Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817

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

Noticeboard archives


Repeated BLP and COI violations by User:Nlfestival[edit]

In particular, see his comments and the AFD here, where he is making repeated BLP violating statements against the subject of the article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Bergstein. I would also make a case for WP:DE in his making of multiple giant wall of text posts with his rants. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised at this comment, I invite everyone to read my texts and see if I have handled objectively and not interested in raking up a million edits and then offering my services to PR firms so wiki can be used as a advertising platform by the likes of such editors, I am spending lots of hours debating and studying the subject and read any one of my comments and you will see I have not violated any WP:BLP or or WP:COI, the comments above without any basis or justification look highly motivated and also not to mention this same editor who found the article should be deleted now finds Hollywood reporter as a source to keep the article but this same editor fails to mention that all the articles in hollywood reporter on this subject are negative and show him as a bad person who has run a ponzi scheme, the above editor has now had a change of heart based on hollywood reporter articles but does not want the content of hollywood reporter article is really surprising and he is questioning my objectivity when he is the biased person here. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for providing an example of your behavior and BLP violations inline! Ill toss in WP:SOCK too with the account RedFeltPen, whos only two edits are to the AFD above, and an SPI on Nlfestival. The AFD comment in an almost identical style to the many posts by nlfestival. [1] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who RedFeltPen is and why he wrote the comment without any vote, I can state under any scrutiny that I am not RedFeltPen and I do not know anyone that is using that user name. I am sure this should be a very simple check of IP addresses. and other details provided to register. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Troll needs a block[edit]

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.

Resolved: Indefed WP:VOA.--v/r - TP 18:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User has been vandalising Total War (series). Admiral Caius (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, feel free to take reports like this to AIV. m.o.p 18:44, 25 October 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.

Hakeem Noor-ud-Din vandalism[edit]

IP blocked for 72 hours. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 25 October 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 is vandalizing the page, and I and flyer22 have both reverted twice. I am not reverting the third time(I admit I kind of looked at the contrib and found this) --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  • A very rank garden, John: all edits are abusive vandalism at BLP's (there's one other article). Oh, look, it's a static IP. Blocked for 72 hours. Thank you, Dark Mistress. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 25 October 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: Darkness Shines routinely deleting RS he disagrees with as "fringe"[edit]

Recently, User:Darkness Shines was reported here by User:Student7 for his bullying behavior towards people who disagree with him. Darkness Shines used foul language ("for fucks sake"), personal attacks ("What the hell is your issue?"), and threats ("If I find you have been dicking about you are done") against several editors who supported the use of high-quality academic sources like Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis in Genocides in history. Student7, User:Stumink, and I can attest to this. How did Darkness Shines justify his behavior? Simple: All of these sources were "fringe". Although I never made a single edit to Genocides in history, Darkness Shines still threated admin action against me if I continued to "support the use of [fringe] sources" on the talk page. He repeatedly rejected my requests to bring the material to RSN or fringe theories noticeboard.

  • Thankfully, Darkness Shines has gone to the appropriate noticeboard for comment on the latest source he was edit warring to purge as "fringe". The area of dispute is Sarmila Bose's work on the Bangladesh Liberation War. Things aren't exactly going his way at FTN, as User:Paul Barlow has done a very good job of exposing his M.O. (aptly summarized as "dogmatic and hyperbolic in your claims without regard to fairness or relevance....looking for any source to support what you want to say....[and] bullying"). It's clear that this controversy has some emotional significance to Darkness Shines, which may impede his ability to adhere to WP:NPOV. He's certainly not afraid to continue mass reverts in the relevant articles. Perhaps in part because of some personal animosity towards me, as this message ("As you have taken it upon yourself to follow me to the topic area I edit and, unsurprisingly insert fringe material....") may suggest, Darkness Shines has reverted four of my edits back-to-back. He has asserted that my sources, a widely-cited study in The British Medical Journal and two articles in The Guardian, are all "fringe". He blanked a paragraph's worth of content in Operation Searchlight and removed thousands of bytes worth of content from the article, because one of the sources cited Bose in a favorable light. There is no consensus that Bose is fringe, and Operation Searchlight currently still cites Bose as a source, so his revert is plainly unjustified. His most shocking revert is at Genocides in history, were he restores highly dubious sources such as R.J. Rummel (misquoted) and the Guinness Book of World Records in place of the "fringe" estimates provided by The British Medical Journal, Uppsala University, and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. He reverts me yet again at Bangladesh Liberation War, and then he threatens me on my talk page. Since Darkness Shines has made it clear that he will continue to act as though he owns "the area[s] that I edit" (in his words), that others should be reverted merely for "following" him, and that "fringe" is just his codeword for whatever sources he disagrees with; I am certain that restoring my well-sourced text will only lead to an edit war (about which he has no qualms). Therefore, I have come here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    Why did you come here with a content dispute? WP:DRN would be more appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
User Darkness Shines continues to delete the tags of the page War of the Pacific [2], without a consesus in the talk page of the article. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 06:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump[edit]

