Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809

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

Noticeboard archives


Possible rangeblock in Kolkata area?[edit]

The above and many more more are all the same person, based in Kolkata and using the BSNL ISP. They have admitted to being B de2002 (talk · contribs) and were initially contributing to family articles such as Basanta Kumar De, Barun De and Jyotish Chandra De. They've since moved on to articles such as Kumar Suresh Singh and Obaid Siddiqi, changing dates, adding unsourced material, writing hagiography etc. While some articles have been semi-protected, we could go on for ever here. Since they have admitted who they are - eg: here - they are not sockpuppeting.

I don't understand why they are not logging in and I don't understand why all of these are static IPs yet they are changing almost by the hour. Qwyrxian did ask about the logging-in issue but I'm afraid that I cannot find it among the huge number of IP addresses that they have been using. Is there scope for some sort of range block here? My suspicion is that the range will be too big and this report is too vague but I'm getting a bit fed up of it. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Another option might be semi-protecting those three articles, if not done already. --TitoDutta 06:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Semi is a nice idea. --TitoDutta 06:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Some have been - Kumar Suresh Singh, for example - but this has the potential to run and run. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (off) You can send those guys who are eager to talk to me, De family is a notable Bengali family. --TitoDutta 06:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In India, one way to explain the IP hopping would be an ISP's use of carrier-grade NAT, where these are the outgoing public IPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • A range block of BSNL in Kolkata isn't the best option, many many institutes, colleges, and universities use BSNL and the collateral damage is likely worse than playing whack-a-mole. Just ping me on my TP with individual pages and I'll sprotect them based on the need. —SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks SpacemanSpiff; I've already probably crossed over to "involved", although on some of the articles its still questionable. But having someone else to do the protecting makes it safe on all sides. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


User made personal attack. Please block. Also please block Sampanchaa (talk · contribs), who is a sockpuppet. Insulam Simia (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked both accounts and deleted one of the articles she/he was trying to "save" from speedy deletion by removing the CSD tags in concert. I think the other article you rescued from CSD (Savio D'Sa) should also be deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but I'll leave that one at AfD since it was an uninvolved user who declined the CSD. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


User: Herbxue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Herbxue has been engaged in an edit war on the Acupuncture article. The user was warned previously about 3rr here. A few months ago, violated 3rr warned here. Most recently, violated 3rr ([1], [2], [3]) and warned again here. He continued the edit war ([4] [5] [6]), engaged in personal attacks on the talk page, and showed no remorse/understanding of the edit warring. He gives personal attacks in edit summaries and edit wars asking for an admin to take action.

In summery, the user is an WP:SPA with a history of bias/disruptive editing in acupuncture-related articles. Recently, he's escalated to personal attacks and edit warring, including 3RR violations. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Im glad you posted this because its time for an admin to look into this issue. This mostly has to do with the questionable scientific basis of acupuncture, which is obviously a very controversial issue. But to be fair, I dont think Herbxue has any intent to engage in edit wars and I do feel that he is putting in a lot of effort to engage in discussions on the talk page and, until recently, was not that active in editing at all. At least not before I made that controversial edit regarding the effects of acupuncture. In any case, I hope any admin looking into this matter would be neutral and impartial, without any prejudices against this topic and its editors, or else the dispute won't end. -A1candidate (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for referring to the talk page discussions, A1Candidate. On all the recent controversial issues, I have either defended existing text, suggested compromises in wording on Mallexikon's edits to satisfy Dominus, suggested compromised wording on the issue of "theory" to satisfy Dominus, and more recently suggested mutually agreeable wording on the placebo issue. All this was met with immediate unexplained reverts by Dominus, who clearly has a strong POV, stating that acupuncture is practiced by "quacks". Dominus and Tippy have repeatedly restored wording that is controversial and not supported by the sources. When repeatedly asked to justify their edit using the source, Tippy responds by accusing ME of edit-warring. It is amazing that Tippy has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring when I have been the one trying to engage in the actual content issue while Tippy lectures me with WP policy that he himself is violating.
Please see my talk page and the acupuncture talk page under the subjects "medical procedure?", "theories?" and especially "its effects are due to placebo" to get a feel for how things have progressed the way they did. You will see a clear pattern of me trying to reach consensus and being reasonable, while Dominus and Tippy show a pattern of disruptive and disrespectful editing.Herbxue (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with the sentiments of both A1candidate and Herbexue. There has been a habit of drive-by editing/reverting by Tippy and Dominus at the acupuncture article, with no apparent effort shown to AGF or to even read the sources or verify the text that they are editing. Herbexue has made repeated requests at their talk pages and at the acupuncture talk page to address the article content, but the focus has been left on Herbexue himself rather than on the content or edits.Puhlaa (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Taking a quick glance at this since no one else is commenting: while I am skeptical of acupuncture and am inclined to think the page needs to be edited to be less promotional, it looks there's a good chance of a boomerang here. I have to get on my high horse a little bit. You can't just write something on Wikipedia and cite as a source something that directly contradicts it. My view is that ranks among the highest crimes one can commit on Wikipedia, especially if it is deliberate (but even if it is just negligent, as in the case of the Jagged affair). To bring this to ANI at this point seems remarkably brazen, as if there's an assumption that neutral parties can't read or comprehend sources. The article lead says right now: "General scientific consensus maintains that the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo, and is therefore solely dependent on a patient's expectation of treatment outcomes". Three scientific reviews are cited. As pointed out calmly on the talkpage, none of the sources support this statement. The only one that comes close is the Ernst paper, which only says: "In conclusion, acupuncture remains steeped in controversy. Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response". The others two say (2) "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias" or (3 - Cochrane review) "For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only". Note that edit-warring goes both ways, but if someone is deliberately misrepresenting academic sources in Wikipedia, that seems much more problematic, and the party which should be looked at closely is the one working to include misrepresentation. Now, maybe one of these reviews, particularly the last one, really needs to be dropped. The argument can be made and hashed out, perhaps with the help of people at RS/N or something. It looks like Dominus is at least making an attempt to explain why some high-quality sources should be discounted (altho concluding consensus, when every source talks rather about controversy and uncertainty, seems untenable at this point), but I don't see the same at all from Tippy, whose comment when accused of lying was simply "no, u". I can't promise to be engaged in this conversation as I'll be traveling most of tomorrow. My hope is that future participants here resist the urge to slip into an alternate reality where the brazen source misrepresentation is not happening, simply because of the subject at hand and many people's preconceived opinions. Sometimes problems are just so obvious and incontrovertible that they have to be acknowledged. II | (t - c) 04:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be pleased address the content and sourcing issues you've raised. If you are able to spare the time, please bring them to the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The above is possibly the most breath-taking missing-the-point comment I have seen at Wikipedia. TippyGoomba raised a report at ANI only to receive a detailed statement explaining that using a source to assert a fact when the source does not assert that fact is one of the highest crimes that can be committed at Wikipedia, and that Tippy is apparently supporting the statement of a fact when the three sources do not verify the statement. I saw the Jagged affair mentioned above, and agree that misuse of sources is far worse than vandalism and personal attacks and hoax articles. Tippy needs to assess the position and respond at ANI: Is it the case that some attempts to oppose fringe views have been excessive? Is Tippy going to remove the unverified assertion? Is Tippy denying what ImperfectlyInformed wrote above? The community must reject misuse of sources even when the misuse is "in a good cause". Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe the sources do verify the assertion. I don't think that has any relation to the user conduct issue I've raised above. Even if Herbxue were correct on this issue, that doesn't change the fact he's a disruptive WP:SPA, with a history of edit-warring. I don't think there should be two parallel content conversations taking place here and on the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The argument at Talk:Acupuncture#"Its effects are due to placebo" seems to be that a medical trial looks for evidence that a proposed treatment is more effective than a placebo, and therefore pretty well any source can be used to verify "the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo" because that default position applies until evidence to the contrary is available. The fact that the three sources do not support that statement is (apparently) not relevant because the reader should understand the default position of medical science. While there is a lot of merit in those statements, the article simply must be reworded (for example, to assert that the only known benefit is from placebo) as it is not satisfactory for a source to be used where verification relies on the editor "believing" the source verifies a statement which does not appear in the source. The question of whether there is a problem with another editor's behavior is very much secondary to whether Wikipedia's voice should be used to assert something that is not in the any of the three sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Were the reverse true, we would not discuss user conduct on the talk page of the Acupuncture article. Similarly, I don't think this is the appropriate venue to discuss changes to the article. If an admin wants me to rehash the argument here, I'd be happy to do so. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this. I hope an admin has some time to take a look. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Still looking for someone to take a look. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I had to re-read the links I provided above as I'm still basically shocked at the situation. I'm considering the best approach to handling the lying about sources. My priority right now is straightening out the outright misconduct and lying, which is as much a disservice to the authors of the scientific papers as it is to the readers. I'm also a little concerned about what other articles may have been affected, although it is nice that the edits are anti-promotional. I have no interest in engaging in a discussion on an article talkpage with someone who cannot even agree to basic factual statements. This is basically is the most flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation I've seen in around six years of floating around Wikipedia in numerous different topic areas, particularly in that the statement in the article directly contradicts the sources. After doing some research just now, I've discovered that the edit originated with User:A1candidate (3 August diff) but User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:TippyGoomba have edit-warred over the past couple weeks in numerous instances to keep it; all three defended it on the talkpage after its dishonesty was pointed out (their ally Alexbrn showed some honesty and pushed back a little). My initial reaction is to propose full-on bans from the encyclopedia for all three, as it appears all three have a severe honesty problem. I've never done that before and it's not something I take lightly. However, I doubt it would happen and remediation and social pressure should probably be tried first. I know Johnuniq tried (generously) to convey where exactly this is coming from, but I don't think even the argument which he noticed being proffered is valid, since none of the reviews say that in their top-level (abstract) conclusions, and the Cochrane source (#3 above) actually appears to affirmatively say that the effect is not due to placebo (to be clear, I'm not saying that this source should trump other sources or even be included in the article, just pointing it out to emphasize the extent of the misconduct). To give this more exposure and hopefully bring some sanity to the situation I'm going to ping some of the more active medical people I've encountered who seem to have integrity and competence in using references, including Jmh649, MastCell, Yobol, Zad68, WhatamIdoing, Colin, and SandyGeorgia. These editors are likely skeptical of acupuncture but I hope have enough integrity to recognize when something is wrong. I'm also opening a topic about this at WT:MED. II | (t - c) 09:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention I saw this ping and wanted to thank ImperfectlyInformed for the vote of confidence. I haven't had time this week to really dig into the sources but on first look agree with the others discussing here that generally the flat statement "no better than placebo" isn't representing the sources as faithfully as would be necessary, and some qualification/nuance needs to be added. Would also like to mention/remind everyone that ANI isn't for deciding content issues, they need to be discussed at the article Talk page. ANI discussions like this are supposed to be about problematic editor behavior and this discussion has taken a pretty sharp turn away from that, if there are no pressing disruptive editor behavior issues to discuss at this point, this ANI discussion should be closed. Zad68 01:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify the issue you see II?
This ref [7] more or less says that acupuncture had a small effort in the literature that was not of real importance and could be do to psychological reasons. It is a systematic review and meta analysis published in the BMJ. One could interpret it to support that acupuncture may have no greater benefit than that of a placebo.
The 2006 Ernst study more clearly states that the majority of the evidence found no greater effect than placebo [8]
So yes I disagree with the wording changes proposed by A1c [9] Yet this user added the other wording here [10] Anyway will need to look at things more when I have greater time. I guess the key is "may" was left out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
One of my points is that if you're going to cite 3 different sources, all 3 better be represented by the statement you're attributing to them. So if only that particular source had been cited, and particularly if the word 'may' was used, the misconduct would not have been nearly as egregious and I wouldn't be having a fit. The 'scientific consensus' is being written in which I believe would be original research, but there's room to debate around there. However, citing 3 sources, one of which is a bit more contradictory, and then edit-warring over a period of 2 weeks to include that misrepresentation when someone points out to you on the talkpage that it is not precisely correct, and then further digging your heels in and refusing to explain (as if everything is up for debate and content is not relevant when dealing with content disputes) just crosses the line into craziness. It seems like the lead could fairly say that the effect is "probably" due to a placebo effect, but there's actually a huge world of difference between "probably" and "conclusively, we know, let's close the book and go home". II | (t - c) 14:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit referred to here: "General scientific consensus maintains that the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo, and is therefore dependent on a patient's expectation of treatment outcomes" cites two sources, and II mentions a third source:

