and argumentative and suggesting the article be "removed", accusing other editors of wanting to hide "the truth", accusing the article's writers of being "biased", issued the threats that led to this ANI report being filed, and then pointily made an edit they knew would be reverted rather than seeking consensus.

    Bbb23 may be right that there's not enough there for a block just yet, but unless Ranleewright makes a serious effort to assume good faith and "play nicely", it's pretty clear that a block is in the future. Up to y'all how much time is spent on discussing the problem before dealing with it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

    • I try hard to work with difficult editors to find ways to understand their concerns and address them, work with them and attempt some manner of retention of them as contributors. I tend to be like Bbb23 and not necessarily look to block and even look at the overall picture. But, this time Bbb23 is wrong. There is clearly enough to block the editor at this time and their main effort here is to attack a controversial article, rile up its editors and disrupt the project. The editor lacks the competence to work here, and even when directed to information to explain the simplest rules here, such as attribution, they use it as further attacks. Sure, I find the opinion that tying up a man to a fence and beating them to death for their sexual preference as being nothing but sensationalism and gossip to be disturbing, but it is far more telling about their lack of neutrality and the direction they are insisting the article take. Mathew Sheppard is a perfect example of violence against the LGBT community, but the editor is too biased against homosexuality to see that. I have to wonder if the editor even has the maturity to work here, let alone the competence.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rivertorch is right, it's a matter of how long, not if. This user's combativeness has convinced me to block until the threat is withdrawn, and this will also serve as a cooldown period for a combative editor. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Good call. Looking at Ranleewright's contributions as linked by Rivertorch, it was clear to me that the user was here to push an agenda rather than build an encyclopedia in a collaborative manner. CtP (tc) 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Until the threat(s) are withdrawn, it should be block, and mentorship. Or if all else fails, indefinite block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Contrary to some opinion, I think he is here to build an encyclopedia - I simply think he believes that ref's must be used his way to support his POV, "or else". The block for NLT is valid, and can be removed as per process. Of course, I half expect to see evasion instead, which opens up a whole different can'o'worms (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (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.

Problematic editing by TomPointTwo[edit]

I know about all the civility enforcement difficulties etc. and for sure I have no intention to stir up any unnecessary drama but I started a modest thread at Talk:Steve King warning editors there about breaching 3RR during a recent spate of edit-warring. The thread is not long and anyone interested can read it to get the full picture. To cut the story short, I cautioned TomPointTwo about making unhelpful remarks which could provoke another user and I got this response: I found them to be helpful as a motherfucker. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC) with an edit-summary feels good man. I reverted per WP:NOTFORUM but TomPointTwo keeps edit-warring his reply into the talkpage, escalating with attacking edit-summaries such as: (Censorship! Fascism! Your subjective deletion of my contribution will not stand! My critical evaluations of previous material is not in violation of WP:TPNO. Read it, son.). I don't find this acceptable. I ask that an admin redact that reply and take any further action as they deem appropriate. In addition TomPointTwo used edit-summaries like (Undid revision 566113825 by MilesMoney (talk) Actually now that you're up against 3RR you can eat it.) trying to bait his opponent during the edit-war at Steve King in which he arrived at 3RR himself but did not seem to recognise it as shown from this discussion at RFPP: [15] and this response at 3RRN: [16]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I found my previous talk page comments to be helpful. Helpful as a motherfucker, in fact. My expression of 3RR angst (actually 5RR by that point) was succinct and honest. Suckhonest, maybe. Context can be found at the Steve King Talk page, the 3RR noticeboard and the additional entry Dr K made to the edit war noticeboard. Aside from that I don't have a ton to add. I do so hope my contributions are not interpreted as anything less than "professional" or of the super serious business required of participants here. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Carrying on the battle here is not wise. I suggest you stop. Taroaldo 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The formatting here is a mess, and not of your doing. Whom are you addressing? TomPointTwo (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The situation has been presented and I think it would be best if you both would step back until some outside input has been provided. Carrying on arguments in ANI is not constructive. Also, TomPointTwo, you seem to have a sharp sense of humour (if I have been interpreting some of your comments correctly). But, since this is not being welcomed by the other involved editor, it would be appropriate to tone it right down. What may appear as humourous comments to you appear as uncivil comments to others eg: "[a]re you crying about my conjecture that you feel dumb?" -- Taroaldo 09:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You're an affably charitable sort. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside look