Permanent block not granted. Yes, AtG can be a bit rough sometimes, and sometimes he sounds like a total asshole (note how carefully I comment on tone, not on editor! Bbb23 would be proud of me), but there is no way in which the commentary here is going to lead to an indef block, even setting aside a possible boomerang effect considering the plaintiff's recent past edits. Now, if those in the peanut gallery could stop asking for someone to close it, I could close it without edit-conflicting. Y'all have a wonderful day. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 26 October 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.

If at all possible, I respectfully ask for an unbiased admin who has had no dealings with AndyTheGrump whatsoever in the past, if that’s at all possible, and preferably who does not even know who he is, so that he or she can have a fresh look at this matter and JUSTLY adjudicate this matter without any conflict of interest.

I also seek protection as a “Wikipedia whistleblower”, if such protection is affordable, as one incident of subtle retaliation by an apparent "friend of Andy" has already occurred today, as well as a "restraining order" against AndyTheGrump and his future accounts, if such protection is afforded.

I sincerely thank Wikipedia in advance.


It is no secret that AndyTheGrump with his superior policy knowledge is the “darling” of many “well-meaning” admins in Wikipedia who may or may not know his dark side, and who genuinely try to remain unbiased, but their “soft spot for darling Andy” is unmistakable, and what may as well be called the “Blue wall of silence” couldn’t be any clearer after I saw the way my legitimate complaint was handled yesterday as no admin wants to be the one “incommodating Andy”…

I would genuinely like to think that Wikipedia is better than allow, and systematically “enable/give license” to super-editors like AndyTheGrump, who has been blocked more times than most (please refer to his block history), and has shown a systematic pattern of "selectively" using Wikipedia policy as a pretext to abuse and demoralize editors with a grumpy, trollish (instigating not vandalism), nasty, bad faith, uncivilized, antisocial, and passive-aggressive behavior, hinder their “good faith” progress with petty warring edits, badgering and nitpicking, frequently reverting edits seconds after they are made even when WP:BLP clearly allows the editor to insert an edit, and baiting them in a patronizing manner, knowing that they do not know policy well, and he has the edge, while knowing that he is the “darling” of many admins.

Such uncivilized, patronizing, indecent and abusive behavior is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society. It robs many well-meaning editors like me, acting in good faith, who just want to share their knowledge, edit in good faith and return to their normal lives, of any incentive to contribute to Wikipedia. Such conduct is also not in Wikepedia's best interest and is completely inconsistent with its CIVILZED culture of harmonious assumption of good faith.

I just want to edit in good faith. I come from a good, highly respected family and I deserve to ALWAYS be treated like an INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING. I am not a street person to be called names, cursed and be the emotional dumping ground on Wikipedia for random super-editors to take their frustrations on me without even knowing me or my station in life. Most importantly, normal human beings have feelings and feelings are fragile. I can assure you that he would be completely different, probably act like a gentleman, had he being talking to me in person.

I must applaud the good admin Bbb23 (talk), who, albeit clearly having “a soft spot for Andy”, did the right thing by removing the personal attack by AndyTheGrump and “courageously” exposing the true nature of AndyTheGrump, acknowledging the futility of my patient and numerous attempts to reason with him on one particular edit dispute in a civilized debate and good faith:

  • “I wouldn't continue the discussion with Andy on the talk page as it's not going to go anywhere. I've removed Andy's personal attack against you as it was truly nasty.” [3]


A. Carefull scrutinizing AndyTheGrump’s dark record will reveal a mountain of evidence to justify the permanent block. However, for this particular notice, I will bring one strong and convincing evidentiary incident of flagrant abuse and complete disregard for the dignity of other human beings. He wrote this to me publicly when I pleaded with him to "treat me like an intelligent human being" after "patiently" trying to reason with him in a civilized manner:

I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[4] [5]

B. I will also disclose that even though I felt so strong about this matter that I brought it up to the attention of the good, well-meaning admin Mark Arsten who, in all fairness, has shown even-handedness previously, he did not block AndyTheGrump as not to “incommodate Andy”, and referred me to WP:ANI “if I'd like to seek sanctions against AndyTheGrump", and then “hid” my report that exposes AndyTheGrump. [6] [7]

C. For full disclosure, I will also expose AndyTheGrump's self-description that goes to shows where all such grumpiness and abusive behavior came from, and that is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's harmonious and civilized culture and "try to educate" assumption of good faith, as widely displayed by well-meaning admins.