  1. Ernst 2006 whose abstract says, "Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response."
  2. Madsen et al. 2009 which says, "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear."
  3. Furlan et al. 2008 which says, "There is evidence that acupuncture, added to other conventional therapies, relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, effects are only small. Dry-needling appears to be a useful adjunct to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. No clear recommendations could be made about the most effective acupuncture technique. ... The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and “alternative” treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodological quality, there certainly is a further need for higher quality trials in this area."

That is, the cited sources stress the uncertainty around the the question of whether there is more than a placebo effect. The edit does misrepresent those sources, none of which says anything about the general scientific consensus. I haven't looked at the talk page or the article's recent history: If editors are continuing to argue for or edit war over this assertion, on the basis of those three sources, an admin may need to consider counseling those editors, and topic-banning if the counseling doesn't work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is more than just misrepresenting the 3 sources provided; newer secondary sources are also being ignored in favour of older sources that are more critical of the therapy! Vickers et al 2012 source was in the lead a month ago, it concludes that acupuncture is more than placebo when it comes to treating chronic pain, but it was removed during one of the rounds of edit-warring taking place at Acupuncture article. Puhlaa (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether that meta-analysis should be cited in the article will depend on a lot of things. How it, published in Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, compares with recent reviews in higher impact journals specialising in pain treatment and assessment, such as Pain or Journal of Pain, will be a factor. Whether the authors have recognised expertise in pain science and meta-analysis will be a factor. Whether the meta-analysis has been criticised, on what grounds and by whom will be a factor.
If you think there is habitual misuse of sources or unconscionable bias occurring, you'll need to make a clear and concise but thorough case to that effect, probably in an RFC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I am not sure why the 'Vickers' source that I linked to was in Complimentary and Alternative Medicine,, it must be a re-publication? The original source is actually published in Archives of Internal Medicine - see this source.Puhlaa (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
My point is that your complaint that the meta-analysis is being ignored is meaningless without context. There may be many good reasons for not mentioning a recent meta-analysis. If you want to bring that forward somewhere as proof of biased editing (an RFC is probably the only valid venue, if your intention is to prove habitual biased editing), you'll first need to make the case that the meta-analysis is worth mentioning in the article. (I see, for instance, there has been some to-and-fro correspondence in Internal Medicine.) This is not the place to discuss any of that, though. If the same editors are still pushing that misrepresentation about "general consensus", come back here and, in a just world, that will be addressed by an unbiased admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So we need to change the wording to "may be due to placebo". Agree that the current wording is overreaching and there is a great deal of uncertainty. We should be using newer refs as mentioned as some of the ones currently being used are a little old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Have altered the text in question in this edit here [11] to more accurately reflect the literature referenced. I do not see any nefarious intent in the users here. Just a bit of over stating the conclusions of the sources in question that can be easily dealt with hopefully with a few more eyes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
WRT Herbexu I do not see a fourth revert within 24hours and thus they have come close but not broken the bright line. At this point I would recommend a RfC rather than further reverting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
What are you saying? It's not uncommon for therapies to have unclear mechanisms, even among some prescription drugs. That source (NIH Medline) says: "Research has shown that acupuncture reduces nausea and vomiting after surgery and chemotherapy. It can also relieve pain. Researchers don't fully understand how acupuncture works" and goes on to mention some theories. It's not a high-quality source but it's not saying that acupuncture is placebo. II | (t - c) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The point I want to make is that if we want to include placebo as a possible mechanism then its only fair to include other proven mechanisms too. MEDLINE is a high quality source. -A1candidate (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
MEDLINE is not a source; it's a database. (And there is no "proven mechanism"!) This thread needs to be closed, imo. (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
How is a database not a source? The placebo effect is not a proven mechanism either -A1candidate (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Re MEDLINE, please see Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable medical sourcing (MEDRS). (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
MEDLINE is a secondary source published by a reliable medical organization (NLB) and its guidelines are based on systematic reviews -A1candidate (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Replied at User_talk:A1candidate#MEDLINE_etc. (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to say that I find the mix of genuine content dispute with insinuation of crime in this quasi-judicial forum a concern. Speaking just for myself (and I can't recall editing the page in question), I have done my best in general to contribute to medical content in keeping with WP policies and guidelines, including MEDRS. This ANI thread reinforces my aversion to contribute as a registered user rather than an IP. (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Enkyo2 needs to start speaking in English[edit]