As an outsider that has not dug in to the whole problem yet, I must say I dont like TomPointTwo language at all. I suggest you start being polite and write with a friendly tone. It is better for everyone, because it is more civil to read, and people may judge you differently if you use another language. I dont feel like the choice of words is good etiguette, so at least consider reading WP:ETIQ. QED237 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm simply incapable of responding to that in a way that isn't despicably petty as you no doubt speak my language better than I speak yours. Or so I hope. In the mean time I do very much hope you find others whose language is more in tune with your sensibilities. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you capable of responding in a way that does not include sarcasm, insults, battleground behaviour, or indeed can you respond in any manner that respects the community nature of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I am, as repeatedly demonstrated by my edit history. I've also reached that point where I'm totally unconcerned for my wiki-cred and treat the absurd in kind. Self-aggrandizing, self-appointed, fussy wiki bureaucrats and people who want to cite the Colbert Show in a BLP can pretty much go pound sand. TomPointTwo (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I woke up to see an edit summary which was inappropriate, and responded to TomPointTwo at their talk page. That occurred before I saw the ANI thread and before I saw the subsequent comments of TomPointTwo. Because I have edited the article, and commented on the content issues, I feel uncomfortable taking admin actions, but we need to send a clear message that the language of TomPointTwo is not acceptable. I urge a warning that further such language will be grounds for an immediate block. Coerced apologies aren't worth much, so I don't wish to coerce one, but I hope TomPointTwo considers one. While it is clear that MilesMoney's style can be exasperating, the editor is new, and unfamiliar with our guidelines, so we can be firm, but do not need to be insulting. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected Steve King for three days, and left messages on TomPointTwo's and MilesMoney's talk pages. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll tone it down, there isn't much left to get up about anyway. I'm unsure exactly what it is you want me to apologize for. For being rude to a pain in the ass newbie who was shiting all over a BLP? Or hurting Dr. K's feelings and not deferring to his stern finger wagging? In all seriousness though, if my disregard for the institutional faux mutual regard around here has caused this much hyper-ventilating then people will either put on their big kid pants, and move on or they'll serve my up some block that doesn't much affect me anyway so they can feel better about that intolerable Tom jerk on the Steve King article. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was watching the RFPP thread with growing incredulity; TomPointTwo was behaving bizarrely, and neither user seemed to understand what the other was saying, creating a vicious circle. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your evaluation is without merit regarding my replies at RFPP. I was replying directly to TomPointTwo's comments and he was shifting the replies ever so slightly to create the conundrum that you see there. He exhibited exactly the same attitude at 3RRN where he never admitted to edit-warring despite multiple detailed explanations from my part and made multiple false statements about my evaluation of his behaviour as having reached 3RR as you can see from the link here. At 3RRN I had to tell him not to put words in my mouth due his false statements about me. He also repeated multiple times that I had to "read WP:3RR" when I told him that he was also edit-warring and in one of his replies he even called me a clever little wordsmith, repeated that "I had to read WP:3RR" and implied that I was "dumb"; all for telling him that he was responsible for edit-warring. At both 3RRN and RFPP he feigned misunderstanding of my replies and I think that kind of reaction from TomPointTwo is some short of defence mechanism when he does not want to face his responsibility. At RFPP he became patronising and insisted multiple times that I made an error by reporting there. In one of his replies he patronisingly implies that "I had it bacwards" by not filing a single report at 3RRN only for his perceived opponent with a patronising edit-summary re Dr. K: Oh, I'll do it then implying that I filed the wrong report. In another patronising reply at RFPP when I told him that his newbie opponent was not warned about 3RR and thus any report about MilesMoney at 3RRN would not result in his block he sarcastically retorted that I was "a member of the cabal" with a sarcastic edit-summary: *Gasp*. All part of his strategy to shift the blame to his newbie opponent. It was his version of Who's on First? trying to evade his responsibility about the edit-war and ignore my clear comments about it. Either that or he has genuine trouble reading other editors' replies no matter how clear. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is very troubling behavior, both here and on the article in question. Also there's fun incidents like calling another editor a liar in his recent edit history. Scrapping with a combative newbie is one thing, but his responses to Dr. K. and QED237 are uncalled for. I'm tempted to block, but that might only encourage anti-social behavior. I think perhaps a better solution would be to topic ban him from this particular article for the duration of this particular editing conflict while more level-headed editors sort it out. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I called him a liar because he was transparently full of shit. I could have pretended we didn't all know he was transparently full of shit and done the phony, passive aggressive "I'm going to assume good faith here" routine but that's incredibly taxing. And old. I'm unsure what you're angling for in a topic ban, I almost never edit Steve King's page, I don't even remember why it' on my watchlist. I just saw a new, pushy editor doing something belligerently stupid so I popped in to let him know. If it would make you feel better, like you've "done something" about all of whatever this is then have at it. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

One of his edit summaries here: "I have some tissues left over here. BAWWW party, my place?" Assuming he isn't a troll, I would also consider his earlier comments on this thread ("totally unconcerned for my wiki-cred", "fussy wiki bureaucrats [...] can pretty much go pound sand") an admission that this behavior isn't going to stop. I support a block. ProtossPylon 20:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He is on a campaign of self-righteousness and denigrates and belittles any comments concerning his personal attacks as well as his edit-warring behaviour and does not show any kind of sign that he understands the impact of his behaviour on a collaborative editing environment. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've been a super big meanie over the past 12 hours. And one time I called a liar a liar. I'm pretty sure I've insinuated a few editors are dealing with cognitive handicaps. If you go back far enough you might even find an instance or two where I have, without any proper perspective on our reverent air of community collaboration, told someone that their contributions were garbage. If I'm not blocked soon I could fly off the handle and, again, remove non-policy compliant garbage and even hurt someone's sense of self importance, or worse, their emotional well being. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes as TomPointTwo writes, if he is not blocked soon he could hurt the emotional well-being of other editors. If he does that, it will hurt our encyclopedia. I thus support a block. (NB I had an interaction with TomPointTwo in May 2011 here. (sdsds - talk) 23:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I initially supported only a topic ban, but based on the comments of other editors and his latest comments here, he's talked himself into a block. It's clear that discussion won't resolve the issue. He clearly understands the problem, but he is clearly determined to not only disregard the issue, but exacerbate the problem as much as he can, so this is a matter of merely self-fulfilling prophecy. And based on what I'm interpreting as his assent above, I don't see why we shouldn't also place a topic ban on him for this article for the duration of this current editing conflict. I'm calling it a night, so if there is consensus here for an unblock or changing the block, you need not contact me first. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The block seems a sensible move given the latest comments. I'm not so sure about the topic ban though - not the idea of a topic ban per se, but whether we have the authority to impose one. There hasn't been a community discussion leading to a ban, so I don't think we can impose a ban under that authority. Is the article in question under any form of discretionary sanctions? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we need them? If there is a consensus here for such a ban, that should be sufficient. Given his assent, I thought there was no harm in imposing one. If consensus here disagrees, I have no problem lifting it. Gamaliel (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[edit]

I told him that his edits were reverted on Shehla Raza ‎because he wrote Urdu on it. I reverted as good faith edits and warned him with {{subst:uw-test1}}. He then wrote on my talk page all these which just meant 'cut your mother'. Jianhui67 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for userpage vandalism and personal attacks. Fut.Perf. 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Anarcocapitalista austriaco[edit]