My Name is Andy, and I am a Grump. Well, you'll probably have figured that out from my username. I've not yet determined whether Grumpiness is an infliction or a Human Right, though I'm inclined to the latter view. As for further autobiographical details, I'll remain relatively anonymous for now, beyond stating that I'm male, old enough to know better (if not always wise enough), and educated sufficiently well to understand how little I can ever know. I'm also prone to writing over-long, unnecessarily convoluted sentences (with unnecessary parenthetical insertions and unnecessary repetition of the same words); often with dubious punctuation, which I'll leave for other editors to clarify, disambiguate, and otherwise improve on, while I concentrate on addressing the core of the topic in hand (if I can remember what it was by the time I've written this much...). I can sometimes write short pithy sentences, however. [8]

D. I just want to add that, in my opinion, uncivilized, indecent and abusive conduct by super-editors like AndyTheGrump are perhaps the main reason for the widespread Criticism of Wikipeda article and thousands of negative reviews all around the world at a time it is striving to establish credibility and make justifiable fundraising appeals to families like ours. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldedixor (talkcontribs) 00:57, 26 October 2013‎ Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Worldedixor (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet you can't seem to be bothered signing your posts here or on Andy's page when you notified him.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Mark Miller for giving one more evidence of what I stated above. But you are 100% in the right. Please forgive me as it was an unintentional error, and thanks to you, I just fixed it. have a blessed day... Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh....this is gonna be a popcorn thread I see.......--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I will deal with the substance of this later - if anyone shows any signs of taking it seriously after looking at Worldedixor's recent edit history (and not so recent - his/her edits at are as good an example of why Wikipedia doesn't need Worldedixor's 'expertise' as one could possibly find). Meanwhile, a couple of points for Worldedixor. Firstly there is no protection for 'whistleblowers' here - see WP:BOOMERANG. And secondly, if you are going to make allegations about "subtle retaliation" by others, you had damned well produce the evidence - I will freely admit that my behaviour wasn't at its best, but I see no reason why you should be permitted to make wild allegations about others without justification. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, Worldedixor, Andy was being perfectly civil with you until your umpteenth freak attack. I look at the fact that you have been arguing on the wrong side of policy up and down Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk, seem to exhibit ownership behavior on that same talk page, and based on this conversation seem to view your disputes with Andy as some kind of battleground. You seem in general to be extremely quick to accuse people of being mean to you when they have done nothing of the sort, for instance at Talk:Aida_Nikolaychuk#YouTube_links. Frankly, Andy is being more than respectful to you in that exchange.

What you really need to do is take a step back and chill. You don't know all the rules yet. Attempts to educate you on the rules are not an attack on your work - they are meant to help your work. Being a collaborative encyclopedia means that there will be disagreements and you won't always get your way. If that's not something you're comfortable with, it's your problem, not Andy's. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'not knowing the rules yet', Worldedixor has been a contributor since 2006. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Someguy1221 for giving yet one more subtle evidence. I think my intial statement gave all the verifiable facts. I only contribute minimally here and there to Wikipedia. I do not edit full time. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm a little more sympathetic to Worldedixor's plight than others. At the same time, I don't think the content dispute belongs here, and I don't think Andy will be sanctioned for his comments. My suggestion is that the content dispute be resolved through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms (if Worldedixor clings to naming the son - regardless of who's right I think it's a fairly insignificant thing to get into a snit about), Worldedixor forget about the unpleasant exchange with Andy, and move on, hopefully with a little less drama and verbosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Bbb23 (talk) for being fair and just. I highly value your opinion but I respectfully disagree. Have a pleasant day, my friend. Worldedixor (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The 'content dispute', such as it is, was never really the primary issue as far as I'm concerned - it was more a matter of getting Worldedixor to acknowledge that the article had to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. It is difficult to work alongside someone who objects to the removal of unsourced trivia about the name of Aida Nikolaychuk's dog, and the name of a friend (with no indication of why this friend was even of any significance). [11] And then there is the matter of Worldedixor contacting (or claiming to contact) the subject of the article. [12] (That particular diatribe was the result of me asking Worldedixor where s/he was getting information from [13]). I for one don't think Wikipedia contributors should be contacting article subjects - particularly contributors who seem entirely oblivious to the basics of how Wikipedia works. Right from the start, Worldedixor seemed to want to ignore policy and fill the article with unsourced fluff - apparently expecting hypothetical 'fans of Nikolaychuk' to do all the donkey-work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (Non-administrator comment) Worldedixor, please see AndyTheGrump's recent edit history, then see WP:NOPUNISH. AndyTheGrump, please try to work things out here, or else one or more of the administrators here may block you. Best regards, Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 01:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you Epicgenius for giving such a threat and an evidence of all that I stated above. This notice is about much more than one edit dispute. It is about indecent conduct and much more. I refer you to my original statement to read carefully. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut to the chase:

  • Oppose - and suggest that the editor Worldedixor be blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, double the length of the block from the 24th that appears to not to have done the trick of preventing further disruptive behavior. I don't know if DR/N will accept this. Certainly not while this thread is open.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I respect "your support of Andy". However, please respect my wish delineated in my original statement to eliminate conflict of interest. Thank you for your cooperation. Worldedixor (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"Conflict of interest"????? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do we really have to vote on this (sigh)? I recommend closing this topic with no action against anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Comment: Not something that the admins have to vote on (the one vote here is opposing the move (I mean the action (nobody seems to care anyway))). Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, Bb23 we don't have to....if you feel there is no need and wish to close this thread now, I will not object.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yikes, Worldedixor has been editing since 2006, yet they feel that the OP is somehow helpful, and they think Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk#Voting on the inclusion of the name of Aida's son in the article is reasonable. Andy's initial comment (in full) was: 'See WP:NOTVOTE. Content issues are decided in reference to policy, and after discussion. And no, Wikipedia is not governed by "case law" or precedent.' As normal, let's again thank Andy while asking that he bang his head on the desk rather than publicly flame out. @Worldedixor: Wikipedia is a project to develop an enccyclopedia based on certain standard procedures—please listen to editors like Andy when they explain those procedures, and ignore them when they flame out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you Johnuniq for making an effort to "show non-bias to Andy". I listened carefully to your respectful advice and will assume it was made in good faith, but I will refer you to my original statement. Have a blessed day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, close this complaint. And maybe, despite his long tenure at WP, it's time for Worldedixor to get a mentor. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems to be one of those cases that requires an admin to either take action or simply close as no action needed. I feel there is enough evidence that Worldedixor has continued disruptive behavior to boomerang for their own disruptive behavior coming off a requested unblock. It might appear to some that the unblock, while seemingly the right move from the fair minded unblock request was, in fact, too soon. Perhaps Liz is correct and a mentorship requirement instead of another block will do.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 26 October 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.

UPDATE: After admin Drmies closed the thread admin Mr. Stradivarius warned Andy that if he makes similar comments again he will be blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

An IP edit-warring over copyright material[edit] (talk · contribs) is edit-warring over copyrighted material. He has already been warned ([14]). On the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story article, the user is copying and pasting content from Let alone the fact that the website completely unreliable and is nothing but a blog, the user continues to edit war over the subject material ([15][16][17][18]). Something must be done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I left him the clearest possible warning about the copyrighted material, and will block him for a long time if he does it again. No comment on the other issues. I assume that there are arbcom sanctions somewhere he can be slapped with if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thank you. He hasn't been warned for ARBCOM sanctions yet. Would you want to just add that to the warning you've already given him? Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with Arbcom sanctions, and wouldn't even know how to warn him. I try to avoid arbcom wherever possible. Sorry. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: That's fine thank you. I'll keep you updated if he reverts on that page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot III[edit]

Being handled off-board on Σ's talk page. --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 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.

Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is malfunctioning, see edits to User talk:Quadell for an example. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmph, you should ping the operator, not the bot. I have responded at my talk page. Σσς(Sigma) 03:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Can this be handled off-board? --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Σσς(Sigma) 19:31, 26 October 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 seems gone; would've likely ended up blocked even if he stayed. I also undid the RevDeletion of his userpage revisions, as per the concerns raised by a few admins that it was not needed in this case. I'm sure we've all been called much worse. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:22, 27 October 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.