No action required, this is clearly a content issue. As an aside, there is absolutely nothing remotely non-English about the language in the diff given; it's not even very jargon-heavy. If you can't understand this language then I think the problem may be more on your end than the other user's. Attempting to denigrate another user's edit by just saying it's not English, rather than addressing the content, is a bit insulting. Anyway, take it to the article talk page or any other appropriate venue of content dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:39, 22 August 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 don't have much of a problem with the guy's point of view on most articles. I actually agree with him quite a lot of the time. But this edit is problematic on several levels: (1) it undermines the RM I had just posted on the talk page by claiming that my MOS argument is invalid and there is "no consensus"; (2) it mentions Wikipedia in the article space; (3) it expresses Enkyo2's personal opinion on the style guideline in the article space; and (4) Enkyo2 appears not to know what a "homorganic consonant" is (his wording implies it's some kind of set group of consonants). This would not be much of a problem with another editor, but because of Enkyo2's "unique" use of abstract philosophical language and so on it is very difficult to discuss things with him. I'm not the first one to notice this but I think something really needs to be done about it. Can someone tell him to please speak in English? Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That diff is in English - though you are right in saying there are numerous other issues with it. GiantSnowman 14:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I know. By "English" I meant "English that normal Wikipedians are likely to be able to understand". I know it's not the best example of abstract philosophical language either, but still. It's also kind of unclear whether he wants this page to be moved or he's trying to establish consensus against moving so he can go back to his versions of the other pages. I'm not assuming bad faith -- I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's always impossible to tell with him. And it's all off-record so I can't prove it, but what happened originally was I sent him a (friendly) e-mail about the moves and got no response, but while logged in to this account to send the email I accidentally edited while I was supposed to be limited to a different account, and wound up getting blocked. When I e-mailed David Fuchs about that, he told me to stop sending e-mails threatening to get other users blocked. I'm really not sure if David Fuchs had a misunderstanding, or Enkyo misrepresented the situation when asked. And it's difficult as hell to discuss stuff like that with Enkyo. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Also this makes me uneasy: "I'm not going to make an argument against the move, but I don't want the page moved, but what I really want is to be on the winning team when the clouds have settled." Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hijiri88, what admin action are you actually expecting here? It looks to me more like a content dispute - it's not as if Enkyo2 is being totally uncommunicative. Perhaps continue your discussion with him rather than generate heat by making an ANI case out of it, and if that fails, take it to DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 20 August 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.

Block-evading sockpuppet[edit]

My laptop's in bad shape, so I can't open an SPI, but this user is a block-evading sock of a couple of other accounts that appear to be posing as IPs (325.7I52.884.921). Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, although this is as yet an unsolved mystery, my theory is that this person, whoever he is, is an anti-Shinto POV-pusher, and is trying to associate this religion with unpopular politicians and military men, and hiding behind multiple accounts made to deceptively look like IPs in order to accomplish this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic[edit]

Already blocked. GiantSnowman 13:45, 22 August 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.

Block and begone, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 22 August 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.

AFT vandal[edit]

A bunch of AFT bogus moderation is the only activity of this user so far apart from self-onanismwikilove. [12] Please block. You may also want to protect those pages from further enabling of AFT (note that there is currently no way to know when AFT is enabled or disabled and where so nobody can monitor it [13]). --Nemo 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While on that subject, is there any way of hunting down and indeffing the users who have abused the fact that there are no public logs to systemically remove AFT from all articles with the "disable feedback" button? Regardless of your view on AFT's current status, to abuse a loophole like that without any sort of communication is an irreconcilable abuse of the community's trust. —WFCFL wishlist 16:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we've learned all we can from the article feedback experiment. Turning it off would solve this and any future issues with this kind of vandalism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought the community overwhelmingly agreed to shut off AFT by a landslide during the RFC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
They did - some bright, good-looking, intelligent editor suggested trashing it, and the community overwhelmingly agreed with him... Now if I could just get that to work on other disagreements... GregJackP Boomer! 19:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
So how did it come back exactly? I remember the WMF promising to abide by the community's decision (or something to that effect) and yet here we are and feedback is still causing problems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The WMF promising to abide by community consensus? Which parallel universe have I slipped into? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Bushranger, FWIW, what's being remembered is this: «As my WMF colleagues Eloquence and Okeyes have pointed out, the foundation will respect the community's decision regarding a full deployment of this tool on the English Wikipedia».[14] --Nemo 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So, can we get a block please? Or at least a warning by an admin to the vandal? --Nemo 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposing block and/or interaction ban for personal attacks by User:Ubikwit[edit]

User:Ubikwit has just posted three personal attacks

Really getting tired of the hounding. Any help would be most appreciated. He's been notified here