Please see message posted by new user Anarcocapitalista austriaco here: [18]. – S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've told him that if the threat isn't immediately removed I will block him indefinitely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This might not be a legal threat. User:Anarcocapitalista austriaco says that a third person might sue Wikipedia. He doesn't claim to be or to represent this third person. Please account for the possibility that the user's message is a good-faith warning about someone else's threat to take legal action. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
He says " I am Huerta de Soto's close familiar and I believe he is very annoyed with the lies that are being written in wikipedia" A threat made on behalf of his friend is still a threat, and should be withdrawn. If we accept your argument, we might as well abandon the policy, along with any other incivility (Mr X thinks you are a %??!!ing ~**### because of what you put in the article, just thought I'd let you know that). I'll block him if the threat remains, I'm not splitting hairs on this, there is no valid reason for keeping intimidation active, whatever the source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't blocked yet because he has made no subsequent edits and may not have seen the message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a threat made on behalf of a friend is still a threat. But my point is that this user never claimed to be speaking on this friend's behalf. If I were a new user who learned that someone I knew was about to sue Wikipedia for publishing false information about them, I might do exactly what this user is doing: I would first try to resolve the matter by removing the allegedly false information, and if my actions were reverted and called into question I would explain, perhaps with some desperation, that I was only trying to head off impending legal action. Of course I wouldn't be so rude about it, though not every new user is used to containing their indignation in the face of Wikipedia bureaucracy. I see the relevant policies and procedures have now been explained to them, so hopefully they will now understand what it is they need to do in order to get their corrections adopted. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Also it is possible the editor is not aware that if Jesús Huerta de Soto is upset about User:Specifico's editing he can see Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. Conveying messages inferring threats to sue User:Specifico is not necessary. Since I'm involved in an ANI which touches on Specifico's editing in several articles, including this one, it might not be appropriate that I do it. User:Carolmooredc 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
[inserted] Interestingly, a check of new editor AA's diffs shows that much of the text which AA disputes is from edits contributed by user carolmooredc. SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have notified the user. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If the user has claimed close connection to the person and is making edits and pushing for edits that are not correct then there is a case of potential conflict of interest too. The accounts only edit has been to this page + the claims of closeness to the person this could potentially be a single purpose account. The editor should probably be given more information on these policies too.  A m i t  웃   15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Marcos Stupenengo, journalist, autobiography[edit]

Marcos Stupenengo is a minor journalist who has created a self-biography (CV like) both in this wiki and in the Spanish one. The Spanish version was already deleted (and as he was repeatedly creating the page again it was blocked forever). In this wiki he has been deleting Talk comments, removing the self-biography template. He doesn't seem to be very skilled as he always come from the same IP (talk · contribs) (when he doesn't use the user Coconuto (talk · contribs), which is obviously him checking in Google).

The page in question is Marcos Stupenengo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spanish deleted page: es:Marcos Stupenengo

It would be great if somebody could take a look a this issue. Thanks!

I first posted this here Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Marcos_Stupenengo.2C_journalist, but I got no reply.


niqueco 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


I've come across this comment when I was going to leave Murry a message. I doubt I've ever seen anything as rude on the wiki. I note from the record that this user has already been blocked once. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of hoping somebody is going to look at this incident and agree with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The user claimed to be Harrybhoy67 in that message, and there are similar edits from that account. I've warned the editor (on the account's talk page) about BLP and verifiability - that's more of an issue than one incident of incivility. Peter James (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Request Indefinate Block on IP user:[edit]

Special:Contributions/ This user has been blocked for vandalism as they keep removing bits from articles which involve controversy, accidents or incidents on certain rollercoasters. The two rollercoasters they have done this on so far belong to Alton Towers. I did a quick bit of research and it is a definite conflict of interests. [19] reveals IP address belongs to Merlin Entertainment who own the theme park who's articles this IP address keeps editing. The block imposed on the user is only for 31 hours but I would suggest an indefinite ban is more appropriate. The user has made no valuable edits to wikipedia, only these C.O.I. vandalisms.

Today this user is removing (covering up?) bits about controversy and accidents on articles about Alton Towers... Merlin own a lot of theme parks and attractions in the UK, including Alton Towers, Chessington World of Adventures, Thorpe Park, Madame Tussauds, Sea Life Centres, The London and Edinburgh Dungeons, Seal Sanctuaries, Warwick Castle, the London Eye and Legoland... -the potential for more is enormous.

I think nip it in the bud and block the IP indefinitely. It shows this sort of editing is not welcome on wikipedia. -- Rushton2010 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits are disruptive, but not vandalism. The main problem is lack of discussion or explanation of the edits. Some of the information removed belongs in the article, but other parts probably don't. Peter James (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Deliberately removing valid and fully referenced information is vandalism. Even more so with the worrying C.O.I. and the fact it was the bits about incidents and accidents that was being removed.
The question is not whether it constitutes vandalism- The user is already blocked for it being vandalism. This is about getting that block increased to stop it happening again. The last time I found C.O.I. vandalism the user was blocked indefinitely straight away, as should have happened with this one. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that the editor doesn't understand Wikipedia's purpose or policies, and that's why I suggested disruptive editing instead of vandalism. A block could be effective, but IP blocks are rarely lengthy and bad faith shouldn't be assumed yet. Most indefinite IP blocks are the result of mistakes or misunderstandings. Peter James (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of talk page by blocked user[edit] (talk) was just blocked. Immediately after being blocked, he posted this to his talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He was reverted a while ago and has since posted this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New user, likely sock--anyone know the master?[edit]