Malke 2010 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm dense, or maybe I'm missing context, but while the tone is not one of particular amicability, I fail to see a personal attack. Disagreeing opinions are not attacks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's another, "Are the two words "most edits" unintelligible to you as English?"
I suggest You may be able to fly low enough to evade detection by some radar systems, but those maneuvers do not escape the scope of other systems with enhanced resolution is, on its face, a personal commentary about an editor, and not a comment about the content of any post. And it does not appear to be a "disagreeing opinion" AFAICT. Clearly your mileage varies. Collect (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I find them to be accusatory, sarcastic and insulting, and directed at the individual.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Ubikwit has a long and recent history of personal attacks against editors. I will bring diffs. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, Ubikwit has become more and more truculent and aggressive over the past 4-6 months as it became clear that a major content dispute was not going his way. I'll start gathering up diffs of his misconduct immediately, Stephan, but generally speaking, he's been behaving as though he is superior to other editors, he's been editwarring on a below-the-radar level, and he's been trying to get them blocked via Wikilawyering. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not what this is about
  • Wikilawyering: Trying to use diffs that were two weeks apart to support a 3RR accusation and obtain an editwarring block against an editor on the other side in a content dispute:[22] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • More Wikilawyering of a more extensive nature: When ArbCom member SilkTork agreed to serve as moderator, he said any concerns about other editors in the moderated discussion were to be brought to his User Talk page. Ubikwit viewed this as a license to complain to SilkTork about anything that bothered him, and thus SilkTork's User Talk page became his "home away from home." A brief and by no means exhaustive sampling:[23] Being scolded by SilkTork for perhaps running and tattling a little too much:[24] Ubikwit responds:[25] Attempting to explain away his own disruptive behavior on the article Talk page:[26][27][28] A bit of backpedaling:[29] Becoming more and more truculent and combative as things clearly weren't going his way: [30][31][32] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Malke has suggested that the community should review Ubikwit's history of personal attacks, and suggests a block for this behavior. I suggest that the community should go much farther, examine Ubikwit's misconduct of various types, and determine whether Ubikwit should be blocked immediately and topic-banned from all articles relating to U.S. politics, as a result of his generally tendentious conduct over the past six months. The Wikipedia project needs to be protected from Ubikwit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, after looking over several of the diffs (edit-conflicting with the latest batch from P&W) you all provide, it looks more like a typical US-political conflict carried onto Wikipedia, with what looks like a self-reinforcing group of similar-minded editors hitting on Ubikwit more-or-less in concert, and without much regard for facts or policy. As an example, the WP:3RR/N has been renamed to WP:AN/EW, making it even clearer that it also deals with longer-term edit warring, not only with strict "more than 3 reverts in 24 hours". So calling the report "wikilawyering" is a stretch. Likewise, I fail to see a personal attack here. This is not even an edit by UbikWit. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no it's not editors ganging up on Ubikwit. This is editors finally fed up with Ubikwit attacking them. And the diff you reference is an example of continuing hounding. If you knew the full history you'd understand better. But right now he's attacking editors and needs to be blocked. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And This is to show this is his usual behaviour. He's being warned there about continuing personal attacks. Warnings do not help. He just goes right back to doing it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And Phoenix and Winslow should not be expanding this to include any content disputes. This is about continuing personal attacks on editors, me specifically, and I would like him to be blocked or given an interaction ban. If other editors want to propose a site ban, they can open their own thread. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that – Stephan Schulz aside – all of the comments above are from parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, which appears to have just moved into voting on its proposed decision. If I am not mistaken, it appears that ArbCom is considering revert restrictions (at a minimum) and/or topic bans (on most) for every one of them. On its surface, this AN/I thread appears to be a simple exporting of interpersonal disputes already before the ArbCom to yet another venue. The recent diffs that start this complaint all appear to be part of discussion on the ArbCom case, and should be handled by the clerks there. (Though like Stephan, I'm disinclined to label them as personal attacks. They're not perfectly civil or constructive and they won't win Ubikwit any friends or arbitrator votes, but they're not beyond the pale, either.) The diffs provided in subsequent comments appear primarily to be hashing up months-old incidents that, presumably, should be part of the ArbCom case and its decision. You guys need all need to find a way to stop poking each other; I suspect that the apparently-forthcoming topic bans will help quite a bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this is about hounding. I can absolutely understand how it might appear and I should give you some more background. I believe Ubikwit is User:Dylan Flaherty who was indef blocked. Dylan hounded me relentlessly back in 2010. The current ArbCom started out as an ANI back in February. You are correct that the Proposed Decision on the Arb case is coming this week. However, today, editors were posting their rebuttals and Ubikwit, as is his custom, began haranguing editors. This is typical. He has zero respect for editors as his extant interaction ban with EvilDoer will bear out. He is routinely incivil. But he has been coming after me since the ANI where, though he claimed never to have edited the article in question, was able to pull out a thread from the archive. That's quite a feat. I recognized his language, his behaviours, etc., and I went to a checkuser who said it was too late check because it was so old. But his IP address is on Wikipedia because he edited as an IP to harass me back then also. Rest assured, nobody is picking on Ubikwit and this is not about the ArbCase. I can show you old diffs of Dylan Flaherty and you'll know exactly what I mean that they do seem one and the same. Right down to the personal attacks and the flamboyant signature style, the same complaints about scholarly sources. It's all there. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, with all due respect to Malke, I think there's a cumulative effect here. Viewed in isolation, a few diffs of personal attacks by Ubikwit may not seem like much to go on from Stephan's point of view. But at least two ArbCom members have found that Ubikwit's overall misconduct "ignored sound arguments about article content, and contributed to hostility at pages relating to the Tea Party movement article by making assumptions of bad faith about and condescending to other disputants." [33] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And for the benefit of TenOfAllTrades, at least one ArbCom member (SilkTork) has spoken several times about the "chilling effect" that ArbCom activity has upon activity by administrators regarding the same article, and the same group of editors. SilkTork is the most deeply involved of all ArbCom members in this dispute, so deeply that he's been forced to recuse himself from voting in the proceedings, and it's his position that there should be MORE admin action when ArbCom gets involved, not less. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
But this is NOT about content. This is about continuing bad behaviours that need to be addressed. The hounding has never been addressed and this time I'm finally going to do something about it. So please, if you have issues, start another thread. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Phoenix and Winslow is right about the chill effect on admins. Ubikwit brought me to ANI not that long ago and I tried to do something about him then. But the ArbCase put a chill on things and though an admin commented to Ubikwit that he was the one with the problem, nothing got done. No block for his hounding, no interaction ban. I've been putting up with this for 6 bleeding months. And I'd like relief. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If past behavior is any indication of future performance, ArbCom is going to take weeks to get this sorted. Possibly months. In the meantime, should Ubikwit continue to be allowed to make these personal attacks and exhibit this condescending attitude with complete immunity against Malke, Collect, and anybody else who gets in his way? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Then it would be good to open another thread. With his recent blocks/bans, continuing disruptive behaviours and other issues, you could ask for a site ban. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ADMINS: this is the ANI complaint Ubikwit brought against me. It was unfounded and done just to harass. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If I count correctly, there are now 1718 comments by Ubikwit's detractors, with a total of 3 replies (4 counting this). I suggest you (all) take a step back and just wait for a few hours to see how opinion develops. I doubt more text is useful - indeed, I think the current posts are far to long, breathless, and unorganised. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Neither Stephan Schulz nor TenOfAllTrades speaks on behalf of the entire community. There's plenty of evidence that's been posted here. Let's allow more members of the community to review the evidence and offer their opinions. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Stephen. I deleted the text from the old ANI. The link is there. And P&W, please stop posting that content bit. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is related to an open ArbCom case, then why are we even discussing this here? We should wait for their decision. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This behaviour is not the subject of the ArbCom case. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The comments were regarding articles under the purview of an open ArbCom case involving many of the commenters here, including yourself. Instead of starting from scratch, we should wait for the ArbCom ruling and then only act to supplement it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
See my earlier remarks regarding the "chilling effect" discussed by ArbCom member SilkTork. He wants MORE involvement by admins when ArbCom gets involved, not LESS. And in my estimate it will take weeks, maybe even months, for ArbCom to resolve this. In the meantime, Ubikwit is able to harass people with complete immunity. But that's the way you like it as an admin? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you want it, you got it. I've just stuck my toe in, but my initial impression is that the diffs I've read don't appear to me to be particularly outrageous so far. The only one I think deserves a trouting is the "unintelligible" remark. I've seen some of the complainers defend much worse behavior on these boards before, so my initial impression is that this appears to be an extension of the conflict that brought us the ArbCom case, nothing more. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of the complaint being discussed, it surely can't be correct that users whose conduct is being considered by arbcom are immune from scrutiny at ANI. That would make no sense at all. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying at all. I just don't see the need to duplicate efforts. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
So Ubikwit gets to harass people at will for the next couple of months while ArbCom sifts through a few hundred diffs, right? That isn't a duplicate effort. That's failing to protect the Wikipedia project from a tendentious editor. Does the fact that at least one ArbCom member wants MORE admins getting involved, to keep this mess under control while they deliberate? Does that enter into your decision at all, Gamaliel? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
P&W, you seem a bit harsh on Gamaliel. I think he's just trying to understand things here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is something (in terms of the edits to Arbitration space) which could have been brought to the arbitration clerks to deal with, since it very much is within our remit. I'll note here that I saw one of the linked diffs, removed it and warned Ubikwit before I saw this discussion plus collapsed discussion where another comment in a linked diff was made. If there is more of it in Arbitration space Ubikwit will be banned from editing case pages. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not why this complaint is here. The Arb page hatting doesn't stop the hounding and the constant personal attacks at me. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it didn't occur to me that since some of the harassment occurred on ArbCom pages, an ArbCom clerk could have handled it. Malke brought the matter here, I noticed it, and so I followed the matter here rather than notifying the clerk. There's a lot about ArbCom that I still need to learn. But three things I've already learned are that (A) it's very, very slow; (B) the community at large (meaning admins and senior editors) is extremely reluctant to become involved with an article, or a group of editors, once ArbCom becomes involved; and (C) at least one ArbCom member has said that it's got to stop. The fact that Ubikwit happened to harass other parties to the ArbCom proceeding on an ArbCom page, and subsequently attracted the actions of an ArbCom clerk, does not eliminate the possibility that in the future, some troll in an ArbCom proceeding could harass other parties beyond the reach of an ArbCom clerk. On an article Talk page, for example. Or a User Talk page. Admins in the community need to be more willing to step up and prevent an ArbCom proceeding from "overflowing" into the community at large, with warnings and, if necessary, blocks. Think of ArbCom as the Supreme Court, and the admins as cops walking a beat. There are a lot of criminals out there, out on bail while their cases slowly crawl through the Supreme Court. Should the cops ignore them? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
But if I'm understanding things correctly, the Clerk's function is concerned with the Arb pages only. Behaviours, especially ongoing behaviours, can still be brought to ANI. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That's correct. However, my concern (and SilkTork's concern) is that once such concerns are brought here to ANI, once someone announces that the parties are involved in an ArbCom case, admins are reluctant to take any action — as Gamaliel so clearly demonstrated here. That's the "chilling effect" SilkTork talked about. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Honest to God, if I issued a week-long block to every every Tea Party Movement party who has commented in this thread more than thrice, that would help out this encyclopedia project more than anything else...

Administrators, please feel free to issue a block to any party you deem necessary, irrespective of any Arbitration case that may be going on right now. As for myself, as an Arbitrator, I must say that this thread has cast away any doubts I had about voting on several sanctions and has made me start to consider additional ones. NW (Talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that the Clerk and the Arb have effectively shut down this compliant, can an admin close it? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
...Wow, just wow. Noformation Talk 07:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Primarily for the sake of giving a little context to the "unintelligible" remark referred to by Gamaliel (as being troutable...), here are a couple of diffs that go way back to April.
Way back in April (Ubikwit  連絡 見学/迷惑 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)) on the Workshop page I had referred to a point first articulated by Silk Tork regarding the Moderated discussion in which he made the comment "As Malke is the main contributor to the article...".
More recently, AGK removed his "obiter dictum".
Meanwhile, Malke had posted a verbatim copy of that statement on the Evidence page on July 15. It is not the case that she was unaware of that to which I had been referring.
With regard to the claim of hounding, thank you Stephan Schultz for the the editing stats. Here is an example of a dialog to which I should have posted a diff on the case pages, but haven't even bothered, basically. [34].
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Admins, I have now had the time to read through (some of) the complaints in the walls of text above, and am compelled to suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is applicable here. The rationale for that is that not only are the complaints made against by and large unrelated to the comments on the Arbcom case page, false accusations have again been made that I am a sockpuppet of Dylan Flaherty. Malke has made that accusation repeatedly across various pages (e.g., the Workshop page of the Arbcom case, the above-linked ANI, etc.) and of hounding her ("like Dylan did"), etc. It would seem that such behavior has become egregious and clearly falls under WP:HARASS. Malke could easily have opened an SPI case (long ago) or request a checkuser if there were any actual evidence to support the false accusations.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User's talk page needs archiving[edit]

Doncram has archived his page. Closing this with the strongest admonishment toward Orlady for choosing this approach to the matter. I suggest very strongly that you remove his page from your Watchlist and forget about Doncram or future misfires such as this run the risk of of a boomerang. --Errant (chat!) 14:02, 22 August 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 see that the talk page for User:Doncram has reached a length of almost 700K and that several other users have removed content (possibly by accident, and likely due at least in part to the huge size of the page) when posting there. Doncram has reverted those deletions and has not added to his talk page archives in the last several months. I have no idea why he quit archiving, and no one can force him to archive his page, but it appears from the page history that the situation is becoming a problem for other people who want to communicate with him. I imagine that the length of the page is a source of aggravation for the WP:AFC volunteers who post there. It would be nice if someone could politely suggest to Doncram that he should resume archiving. --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As you say, nobody can make him archive, but we do have {{utverylong}} for suggesting that he do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Apply social pressure - don't process his AFC requests until his talk page is "more reasonable". Ravensfire (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a reminder that Doncram is under indefinite general editor probation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
How about you just leave him alone and wait for someone else, preferably someone without a personal vendetta against him, to raise these concerns?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What would help is for an admin to simply close this frivolous report. I do not see evidence that anyone has so much as discussed the issue with him, especially not Orlady. No policy forces archiving of user talk pages so it isn't an issue for administrators to address in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, when an editor is under general probation, every aspect of their behavior can be subject to examination. I do agree, however, that considering the relationship between them, Orlady really ought not to be reporting Doncram at AN/I for what is, at the very worst, an extremely minor problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me Kudpung and thank you TDA and BYK and others for your considerate remarks. I appreciate that ANI participants have to sort out complicated situations, and your receiving an ANI report from an administrator long-involved in conflict with the targeted editor calls for some discussion, even when the report seems to be frivolous. It is disturbing/depressing to see support/calls for punishment against me for doing nothing wrong, but I appreciate you all have to try to sort it out.
If there is a problem with the AFC tools that break on a long Talk page (I am not aware that there is, but perhaps there could be a pagesize limit that should be identified as causing problems), then that is a technical issue that should be brought up somewhere far from ANI. If there is an actual technical report made about that in some appropriate forum, please someone inform me.
This seems to be an unpleasant stunt by Orlady, a small but real violation of wp:harassment policy: "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information." / "Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."
The above-linked arbitration includes cautions/suggestions to Orlady not to pursue harassment against me, which were expressed in workpages by several parties, if I recall correctly. The final report included, about Editor interactions: "5) ... Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited."
I imagine that Orlady might wish to provoke me to say something that ANI participants can use further against me. There is danger that whatever I say will be used against me. I will say, nonetheless, that Orlady is acting out, in this and other small incidents that I have not responded to, what I personally do experience as harassment. Which are harassment. ANI telling Orlady clearly to stop with petty harassment, would be appreciated by me. Otherwise I see no issue worthy of ANI here, and likely will not respond further. --doncram 13:20, 22 August 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.

My apologies for not pointing out that Doncram does not allow me to communicate with him. That's why I didn't notify him on his talk page. However, my linking his userid here should have alerted him to the discussion. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [This posting encountered an edit conflict with the closure of this discussion Orlady (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)]

@Orlady: - that is no excuse. It says quite clearly that you must notify them, regardless of any 'ban' a user has placed on you posting on their talk page. GiantSnowman 14:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the last time I notified him of an AN discussion, the AN discussion was temporarily derailed into a discussion of his objections to my having posted the notice on his talk page. My sole objective here was to find someone who does not have a history with Doncram and whose opinions he would respect to talk to him about that page. I don't believe that anyone I might have contacted individually would have fit that description. I am pleased to see that he archived his talk page. I was hoping that this could happen with a minimum of aggravation and confrontation. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I can understand how you were 'once bitten, twice shy' by the reaction at the last AN..."derailment" as you put it. It should not have put you off, and so a serious trouting to anyone who was critical of you for simply following explicit instructions and notifying the editor in question. GiantSnowman 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing email accidentally pasted into an AFD[edit]

Yuvalg9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashumon, Yuvalg9 has pasted in a canvassing notice that looks like it was meant for some off Wikipedia forum or email list. This article has a history of sock and meat puppting you can read about at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Photopinka/Archive. I'm not sure what to do in this kind of circumstance. Would it be appropriate for me to request semiprotection of the AFD? - MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have seen what Yuvalg9 has published and reverted it. I am aware that he was not supposed to do so. Michael.haephrati (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder who could have posted the original message... Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yea, that's pretty cut n dried block-worthy right there. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm tempted to send this back over to SPI, given the history of sockpuppetry (and the fact that one of the previously identified socks has a name that matches User:Michael.haephrati.) This nails it, I think. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Aha, nevermind, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Photopinka. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. The AFD is now semi protected. Good find with the Amiga forum post. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my own saying: I am not YuvalG9. I first published what can be considered to be a canvasing forum message. I corrected the mistake and changed the tone. Yuvalg9 seems to have copied this message (before the change) and posted it on the AfD page and I reverted it and asked him (on his Talk page to stop). As I wrote on my own Talk page, to be on the safe side, I have entirely deleted this offsite message.M. H. 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Seashell Bay: personal attack and signature forgery[edit]

Seashell Bay (talk · contribs). Seashell Bay is a new user account that has been given templated general notice, caution and warning (by another user and me) for making repeated unsourced edits. Warnings that the user responded to by making a personal attack [35] and forging my signature on a fake block notice [36]. Which, in my book at least, is not acceptable behaviour, so maybe an admin could take a look at it. Thomas.W talk to me 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed the account, they do not appear here to build an encyclopedia and the use of the block template for a 'new' user was also very suspicious. GiantSnowman 16:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoax Debanjan Deb[edit]

Hoax-B-Gon applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 22 August 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.

Someone created Debanjan Deb, which is a deliberate hoax and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debanjan_Deb. The editor is continuously making non-contructive edits. Has been given a bunch of warnings including last warnings. TitoDutta 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and blocked. The account's entire contribution has been creating the hoax and then trying to disrupt the deletion process. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --TitoDutta 18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And I deleted the article as a hoax. Please feel free to close the AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Closed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:23, 22 August 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.

Banned User Repeatedly Returns[edit]

Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:45, 22 August 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.

An editor, banned for various things (including threatening an Admin who intervened) has returned as a new sockpuppet:

He deleted my ANI notice, and a warning from another editor, from his talk page:

That he's a sockpuppet is clear from: 1) the timing of the creation of the account with a previous ban; 2) his editing subject matter pattern (specific rock bans and PA governor Tom Corbett); and 3) his abusive editing on the Tom Corbett page, for example:

This is the last ANI thread about his then most-recent sockpuppet:

Another ban seems appropriate.


John2510 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 22 August 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.

User:Redhanker and political agenda[edit]

Many of Redhanker's edits appear to be pushing a specific agenda and not adhering to NPOV. For example:

Zanzibar acid attack -
  • "Police found no direct evidence of involvement of Uamsho, a militant Islamist group which some have speculated could have ties to Al Qaeda." This is a speculative and uncited claim.
  • "Nevertheless, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Islamist preacher Sheikh Issa Ponda Issa who is a supporter of the radical group." Uncited
  • "Two Catholic priests had been shot and killed there in previous months." Uncited and unrelated to the article. I surmise this inclusion violates NPOV.
  • "Friends of the girls speculated that they were targeted because they are Jewish." I'm not sure about this but I suspect this violates NPOV.
  • "Many press reports omitted any reference to the religion of the victims, or likely religion of the attackers in a city that is largely Muslim." Uncited and grossly irrelevant to the main article. This is definitely pushing a certain point of view.
Paul Sheldon Foote
  • This entire article seems to just be on how the person is anti-Israel and pro-Iran.
  • All the citations are from unreliable blog sources.
  • This article grossly violates NPOV by placing all the weight of the article on his political position and absolutely nothing on anything else.
Mashregh News
  • This is a relatively unnotable organization. I cannot find any significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Yet, this company has an article for the line "The ADL criticized the site for spreading disinformation such as the false Holo­caust claim that Nazis "man­u­fac­tured soap from their Jew­ish vic­tims" to prove that Holo­caust is a his­tor­i­cal falsity."
  • This is a category created by Redhanker. It was deleted per this discussion [[37]]
Pro-Iranian sentiments
  • This was an article created by Redhanker. It was deleted under CSD:A3.