A new account, BrewJay (talk · contribs) appeared, and its first edits were to WP:TPG and WT:MEDRS. That certainly seems to me to not be a new user. While I considered bringing the matter here first, the user had a "mailto:" link in her/his signature (again, a customized signature is a clear sign of a non-new user). I didn't want that to propagate any further. If you look at this edit you can see the email address. Does anyone know who this is? Or have I needlessly overreacted? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to be an IP regular at Talk:Cruciferous vegetables (see Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ In response to one series of edits, I have expressed concern about behaviour which, in WP terms, may be considered disruptive, including a specious attempt to game the system [20]. Fwiw, I believe the MED project at least should be spared this sort of disingenuous time-wasting. (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just stated on BrewJay's talk page that I still believe he's a disruptive sock, but that since I don't have definitive evidence or a specific master, I won't oppose an unblock if he should choose to request one and another admin is willing to grant it. My full explanation is there. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The user has been editing as an IP since 2011 (or earlier), but a search for "BrewJay" in all namespaces finds an account blocked indefinitely in 2008, which was probably the user's original account. Peter James (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The user has stated in an email to me that they are a new account because their first account was indefinitely blocked; after looking at the contributions of that account, there is no doubt that the user is the same, and that this type of disruption date back at least until 2009. I've withdrawn my offer, and reblocked the account without email or talk page access. However, given how long this has gone on already, it seems plausible that he'll return.
While we're here though, a question: I would never have found the user's original account unless he had told me via email. Given that email communications are considered private and not revealed on WP without permission...can I legitimately link the two accounts via a sockpuppet tag? Or is that revealing private info? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that sockpuppet tags linking the accounts are necessary here at all, whether it involves revealing information from private communications or not. The pattern of editing is recognisable enough without it, and the "sock puppetry" here is only for the purpose of block evasion (of a block issued 4 years ago). If the original account you were told about is the account I found (in use 2006-2008) this doesn't even look like an attempt to create a new identity. If IP edits resume maybe it would be worth linking the IPs to the BrewJay account. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Swamilive seems to be back[edit]

I decided to take this here instead of WP:SPI because it's so obvious. For example, he added this to User talk:Delicious carbuncle, which is definitely classic Swamilive. The IP he used definitely seems to be in the same range as previously used IPs, too, such as the ones used to vandalize Winnipeg Folk Festival-related articles back in 2009–2010. For further info, check this out: (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)). --SamXS 13:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I decided to chime in here. Yes, this is John (or Swamilive). I've just served the sentence imposed on a range of IPs, and I have decided to come back (since the block has expired) and contribute constructively, although probably not very frequently. I said hi to DelCarb because well, I wanted to say hi. Since the last time I was able to edit Wikipedia there have been some changes to how one updates. I see now that you can resize an image right there on the page. This was new to me, and I'm pretty sure I made some saves to images that might have been inappropriate. I ask that the community ignore those one or two edits and allow me a period of adjustment to the new editing style. I assure you that, despite my past transgressions, I am ready and willing to be a positive contribution to the project. I have served a very long block sentence. Please do not assume the worst an reinstate the block. I should be afforded a chance to prove myself. (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Block evasion and the IP's edits are nothing but vandalism. I suggest someone block the IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


Left a note for the user but they persisted, so I have blocked him indefinitely until he engages in discourse and displays some understanding of the situation. --Laser brain (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2013 (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.

Can an admin please look at this guy's contributions? Mostly in his userspace appear to be hoaxes and/or articles fictionalised entries about himself and his friends. Also managed to unhelpfully move his talk page to User talk:Brandonworld/May Fitzgerald and Myra Solosolg which shows other stuff that's been deleted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted a number of subpages in his userspace, moved back his talk page, and left a note for him explaining acceptable uses of his user space. --Laser brain (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2013 (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.

Repeated hostile, insulting remarks by User:Carolmooredc[edit]

Even by ANI standards, this topic is remarkably chaotic - and going nowhere fast.

Carol, you get carried away and many of your comments are unnecessary and could be construed as uncivil or attacking, particularly their cumulative effect. As one person suggested, you need to pull back a notch, perhaps more than a notch. You can't let your frustration with the state of BLPs justify behaving disrespectfully to other editors. Unless we're talking about vandals or socks, which we're not, it's always better to focus on content rather than conduct.

To the anti-Carols: the vast majority of your diffs do not support your claims, or at least do not rise to the level you are asserting. The characterization of a diff must match the diff. Otherwise, you lose credibility. Please be clearer and more focused when presenting evidence of misconduct.

No administrative action here is warranted other than my unwanted advice in this closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2013 (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.

In an RfC on Gary North, the above user has maligned me for "want[ing to destroy a living person on Wikipedia" and alleged I am motivated to do this ot "bolster [my] own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously." She provides no evidence for this allegation, and therefore it constitutes WP: Personal attack. When I called her out on this, she attacked me as "hypersensitive"; when another user (a libertarian who strongly opposes my view on the RfC) characterized Carol's ocomment as a personal attack, she erroneously accused him of "harassment"