All in all, what I've listed and far more that can be found in his edit history points to a pattern of pushing a certain political position on Wikipedia and not adhering to NPOV. Transcendence (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This hostile ANI appears to be a response to my observation that Transscendence appears to engaging in a pattern of deleting articles about notably violent attacks with wide national and international media coverage, most of which end up being kept because of extensive media coverage and notablity. The edits above are nearlyh all based on content in the mainstream press or official government sponsored news sources.
One particular editor User:Transcendence has been very deleting articles which have no apparent connection other than most are of very violent mass attacks which have not been connected to terrorist motives
Redhanker (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
POV-pushing does seem to be a problem. For instance, Redhanker using List of Iranian news agencies to list lots of links which weren't Iranian, or which weren't news agencies, but mostly "sourced" by citing a news article on some rather controversial topic around Iran... [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Restored from archives. Ansh666 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not just POV pushing that's an issue here, but User:Redhanker has been accusing User:Transcendence of stalking and hounding, and other editors who nominate and !vote delete on some current events-type articles (those listed above) of being part of a site-wide conspiracy to hide terrorism (like User:The Bushranger here). I can't comment definitively on the matter, but I think there's no merit whatsoever in these personal accusations about Transcendence and literally no chance of there being a conspiracy to hide the truth. Ansh666 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Another similar posting by Redhanker at Talk:Death of Christopher Lane. [44] I have to suggest that WP:NOTHERE applies, and that Redhanker needs to take his tinfoil hat elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ip user blitzing wiki with duplicated text[edit]

IP user blocked by Penwhale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 23 August 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.

ip user is currently blitzing wiki with duplicated text. Looking at his history it isnt the 1st time. In fact his entire editing history looks dubious as none have editing comments of any kind. Can someone look into this.--Penbat (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: I noted similar behaviour a while ago. While not strictly vandalism in most cases, they seem to repeatedly overwrite citations with ones linked to the academic institution from which the IP originates. I have been unable to check in each case whether their sources provide the content required for the citation but in all cases, citations existed that were notable and sufficient.  drewmunn  talk  16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The linked article is bollocks. I suggest that blacklisting the journal in question would probably be the best option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It isnt the first time. All edits done by this IP user during 2013 look screwy.--Penbat (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Virtually all the edits going back to the beginning of the year seem to be to papers by someone named Sahito, including add one as a reference that wasn't cited.[45]. I'd go for a block and revert. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Google Search - reverted twice, once with edit summary "18:06, 4 March 2013‎ Sonicdrewdriver (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (50,705 bytes) (-2,601)‎ . . (Undid revision 542076430 by (talk) Reverting vandalism. 'STOP. You are incorrectly citing, and citing off topic bias.) (undo | thank)" Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The content they were linking to at that time was useless, and I had warned them previously to not use that reference.  drewmunn  talk  17:01, 21 August 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.

Death threats by SPA[edit]

Youpho indeffed by Alex Bakharev. WP:SPI is thataway ←→ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 23 August 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.

Not too long ago, this kind gentleman has left this message on my talk page. This comment is this user's only edit, and is written entirely in Chinese. I don't have plenty of free time at the moment to translate this word by word myself, but here is a quick, rough machine translation to get the general idea.


你死定了! 你他媽的幹拎娘機掰咧! 你以為你是誰啊? 你是老大嗎? 海外華人了不起啊? 海外華人就可以濫用權利欺負新手是不是? 你好大的膽子,我看你是不想活了。我警告你,你下次敢再來找我麻煩試試看,信不信我100%絕對會殺了你,別以為我在跟你開玩笑。

Google Translate

You're dead! You carry your mother fucking machine breaking dry blanket! You think you are? You are the boss do? Overseas Chinese terrific ah? Abuses overseas Chinese can not cast aside novice? Hello great courage, I see you do not want to live. I warn you, the next time you dare to come to me trouble try, believe it or not I am 100% definitely will kill you, do not think I'm joking with you.

Now, whilst I am relatively certain that this is most likely a harmless angry rant by an edgy teenager, who is probably upset because I might have reverted his nationalistic POV edits to some kind of controversial regional Asian dispute article within the past year or something along those lines, I would just like to double-check to be certain, as to whether or not I should just ignore this rant and stay at ease, or if this person's comments can be potentially serious. Would it be too unreasonable for me to request a checkuser to confirm whether the user's IP address is from my country or not? I'm not asking for information that is too specific, I'd just like to know whether or not this person is from a different country to me, a simple "yes" or "no" answer, so I can decide between getting over this silly comment and relaxing per usual, or whether I should be more worried than I currently am. Thanks. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 00:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I have indef blocked that Youpho account but it is an obvious SPA and most probably a sock. If a checkuser could help to find the sockpuppet master it would help. Whether you want or not to involve police in this matter it is up to you (I personally would not), but I think Wikipedia checkusers would cooperate with investigation if require. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to bother reporting anything, it's not worth my time if it's just a simple prank. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • He is about as far away from you as he can get. I am going to let the WMF know anyway, not sure if they would like to report this. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a bit of colloquial chinese involved, most likely Taiwanese, but effectively translates to

You're dead! You mother fucker! Who do you think you are? The boss? Are expat Chinese that great? So expat chinese can abuse their privileges to bully newbies (or bite the newbies as it were)? How dare you, you must not want to live. Let me warn you, the next time you dare to trouble me, believe it or not I am 100% definitely going to kill you, do not think I'm joking with you.

which google translate largely got correct. Just thought I'd tidy up the grammar a bit. However, I also feel that there is something else behind it. Some of the phrasing is awfully clunkky. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
How did it get "You carry your mother fucking machine breaking dry blanket!" from "You mother fucker"? Are there some ambiguous characters? Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 22 August 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.

Obvious sock trolling Eric Corbett[edit]

Sock blocked by Reaper Eternal. LadyofShalott 23:34, 22 August 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.

Please nip it in the bud, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 22 August 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.

Canoe1967 - GMO[edit]

Canoe1967 and a number of other editors have consistently accused or insinuated that wikipedia editors who disagree with them are shills for Monsanto (e.g [[46]], more recent efforts are more subtle). "This seems further evidence that the editors who, for whatever reason, seem to want to make sure large companies look as good as possible, vastly outnumber the indies left on wiki", by Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs). emphasis mine. [47]. "Note that I didn't enter this realm of articles because of a pre-existing concern about GMOs. I was drawn to them pretty much only because (about this time a year ago) I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page.", by Groupuscule (talk · contribs). [48]. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Thanks_for_your_comments_at_Wikimania for more context.

Here are two previous related ANI threads: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Request_to_enforce_NOR

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive806#Accusations_at_Talk:March_Against_Monsanto_that_need_to_be_resolved. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Following on this campaign of harassment, in an article about a march, March against Monsanto, Canoe1967 is continuing to use the talk page as a place to dump unreliable links, despite being asked not to, about Monsanto hiring PR accounts on the internet etc [49]. The obvious insinuation is that those who disagree with his edits are Monsanto employees or whatever. The section he has created to make claims about PR agents has no obvious connection to the article or its content. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my OP in that thread. Mainstream media did not cover the event well. Smaller, as you claim, 'less reliable sources' reported this. The removal of these smaller reports is the same as the main reports did. How can we expect mainstream media to report that they censored themselves? They probably didn't do it at Monsanto's request but the other sources claim it is rather odd not to cover a 2 million person march as much a 300 person march. If it is sourced then there is no harm in inclusion. Protests are designed to get media attention. If that media attention is reported as odd then those reports warrant inclusion with credit to who is making the claims.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This "campaign of harassment"? Dramatic. Even outsiders are noting obvious pro-GM activity at Wikipedia. But to IRWolfie, this recognition is just crazy. petrarchan47tc 05:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that if you expect to find something, odds are, you will. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Those "outsiders" are an Anti-GMO group and are also involved in genetics bashing more generally [50]. I'd like to draw the admins attention to a comment posted at that link where someone mentions a private anti-GMO emailing list: I’m on an email list where I’ve heard several people complain about the extreme bias of the Wikipedia page, “The Seralini affair”. They have been trying to edit it to add balance and accuracy but their edits are reverted soon after. Editors like Petrar are using commentary from these Anti-GMO websites to continue their conspiratorial campaigns (as Petrar's talk page says: "This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia."). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by coatrack. Which article is the coatrack? I also wonder why Time Magazine was removed from the article. If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it? I think the editor that removed it has a "huge misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source." You asked me on the talk page as to which source I was going to use and what edit I was going to make. I have never edited that article but that question seems like I need your permission first. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Can I assume that if I do add a sourced edit to the article then it will just be reverted regardless? I have mentioned the Professor and a doctor with over 100 peer reviewed papers being added to the article. I should let you choose which source and what edit to make to make sure we get it right. I promise I would remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This group of editors also deliberately misunderstand basic reliable sourcing. It has been explained to them that newspapers aren't generally reliable for cutting edge or controversial science, but they continue to propose newspapers as sources for everything, and make statements like the above "If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it". They refuse to get that reliability is context dependent. @TippyGoomba Not for lack of trying, see [51] for example, which was two days ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL, refusing most sources as being unreliable is also a form of POV-pushing, IRWolfie. And I have seen you do just that on many, many articles relating to food safety and organic food. The Banner talk 10:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The Banner added claims, several months ago, into an article claiming regular food causes cancer and contains poison, here is the diff[52], and discussion Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3#We_are_going_nowhere_now... as well as cherry picking papers which the papers that cited it lambasted Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3#WP:MEDRS. That's the context, but it has no relevance to what is being discussed here, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It will be clear for all the people who follow your link that you are talking clear nonsense and a personal attack to discredit me. Why should we use medical sources for issues that are not medical? Why are you so afraid of agricultural sources? The Banner talk 18:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Since Monsanto has this legal control over all its GMO studies then any peer reviewed study should be brought into question. This my RS is better than your RS isn't the way to go about it. Should we include a line as a qualifier after every GMO peer reviewed study? 'Other studies need to be legally approved by Monsanto.' 'Studies to counter these claims are illegal without Monsanto approval.' I should email a local supply company and see if I can get a copy of the contract just to verify to myself that Scientific American isn't using fringe sources for false claims.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If you search for the word "contract" in the GM Food Controversies article, you will find that there is a link to the Monsanto contract already in the article and a discussion of it. It is in the intellectual property section. (Note - the link to the actual contract in the article was broken - found another one after a few minutes of searching and replaced it) And there is already a section about scientific publishing and the difficulties that indpendent scientists have had getting access to the GM seed. Please, please do your homework before making these great statements. Other, good faith editors have been working on this for a long time! This is a repeat of the Starlink thing, where you didn't read the article before adding repetitive content about the Taco Bell Recall and you haven't responded to a single thing we have said about it and where it is currently located. But you are quick to denounce and ignore the working editors as bad faith POV pushers and you keep doing that, even here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Scientific American claims "...difficulties that independant scientists have had getting access..." means " is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised." We should try to go with sources not 'advertising studies' by Monsanto. The Starlink material is not in the health recall section but still in two sections it wasn't recalled or controversial for. Again we should try to go with what the sources say.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • When Canoe made a post at Talk:March Against Monsanto that seemed to me to imply that some editors were "shills", I left a message that you can see on their user talk page, and they came to the article talk page and clarified that they had not intended it to cast aspersions on editors, but rather, they were trying to express concern that readers might think that our content was being manipulated. That's probably not the best explanation, but I was willing to let it go at that. Canoe then posted, in talk, a series of suggested sources that other editors considered to be low-quality; that is what IRWolfie is referring to here. I don't think that posting possible sources on a talk page is something that requires an ANI complaint, and I think that this complaint probably does not require administrator action, in itself. That said, it's painfully clear that this drama over whether or not editors are working on behalf of business interests, or whether other editors are using aspersions to that effect, without real evidence, in order to try to gain advantage in POV disputes, is just going on and on and on. I've said it before, and it hasn't sunk in yet: if you have a valid concern, please take it to WP:COIN, and if you don't, then don't say it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to indicate that the discussion Canoe started was really about purported shills/COI, Here is what he dropped in the middle of it: [53]. "Monsanto COI edit 1. I will keep looking. --Canoe1967" He dropped a link to a Monsanto IP that edited the Roundup article 8 years ago in the middle of his thread, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not start the discussion for that purpose nor use those terms. Putting thoughts to my posts and words in my mouth is very bad faith bordering on lies and attacks. If you can't provide decent input then either don't bother or expect to have it ignored. I posted the COI edit to counter claims that Monsanto never edits GMO articles. There are probably more but I think I have made my point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My own issues[edit]

I don't participate in these boards much, and have not brought an action here before. I don't much like drama. I don't like to fight with anybody nor do I like getting people in trouble - I like to work things out.

However, two editors in particular, User:Canoe1967 and User:Petrarchan47, have been engaging in a campaign of personally attacking me and a group of other editors, both directly and in a canvassing manner, on the Talk pages of other editors, accusing me and others of bad faith, shill, COI, POV-pushing editing (which I will refer to from now on as "paid editing" for lack of a better term). I have asked each of them to stop, nicely, several times, and finally warned them that I would start an ANI if they continued. Neither has stopped. As User:IRWolfie- has already opened a discussion, I am joining his/her thread. I have not done this before, but the behavior of these editors is making Wikipedia an inhospitable place for me and in an ugly weed is growing that I think should be pulled up.

I request that an administrator at least sternly warn each of them, and maximally block each of them for some amount of time.

I recognize that declared and undeclared paid editing is something that Wikipedia should be concerned with, for sure, but I also very strongly believe that the behavior of these two editors, who have turned simple differences in perspective into a witch hunt, where they continually make accusations in inappropriate places with no evidence, is a kind of McCarthyism (where "paid editor" replaces "communist") that thwarts Wikipedia's goal of having a vibrant community of editors who work together with civility to create a great encyclopedia. I believe they are acting in good faith -- I believe each of them honestly believes that I and others are acting in bad faith, and I believe that each of them honestly wants to make Wikipedia better, but their methods and behaviors are destructive and this behavior needs to stop. As they will not stop themselves, I am asking that they be stopped.

The other editors editors being attacked are individuals who have each found him- or herself interested in the suite of genetic engineering articles for a long time, and include me, User:IRWolfie-, User:Arc de Ciel, User:Aircorn and to a lesser extent User:Bobrayner A few months ago User:BlackHades became more active on those pages, and much more recently, mostly via the March Against Monsanto article, User:Tryptofish, User:SpectraValor, and User:Thargor Orlando have gotten involved. The older group of editors I have come to be very familiar with -- all are science-oriented or scientists, as far as I can tell, and all seek to follow all the pillars in editing especially with regard to NPOV and reliable sourcing. We do not coordinate in any way, that I am aware of.

User:Canoe1967 Canoe first showed up in the GMO suite in an ANI about March Against Monsanto. Canoe's first edit there is here - in that edit he/she wrote: "I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content.". Canoe's next edit on Wikipedia, a few minutes later, was in the MaM article, where he/she deleted content with the pejorative and attacking edit note "Monsanto may control the media but not Wikipedia. This section is due without the tag in that case." And his/her edit notes and comments continued in that spirit. Another comment Canoe made in the MaM ANI was "I could care less about the article. What I do care about is the possible outside POV pressure on it which is why ArbCom should be consulted." - here. His/her last, and telling comment in the ANI about MaM is here. THe last comment made by Canoe in the MaM ANI is Copy/pasted for your convenience, because this one is key: ""Addendum. It was more than just that. I have been banned from editing March Against Monsanto for a week. I had never heard of the GMO controversy until the phone call I received. Since then I created Taco Bell GMO recall which I tried to include in Genetically modified food controversies at first. My addition was notable and sourced but one reason for the reversion was 'article too big already'. I then created it as a stand alone. Since then it was re-directed to yet a fourth article, Taco Bell, which I reverted. I expect the next step will be an Afd attempt. I still don't care about the GMO POVs that some editors claim exist but I do care about how it effects Wikipedia. Put these articles on your watchlists to see if any further antics arise.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)"

Three key things: 1) Canoe notes that he/she was canvassed external to Wikipedia, and 2) Canoe notes that he/she was blocked for edit warring; 3) Canoe makes it clear here that he/she knows little about the issues involved but is determined to fight perceived COI editing. And this is pretty much what has unfolded on the two GM-related articles where I have encountered this editor - very uncivil conversations where it is hard to arrive at consensus on content because Canoe won't deal with facts about the content, but instead personally attacks and keeps shifting ground to get the article to be just as he/she wants it to be.

I asked Canoe about the phone call on his/her Talk page - the query and its response are here. Seems like the initial phone call was not canvassing, but it certainly seemed to set Canoe off on a conspiracy theory that Monsanto is controlling GM-related content and everybody working them, or opposing his/her changes, has COI or POV-pushing issues. The discussion I linked to at the start of this paragraph was very, very difficult for me, as Canoe would not stay on topic, respond to what I actually wrote, and continually threatened to "contact the media about" the putative COI editing, go to Arbcom,telling me "I have told you more than once that you should take a break from editing GMO articles but you seem to just continue with BS which will probably lead to drama boards if you don't clue in." and on and on. I made a minor change on his/her Taco Bell Recall article and Canoe went off on me, wildly - please see the topmost discussion on Talk, here. Simultaneously Canoe, myself, and others were having a dispute in the Talk pages of the GM controversies article about where content about the Starlink/Taco Bell content should go - again Canoe's behavior there was oriented toward personal attacks about COI and POV-pushing, and Canoe had no interest in dialog, establishing the facts, or compromising, but has continually insisted that the content go where he/she wanted it to go. That discussion is here. If it is more helpful to Administrators I will go back through those discussions and pull out more specific things that Canoe wrote, but you don't have to look far.

Here is the 3RR ANI resulting in a warning for March against Monsanto editing - Aug 3. (note - he/she was previously 48 hour blocked for edit warring on another article, here)

Here is another attack on me, not mentioning me by name or notifying me: this dif.

There are more, but this is too long already.