Since Carol to heed to warnings from her peers, and since I am banned from her talk page due to prior warnings about her PA, I need to ask admin to give her a warning about a conduct and a ban from the North article, where she continues to be disruptive. I am willing and able to detail a truly extravagant and massively extensive history of carol's personal attacks/erroneous allegations against other users if admin deems this context to be helpful. Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • First, I did not review who wrote what of the WP:OR under discussion. I made a general statement of frustration about attack BLPs. [Added later actual quote this diff: However much an editor may want to destroy a living person using Wikipedia, and thus bolster their own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously, they still must follow Wikipedia rules to do it and using primary source out of context WP:OR is against the rules.] I specifically told User: Steeletrap in response to his complaint - at this diff: "Such hypersensitivity. Obviously you have never edited dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel like I have or you would know of what I speak." I struck "hypersensitive". Suggestions on more Wikietiquette compliant phrase to explain my frustration over a false allegation welcome. [Added clarification: False allegation being that I specifically was talking about Steeletrap; I have not seen diff of who put in the info.]
  • Second, I asked another user a few weeks back not to contact me on my talk page except with official notices. He forgot and I just wanted to remind him how I felt. He thanked me for reminding him. It's really none of User:Steeletrap's business.
  • User:Steeletrap seems to have forgotten I had to do a WP:ANI a couple months back to get others to help stop him from posting questionable comments on my talk page. (Official notices being explicitly exempted, of course.) User:Carolmooredc 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Carol, your comment at the RfC about "destroying" was, if not a personal attack directed at a particular editor, inappropriate in any context and certainly inappropriate in an RfC. I suggest you be more careful in the future and limit your comments to content and issues and not attacks on editors, whoever they are.
  • Steeletrap, why are you posting this sort of notice of the RfC? Not very neutral, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Not at all unneutral; I completely reject that insinuation. I was simply describing the disputed material related to North views, which is in and of itself inflammatory, and how it relates to the noticeboard in question. I did something similar at the Calvinist noticeboard: describing the RfC and how it relates to Calvinism. These posts were accurately describing an inherently inflammatory subject, but were prescriptive or putting any sort of spin on the situation. Steeletrap (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh, I'd hardly call it an "insinuation". If you prefer to be obtuse over this, it will only lead to trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Mea culpa. Best to stay away from BLPs until whatever doesn't tick me off so much. Or I see enough editors supportive of BLP policy working on an article, so I can relax and not blow my cool. User:Carolmooredc 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed resolution Since Carol has apologized for her conduct, and (to my eye) indicated she will steer clear of the article in question, I support ending this matter without sanction provided she 1) confirms my impression regarding her intention to stay away from Gary North, where her disruptive behavior has occurred and 2) crosses out her insulting, hostile remarks on the Gary North RfC. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think removing the offending two word phrase was sufficient. Though I do think it was a false exaggeration and I probably should just have said so. Will control self and not add it now. I don't think it's a good precedent to let minor complaints be used to chase an editor off a BLP where there are issues. Plus I did put the RfC on a couple Wikiprojects much more relevant than others posted to and am curious to see if there is a response. Plus I am curious to see if the BLP subject is that bad why certain libertarians put up with him. Is there some explanatory text somewhere that's WP:RS? I found a few interesting things, mostly WP:OR (like the WP:OR cherry picked quotes in contention) and others not quite WP:RS. My female curiosity so often gets me in trouble... User:Carolmooredc 23:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I will withdraw my suggestion and suggest a ban on Carol's participation in Gary North, since she refuses to cross out her speculative, bad-faith assuming, PA assertion that I am out to "destroy" and libel North to promote myself on Wikipedia, rather than out to contribute to this encyclopedia. (She incorrectly thinks only the "hypersensitive" slight was a violation of policy.) Given Carol's extensive history of PAs on me, and her repeated refusal (despite prompting from peers and an admin) to acknowledge her editing is disruptive and to change that editing, I think banning her from editing North is necessary. Steeletrap (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Steeletrap, just so you know, any admin can block Carol if they believe it's warranted. However, a ban requires a thorough discussion and a consensus; it's not something an admin can do unilaterally except in circumstances not present here. I would discourage you from pursuing such a ban because I don't believe there is enough to support it, but I also wanted to point out the procedural hurdles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, as I clarified above I was not writing specifically about Steeletrap when I wrote at this diff: However much an editor may want to destroy a living person using Wikipedia, and thus bolster their own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously, they still must follow Wikipedia rules to do it and using primary source out of context WP:OR is against the rules.
Again I still haven't seen the diff of who put the material in. However, given the tadoo, I can see as a general statement it was not a good one and will strike it, especially since Steeltrap takes it so personally. As frustrated as I may be when I visit various BLPs, I have to stop taking BLP rules so seriously and editorializing about generalized people breaking them! User:Carolmooredc 01:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Given your "mea culpa" and acknowledgement of error, I have no further concern on this matter. I remain very concerned with your general pattern of personal attacks, to which my (literally) dozens of (saved) diffs attest. I recommend that you resolve to focus on content, not contributors, if you wish to avoid other ANIs in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting at all on Carolmooredc or Steeletrap, but when I look at Gary North (economist) I see a BLP nightmare. Negative claims sourced only to broken links, opinions from ideological enemies presented as unattributed facts, personal interpretations of primary sources, you name it. Zerotalk 05:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'm no big fan of the guy, but I just hate such untidy nightmares of wikipedia articles that are ripe for use (or being used) in Guilt by Association references in other BLPs! User:Carolmooredc 05:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't make Off-topic remarks on this thread. There is an RfC where you can share your (distinctly minority) opinion as to "BLP" concerns. Steeletrap (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It's relevant to the discussion because that is what Carol said was the concern that she was discussing. As someone who has both collided with and worked side-by-side with Carol for at least three years, I can tell you that her focus is only on well sourced articles in conformance with Wikipedia standards, not on drama with other editors. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I highly disagree with North8000's statement regarding an interest from CarolmooreDC solely on well sourced articles. Based primarily on the sheer volume of "drama" associated with this editor, along with numerous edits CarolmooreDC has made over the years regarding an M.O. on Wikipedia of defending very specific political pages from what CarolmooreDC considers "bias". While not involved with this particular article, I can speak from experience in noting that personal attacks are User:Carolmooredc's standard operating procedure. She consistently uses relentless personal attacks and assumes as a matter of course than anyone who disagrees with her has a non neutral POV. For example, a user page from another user documenting CarolmooreDC's persistent attacks on his/her user page:
And from other users "Your_lack_of_good_faith The last two sentences in this edit show an appalling lack of good faith. Is every person with whom you disagree going to be tarred with the false accusations of your choice?"
CarolmooreDC and I had been involved in a longstanding dispute on an article (Gilad Atzmon) I supported both of us being banned from the article ( as I had confidence in the Wiki community. CarolMooreDC opposed the idea, and her comments lead an admin to propose she be banned from Wikipedia entirely "The fact that you think it's appropriate to post a message like this while the ANI discussion is going on makes me wonder whether a permanent ban from Wikipedia might be more appropriate." Drsmoo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
RE: DrSmoo: If one looks under the GreenBars one finds evidence that my charge User:Goodwinsands was a sockpuppet were worth looking at. (Obviously he changed the titles of every posting a couple of us made about his questionable editing habits to something reflecting his viewpoint and deprecating our concerns. Rather tacky.)
Then you link to two 2009 discussions. Finally, I don't notice that either of us have interacted at Atzmon since December 5 of 2011. So I have to wonder why you bring such stale material here. User:Carolmooredc 00:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Even here you're personally attacking other users. Why call him "tacky"? Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In this thread, above -- at 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC) -- I understood carolmooredc to say that she would stay away from BLPs until she could participate without getting upset. Then, beginning almost immediately she posted the first of over 20 additional edits on the North article. Three weeks ago, after a making a barrage of harassing and personal attack posts, she made a similar promise to stay away from BLPs she feels are contentious. That promise lasted until the recent uncivil behavior relating to the North article. Carolmooredc has not been able to confine her contributions to content and policy and consistently phrases her remarks in edit summaries and on talk pages in terms of adversarial, and frequently hostile, personal comments. I am not convinced that this problem can be addressed without an explicit remedy, either voluntary or imposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

First, this is the User:Specifico who has been brought to WP:ANI numerous times since last fall and was discussed at length in this ANI in June for harassing talk page notices. [Later clarification - and this was after I asked him to stop following me and responding in some way to me at 4 different new pages in 30 hours was evidence of Wikihounding. Could it be this is one reason I was upset about BLPs?? And that an ANI about did not get what I thought was a very appropriate response?]
Re: 20:29 above, I said it was best to stay away until User:Steeletrap demanded I promise to stay away from an article where I feel Steeletrap is engaging in yet another incredibly biased editing adventure. As I wrote, that would considering a single diff, a misinterpretation of something I wrote, was used as an excuse, that would be a really bad precedent.
However, after wasting another few hours on the article last night I decided that I really could not deal with seeing what goes on in the articles Specifico and his academic economics colleague/collaborator User:Steeletrap work on, so I quit the article. (I assume Specifico is not Steeletrap's MBA advisor who steered Steeletrap to Wikipedia? Steeletrap didn't answer when I asked. They certainly agree many Austrian economics-related articles must be rewritten to serve their academic biases.)
This NPOVN deals with the bias issues. ANI searches will show they were shared at various points by other editors who have now left (or been driven off?) Wikipedia after interacting with User:Specifo (and his past allies) or Specifico/Steeletrap: User:Xerographica, User:Byelf2007, User:Sageo, User:Id4abel. These editors also lost their tempers over heavily biased editing behavior.
FYI, the subject of the bio I just quit, Gary North, wrote really creepy stuff in the 80s/90s and still may hold the same views, even if he doesn't write about them in various libertarian publications. However, I speculate that editors may see it as great article for poisoning other BLPs of people who have even a loose association with North.
A current example of how destructive the editing is this: Specifico and/or Steeletrap removed from the lead of Murray Rothbard any mention of Rothbard being an "economist of the Austrian school" - despite seven high quality references to that effect. I put that info back last night, but Steeletrap reverted the edit and removed this important factoid again. In June an editor who is not a Rothbard fan wrote at Wikiproject Economics that she was appalled that anyone would consider removing economist from the Infobox. Steeltrap/Specifico removed it from there and the lead of the article itself!
I personally think Wikipedia, especially regarding BLPs, is too broken to stop editors who hate subjects of bios from making poorly sourced or minor incidents the focus of whole articles, not to mention removing well sourced neutral or positive information. (At least in the Israel-Palestine issue there were enough strong voices against this sort of thing, even if it was a constant battle; far less in the Austrian/libertarian area, I'm afraid, making it more frustrating.)
I am relieved that I now have an excuse to cut back on my Wiki editing and get my own writing done. However, I do have a long letter I'm writing to the Wikimedia Foundation about the dangers of allowing BLP abuses to flourish. I'll suggest a couple things they might do to see if there isn't some way they can promote more effective protection from POV pushers out to ruin others' reputation. (Feel free to leave suggestions via my talk page or email.)
But, to be a bit sarcastic, I confess: if I'm so evil, and Steeltrap/Specifico such paradigms of neutral BLP editing, please block me for a few weeks. I need to avoid temptation anyway! Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 02:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User carolmooredc has again posted a defense which rationalizes her conduct by stating that such disruptive and uncivil conduct is somehow necessary in order to maintain the BLP policies here. But there are numerous instances of her uncivil behavior and personal attacks that have no relation whatsoever to content or policy. For example after user Steeletrap objected to a personal attack by Carolmooredc, she responded with a gratuitous anti-Semitic slur in reply to user Steeletrap, who self-identifies as Jewish on her user page. On numerous other occasions carolmooredc has post entirely gratuitous and irrelevant anti-Semitic slurs on talk pages, such as in this edit summary here. Carolmooredc has made hundreds of uncivil, harassing, disruptive, and personal attack posts and edit comments which cannot be rationalized away or justified by her empty claim that such attacks are necessary to support WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to her repeated anti-Semitic insinuations ("Zionists" is a favored code word of this crowd) and personal attacks, Carol often engages in baseless personal speculation about editors, such as her false suggestion that SPECIFICO is my "faculty advisor" for an "MBA" program. Her conduct is detrimental to this community and needs to be dealt with. Steeletrap (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
[Insert: How many times does one have to tell Steeletrap that a question is not an accusation?
When you repeatedly refer to your close relationship to SPECIFICO, and have written about your faculty advisor, one begins to wonder. And this came up in the context of Talk:Sharon_Presley where less than 24 hours after I made a minor edit to the article you came there for the first time and questioned if she was notable enough for an article. Felt like wikihounding to me, by your and/or someone else tracking my edits. But when I asked you you said a "colleage" had recommended you look at it - and in the past you said your Faculty Advisor had told you to look at some of these people. So I asked ifthat collegue was SPECIFICO and was he your advisor. You didn't bother to answer.
To make myself clear, just because I choose to drop off a bunch of controversial articles, in part because Wikipedia doesn't take my complaints about bad editing seriously, doesn't mean people should feel free to follow me to new articles and try to make me quit them too. User:Carolmooredc 15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
--@carolmooredc: Please provide diffs for your statement to Steeletrap, "you repeatedly refer to your close relationship to SPECIFICO" It is weird to learn that you're speculating and posting about me on articles I didn't even know existed. You have repeatedly referred to this imaginary relationship you project on me and user Steeletrap. You've repeatedly been told that we do not know one another except as anonymous editors on WP, yet you continue to state what you call your "question" or to outright assert that some relationship exists. To be frank, it kind of creeps me out. Please provide diffs that document the statements by Steeletrap in which Steeletrap refers to a close relationship. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • To save anyone else the bother, investigating the first couple of links shows that the complaints in this report are baseless. The wording used by Carolmooredc was fine—pointy, but fine. It did not name an editor, and there was no hint concerning whether a specific editor was the target of the comments. The comment could be argued to be off-topic as it did not refer to a policy, but all experienced editors who have tried to protect BLP articles from enthusiasts have had to use similar wording to explain the core issue to those involved in the discussion. This report should be closed and discussion focus on the issue—is it acceptable that certain words (portraying a named person as a nutcase) are used in Wikipedia's voice based on primary sources? Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Rather than "saving anyone else the bother" it would be better to let people come to their own conclusions. Carolmooredc has been making personal attacks on users, and editing in a highly disruptive manner for years. She's even making personal attacks on this noticeboard. She openly baits, harasses and threatens anyone who disagrees with her on a topic, and has been doing so for years. Drsmoo (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Which links above provide evidence for those strong claims (which, without plausible evidence, are personal attacks)? I just checked a couple more links and they do not show what was claimed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
For anyone who doesn't bother to follow the one link of "evidence" provided by Specifico, this link reads: "Such hypersensitivity. Obviously you have never edited dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel like I have or you would know of what I speak." How can defending Jewish BLPs be an ant-Semitic slur?? Makes no sense. (A few of many articles off the top of my head are Richard Falk, Mondoweiss-related articles, Israel Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky, Oren Ben-Dor.)
There have been a couple ethnic conflict areas - not to mention Scientology-related articles - where lots of people angrily protested biased editing and sock and meat puppet behaviors. I haven't seen any diffs showing that my anger was so much more outrageous than theirs.
But obviously bringing up in the RfC the generalized issue which transcended that particular article, series of articles or that RfC was wrong. For various reasons, but particularly Wikipedia's years of failure to deal with editors who repeatedly "attack" BLPs (even putting back bad info rejected at BLPN's weeks before, but don't get me started), I decided recently to unwatch the articles where repeated problems arose. As I've said in the last ANI regarding SPECIFICO's (and Steeltrap') problematic editing, I've been waiting a while for the straw to break the sexagenarians back and blessed be!, it has finally floated down from the heavens! But after five years it can be hard to break the pattern of trying to defend BLPs, and some topic areas, from abuse and thus I let myself get sucked into an RfC. Again, Mea Culpa. User:Carolmooredc 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol can be a bit rough (and over the years I've been the recipient) and maybe her dialing back a 1/4 notch would be a good thing. But I consider that to be minor (and which pales in comparison) to the nastiness and trying-to-do-people-harm which prevails in Wikipedia. Her focus is always on building quality, well sourced articles, and not on battles or drama with editors. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP quite misstates the issues, personalities etc. regarding the Gary North (economist) article which are the subject of several noticeboard discussions. I suggest that those wading trough this wall of text should read such posts as ones saying that conservative Christians hate gays and that we must be sure to make that clear in their BLPs, and the like. (see WP:BLP/N and WP:NPOV/N for the relevant discussions and the posts by the OP and others) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm glad to see that while I largely stopped paying attention other editors have been dealing with these issues with these two editors!! Makes me feel better about Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sample of personal attacks from Carol As a brief sampling, Carol has ridiculed my capacity for academics 1, accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism see: 2 and 3, and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia 4 I encourage Admin (User:Bbb23) to ask for more examples of violations of policy regarding WP:PA before taking action to resolve this question. It seems to me that flagrant and constant violations of policy must be addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've debunked all of those before at ANI, but don't remember which one.
1) When you made more excuses for not referencing some material I said: Don't give us ten thousand words of explanation why you don't need one. Do the work. Do you give your advisor all these excuses why you don't need references? It can be very frustrating when someone is so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on so many policy issues, especially when they are trying to write a lot of negative stuff on BLPs.
2) When here User:SPECIFICO accused me of venting rage I wrote in response: "Generally speaking males often experience strongly held and clearly expressed female ideas as psychotic rage. Have you heard about the Wikimedia Gender Gap project to bring more women into wikimedia/pedia so males will get more used to it? " Shame on me for mentioning one of the issues oft discussed in this WikiFoundation project!
3) I alluded to being physically hyped up from drinking too much coffee (which I do myself sometimes) or whatever - who remembers now? Obviously I should have been more explicit. Shame on me! User:Carolmooredc 20:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This thread reveals again the broken state of Wikipedia's dispute resolution. A couple of editors have posted tons of links and claims regarding Carolmooredc, yet it is easy to click some of the links and discover that the claims are false. It is absurd that this nonsense has to be tolerated by someone who is defending BLPs, and an admin should take charge because waiting to find out which team of supporters can repeat themselves longer than the other is never productive (actually, it's counterproductive because it's usually those with an agenda who have the motivation to keep going). Would an admin please check a few of the links claiming Carolmooredc is bad, and if agreeing that the claims are clearly false, close this thread with a strong warning that ANI reports should not be based on misunderstandings of policy. If someone uninvolved does not agree that the claims are false, please post a brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear! I agree with the suggestion by Johnuniq. Please put a stop to this unproductive series of accusations. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another personal attack was just made by Carol~ Here, she accuses me, based on no evidence whatsoever other than my editing of LGBT articles and having publicly stated my transgender identity, of caring about LGBT rights above and at the expense of the rights of women and other people. I regard this baseless, stereotypical comment to be hateful and bigoted.