With respect to User:Petrarchan47, this goes back to editing I did on the BP article and his/her frustration in general with the terrible situation that developed in that article. If editors are not familiar with this article, some brief background. There is an employee of BP named Arturo who works on that article, in excellent compliance with Wikipedia's policies - posts suggestions on Talk, never edits, discusses politely. Two camps of editors arose on that page - one that wanted the article to remain tightly focused on BP and its business; another that wanted to include expanded content on environmental, legal and political issues (oil spills including Deep Water Horizon and all the issues around that; safety violations, trading scandals, greenwashing, etc). Things got very ugly there and for a long time a group of corporate-oriented editors had the article in a fairly ugly stranglehold leading to a lot of anger and frustration. This really broke out when an article was published claiming (wrongly) that BP was re-writing its wikipedia article. In any case, I helped break that open (see here and a group of editors, including User: Gandydancer who had been working virtually alone for a long time, User:Petrarchan47 who had been involved in the past and came back after the article published, and others, started adding lots of content. When I felt they went too far and resisted, I became an enemy to them and User:Petrarchan47 became so negative toward me, personally, that I just left the page. Ever since, User:Petrarchan47 has been accusing me of being a shill.

I'm sorry that I have to reply to this, but it is going too far. Many were upset when the news broke about BP's level of involvement in their Wiki page. Slim Virgin asked me to come back from Wiki-retirement and help out at the BP page during this intense time, as I had the longest history there as one who pointed out (accurately) certain POV on the page. Along with Slim, there were two new editors to the page (Buster7 and Coretheapple) who were attracted by the news and the idea of finding a solution to the POv problem presented by PR departments having a large role on Wiki. Along with Gandydancer and Slim Virgin, we had very (purposefully) public discussions about how to keep pages NPOV.
Jytdog entered the BP page quite out of the blue, during our deepest discussions, and by his own admission "took control" of the BP talk page. (An example is here). On Slim's page, Jytdog writes: "I grant that some of my being hounded off the page is my fault, in that when I tried to moderate the conflict on that page, I named "sides" and this was offensive to pretty much everyone. Not sure how you talk about a conflict if you cannot name "sides" but I did it too clumsily. Which I very much regret ". The story is now being spun to look as if I had no reason to be unhappy with his presence. My "becoming so negative" towards Jytdog refers to the time I confronted him about labeling me an environmentalist, among other things, and that is when he sulked off. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The BP article was very hard, very charged, and I think is the root of a lot of this McCarthyism that User:Petrarchan47 is engaging in.

Absolutely manic, this presentation against me. Baseless at its core - but McCarthyism describes the diatribe you left about me at Gandydancer's talk page yesterday. I don't believe even you believe that what you have written is true. You have obviously perused my entire edit history and talk page, so you have apparently chosen to ignore the numerous times I am asked to help with content creation (that would be damning to big corporations), and I say no every time - because I am too busy IRL. Any facts that don't uphold this weird narrative were excluded from the above assessment. If I were part of, or trying to start a cabal, you wouldn't see evidence of it on talk pages. I use talk pages because they are public, because I want to do everything in the open, because I feel I have nothing to hide - not what I am saying nor how I say it. Jytdog, IRWolfie and Tryptofish all raked me over the coals for simply asking Canoe1967 their opinion on an idea for an RfC, this is what they consider canvassing and going behind backs: nefarious activity. This kind of thing makes it hard to take comments by these editors seriously enough to respond, to be honest. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In a discussion on the BP Talk page, Petrarchan actually proposed that forming "an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article" - which comment you can see here.

Any responsible editor on Wiki should be concerned with PR promoters and their admitted activity here. Anyone trying to intimidate folks attempting to have this open discussion should be shamed off the Wiki for doing so, imo. This place is about NPOV and truth. Shaming, fear-mongering and constant threats of noticeboards are, in this case, about the suppression of both. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this is what Petrachan has been doing recently -- namely, convinced that a cabal is controlling the GM articles, he/she has been canvassing to try to "loosely organize" a group to "fight back", as Petrarchan, User:Gandydancer, User:Coretheapple, and User:Binksternet, and User talk:Buster7 did in working on the BP article (which you can see if you review their user Talk pages - they constantly encouraged one another and discussed what was going on in the BP article in their Talk pages. User:Binksternet was peripherally involved in that. And in the battleground that the BP article had become, and how hard it was, I understood that. I also found it disturbing with regard to canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page, but I was already walking away from the BP article so I said and did nothing. I am, however, deeply engaged in the GM suite of articles and committed to their excellence, and I am calling Petrarchan out for canvassing and personal attacks for this behavior now. I don't even know if it is intentional (as in conscious) as much as we are all creatures of habit. But the behavior is no good. (note - edited to respond to Binksternet's objection below. Deleted Binkster from the list and noted peripheral involvement in italics. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

I don't agree that I have either canvassed or handed out personal attacks. However the above is an example of a personal attack; this is an attack on my very character and my entire 'life' as a Wiki editor. It is not based in reality and evidence for these claims about me (and the conclusions drawn) will not be found in the records or anywhere else. They are simply not true. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that his/her userpage now has a label stating: "This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia." and a quote, "The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. - Noam Chomsky". These are clearly important issues for Petrarchan. However as I mentioned, this user is convinced I am a COI editor and that I am a POV-pusher, and while we avoid working on articles where the other is working, he/she continues to write negative things about me in Talk pages, and canvasses other users to get them to join his/her anti-paid editing campaign. We unfortunately encountered one another again on the March Against Monsanto article.

I don't know where I said you are a COI editor, or that I even suspected you were. I actually don't care one way or the other WHY you are spinning GMO-related articles, simply that it is happening. You can attack me all you want, and try to build a hefty case here, but it doesn't change the fact that others are seeing the obvious bias in this suite of articles as well. And I will note that there has been very recent talk about sending this whole issue to ArbCom, making the timing for your distraction attempt here very interesting. I must say also that I have never had complaints against me for my behavior or editing until I came across GMO-related articles. I very innocently tried to build the March Against Monsanto page when it was being discussed for deletion (the first time). It was then that I became the greatest menace Wiki has ever known, and have twice been taken to 3RR court (for bogus reasons) during my editing there. My activity across articles does not change, yet the reaction when I encounter the group that is dedicated to these GMO articles diverges wildly from anywhere else on Wiki. It makes no sense that it is my behaviour causing this divergence. It does make sense that I may end up looking like the bad guy since the ones complaining about me are energetic, devoted, and here around the clock with their list of wrongdoings and support for each other in these attacks. I am sick of being attacked, but this complete disinformation created by Jytdog takes it to a level I cannot ignore. It is not OK to make stuff up about someone just to get the spotlight off of yourself, Jytdog. And: it is not OK to spin Wikipedia articles, no matter how civil you are whilst doing so. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment by Petrarchan here really makes clear where Petrarchan has ended up, really convinced that I and others are paid editors and that Wikipedia is completely in our corrupt grasp. Simple differences in perspective have become blown up into a battle between good and evil.

Anyway to the point.

There as an ugly discussion of edits I made in the BP article on the Talk page of an administrator, User:SlimVirgin, made without notifying me, which you can see in the deleted entry here - SlimVirgin deleted it after I called it to her attention here.

It continued anyway, here (I am the "a certain editor who materialized recently and held himself out as a 'mediator'", who is negatively characterized) and here (where Petrarchan says I "deserved the 'shill' remark") - again without notifying me.

Also this groundless complaint against me by Petrarchan to Slimvirgin, which was replied to by SV here.

And again Petrarchan brought a conflict with me to SlimVirgin without notifying me - this one about GMOs here - in that instance Petrarchan wanted to introduce health-related content based on a flimsy article, which I had reverted, and when Petrarchan brought that to MEDRS as per SlimVirgin's advice, the source was dismissed as failing MEDRS here which Petrarchan has brought up bitterly several times as another example of me being a shill - see here for one.

Petrarchan probably included me here.

That is all the past stuff. The more recent stuff is more disturbing to me, as I mentioned above, because now Petrarchan appears to be trying to round up another coalition to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS again, now on pages I am committed to.

Canvassing behavior against me and the rest of the "evil GMO cabal" is here and here (that one with Canoe) and with User:Viriditas here and many other places on V's Talk page, with User:Groupuscule here, more of it going on here with user:Groupuscule joining in the canvassing/attacking and conspiracy theorizing, and with User:Jusdafax, here and here.

Anyway, I freaking hated doing this. Horrible, unproductive waste of my time. But again, this McCarthyism - this constant making of accusations and personal attacks on Talk pages has got to stop. Thanks for your patience. I know I am out of patience. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see an end to this McCarthyism as well. It seems that what started out as a charge against Canoe has spread into accusations directed against Petrarchan and, using Jtydog's words, a group of editors making "dark complaints about "paid editors" or POV-pushers or what ever you want to call them coordinating with one another to influence articles". I can't speak to Petrarchan's current editing because I haven't followed it, but if it is similar to what s/he was doing regarding the BP article, as Jtydog asserts, there is nothing what so ever to it. Anyone not aware of the so-called cabel-like discussions and activities to bias the BP article that Jytdog states were going on can read his accusations for themselves (on my talk page), and make up their own minds. Regarding Jytdog's above post, I hope that editors do take the time to read the discussion on SlimVirgin's talk page. There is no discussion there on how to bias the BP article. There is a discussion about paid editing, something we all shoul