Admins really need to read the Carol-related content, posted above, in its full context; that full context shows that Carol continues to fail to assume GF and level baseless accusations and personal insults at users with whom she disagrees. I submit that her conduct contradicts the basic principles of our community. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about a BLPN discussion. BLPN's purpose reads: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. The topic is your trying to insert homosexuality into a section header even though homosexuals are not the only people mentioned. (Pardon a female if she gets upset that execution of females for abortion is given so short a shrift!) At Hans-Hermann Hoppe you did this so many times, and were reverted so many times by various editors, that it's difficult not to think this is an obsession of yours that you are imposing on Wikipedia biographies of living people, which is very disruptive. Maybe I should just do a WP:BLPN on that with a link to the reverts, the numerous and repeated discussion sections and subsections, and whatever noticeboards the issue ended up on. It's out of control. If people want to block me for saying so, fine! User:Carolmooredc 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
One glance at Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom controversy over remarks on homosexuals shows a seriously problematic BLP concern, in my opinion, by blowing up a controversy way out of proportion to the rest of the man's biography. This is nothing new, there has been agenda-driven article inflation by activists across the project for years. The problems arise when other editors try to identify and rectify such editing, they get labeled as racists, bigots, homophobes, antisemites, depending on what the subject matter is. Being concerned about a BLP that has may have an undue focus on an LGBT-oriented "controversy" does not make one a bigot, nor make their concerns bigoted. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
"it's difficult not to think this is an obsession of yours that you are imposing on Wikipedia biographies of living people, which is very disruptive." I suggest not concerning yourself with the personal lives of other users, or threatening them. Drsmoo (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
[inserted] Tarc, I just reviewed the talk archive of Hoppe's article. I do not see any instance of one editor calling another a bigot or homophobe for their edits and opinions at that article. I think it's been inflammatory that editors who become frustrated with their counterparts in content disputes make the kind of implied or strawman (call it what you will, it's certainly not documented) reference to such behavior. What did happen is that Carolmooredc has just again, directly above on this page, projected inappropriate behavior -- violations of core WP policy -- to Steeletrap with no evidence or diffs. Carolmooredc's apparent inability to curtail this behavior raises questions about her WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If Steeletrap keeps posting ridiculous claims like Another personal attack, WP:COMPETENCE should be invoked to remove the editor from ANI, and possibly from Wikipedia if the same lack-of-clue shown here is evident in more general editing. Steeletrap is reading information that is not in the post. Basic competence with understanding English is required when editing an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  • John, please refer to WP:PA. It is a personal attack to imply, on the basis of no evidence, that a user lacks "basic competence with understanding English". Please cross your remarks and resolve not to violate wikipedia policy in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I suppose I have to provide some evidence in view of the above mud spreading, but I would prefer that this thread not extend to WP:TLDR because that guarantees no admin will bother taking the corrective action required. However, in a post above at "00:52, 30 July 2013" (diff and tweaked), Steeletrap justified "Another personal attack" with this diff. The last diff shows Carolmooredc making a comment at "21:17, 29 July 2013" on BLPN, and the comment includes: "The problem here is POV pushing. Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals. Other people think the NPOV way to put it is all people who fall into the class of sinners. This kind of narrow focus on wrongs done to only one class of people, downplaying that done to others, does not make for NPOV editing, looks like an attempt to rouse certain groups to hate and/or action, and is extremely disruptive of the encyclopedia. We had the same problem repeatedly with Steeletrap at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And it's insulting to everyone else who nutty Xians might want to execute."

      The context is a BLPN discussion on whether Gary North (economist) should include a section titled 'Support for executing homosexuals and other "sinners"' (as in this "sinners" old revision). Apparently North has written that a bunch of sinners should be executed, and the discussion concerns whether the targets "homosexuals" should be highlighted in the title when several categories of "sinners" are listed. In that context, Carolmooredc's comment is asserting that "Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals", and Steeletrap interprets that as "caring about LGBT rights above and at the expense of the rights of women and other people. I regard this baseless, stereotypical comment to be hateful and bigoted." Stirring stuff, but totally unconnected with what Carolmooredc wrote. It's ok to be wrong, but making so many mistakes at an ANI report with claims of gross attacks does show a COMPETENCE problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

    Without agreeing or disagreeing with your argument, you made it in the context of Wikipedia policy. Carolmooredc makes her arguments in the context of insinuations about the personal lives of people she disagrees with. That is a fundamental difference, and it's not acceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    After all the above, we get another claim with no diff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    There are many diffs posted. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make it so. Drsmoo (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please copy one diff to a new comment and briefly describe what it shows (is it an attack? why?). I have checked a few diffs, and they do not show the problem claimed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
John, do you really think you are in a position to lecture others on policy when you are personally attacking other users? Your statement that I lack "basic competence" in English (which is quite distinct from a question of my editing capacities) simply can't be taken seriously in any respect other than as an attempt to demean or insult. Steeletrap (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
My characteristics are