If I will be blocked for racism\vandalism\reason will my article be killed or they will stay in Wiki?--N94228 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If the article contains racism or vandalism, it's possible it will be deleted if it can't be salvaged. Liz Read! Talk! 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you!--N94228 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If you are referring to Dina Rubina, the article will be deleted if it does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, which means having received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. There is no point in you repeatedly deleting the maintenance templates without addressing the problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the article will not be deleted. You revert my good edits just because she is a Russian writer who wrote tens of books. You must be blocked for vandalism--N94228 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It is not vandalism to add maintenance tags to an article—especially adding the {{Unreferenced}} tag to an article lacking independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I thought vandalism was any edit in which another user disagrees with. --MuZemike 18:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • So I am leaving Wikipedia. Thats not OK when me make new articles and some miserable nonames demand the notability of great people to be proven to them. Go, delete all articles.--N94228 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be much simpler to just add some reliable secondary sources to the article. The only secondary source currently cited is IMDB, and that's generally viewed as of limited reliability. Has she not been written about in any magazines or news articles? —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Damn it! How come I never get here in time to see the really juicy edit summaries before they're rev-deleted? EEng (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You simply must keep an eye on your watchlist 24/7/365, EEng. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
EEng, it's not really all that juicy, and I'm a bit surprised that the edit summary was revdeled; I've seen much more offensive edit summaries which have been either ignored or actually restored. You're not missing anything interesting. Horologium (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Ooooh! Can you give me some diffs for these really offensive edit summaries? C'mon, I wanna see 'em! EEng (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There was no need to suppress that edit summary in any manner ... it was a very general statement about the marital status of the parents of all the male editors of Wikipedia. Nothing that John Snow would have been particularly ashamed of ES&L 09:19, 27 October 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.

Disruptive Editing[edit]

Nothing to do here. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 26 October 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.

The user TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) again and again removing the sources on Do Dil Bandhe Ek Dori Se TV show article, and Also the removed cast Table without any reason. See the diff, and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanderforyou (talkcontribs) 14:47, 26 October 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Looks to me as though they were fixing unsourced information and poor spelling and grammar, removing bare URLs, and generally tidying up the article. Also, this is a noticeboard for reporting incidents that require the intervention of administrators, and is not for the discussion of content disputes. Closing. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 26 October 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.

Chelsea Manning[edit]

Heading this off at the pass. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This has already been taken all the way to ARBCOM. If you want to discuss changing the name of the article (again), you might want to start by reading what has gone before - and discussion starts on the article talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 27 October 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.

The politics used on this page are absurd. After Manning declared, after his convictions, that he "feel a woman", someone of the LGBT project changed ALL the pronouns in the bio and the title from Bradley (everyone knows him as Bradley, a foreign user search Bradley) into Chelsea Elizabeth only because he stated he wants to be called Chelsea Elizabeth. Eventually, you can use the female pronouns for events AFTER these declarations, not for the whole event for that he was male and named Bradley. The voice should be titled Bradley Manning. Some foreign users searching Wikileaks issues were very embarrassed when they saw this page, and had difficulties to find it. This is the most irrational thing I saw on Wikipedia, honestly. It create a lot of totally useless confusion. Thank you. Lenore (talk) 22:23, 26 October 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.

Uranium is swine piss[edit]

All is well. m.o.p 14:47, 28 October 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.

The featured article Uranium has had a sentence for a few hours now about getting the stuff from Walmart and it being swine piss. I tried reporting this at the vandalism noticeboard but was reverted (and then AN main is semiprotected). Request to spank whoever typed that into the FA. (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you're talking about was removed ten or so hours ago. Thanks for the effort, though! m.o.p 14:47, 28 October 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.

BLP vio article moves[edit]

I've deleted the redirects left behind, and asked the user not to do this again. Fences&Windows 01:04, 28 October 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've moved this section from the WP:AN section of the same name, since it's really an incident. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC) I don't know what is going on here but following recent activity at it seems a once-decent editor has gone off the deep end. Can someone have a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Two suggestion K. First, this belong on AN/I not here. Second, it would be helpful if you could give some examples (with links) of what you feel is wrong with the edits. Admins can be busy in a number of areas while onwiki. They may be more receptive to your complaint if you take the time to provided evidence of your concerns. The second item is just a suggestion and you are free to proceed as you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 18:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the end of what I've copied from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they were playing around with page moves, e.g. Laura James -- but they put it back when they were done. It's preferred editors noticing non-urgent weirdness discuss on the other editor's talk page before bringing to noticeboards. NE Ent 21:57, 27 October 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.

Trolling/stalking by User:Worldedixor[edit]

Worldedixor has been blocked for a week by Bbb23, and the most offensive comments he made have been revdel'd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 27 October 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.

Evidently Worldedixor has failed to take comments in the two recent ANI threads in which he was involved to heart. [19][20] This contributor has just posted at my user page, accusing me of 'vandalism': 'Do not remove FACTS when you are this uninformed. I will not report you this time, but consider this as a warning. Whenever you are this uninformed on world affairs and on "factual" content in the future, leave the "factual" content in place and ask for citations in accordance with policy'. As the edit in question < link removed - I've now asked for it to be revdel'd > consisted in its entirety of nothing more than a revert of an unsourced statement about the proportion of the population of South Sudan that was estimated to be Christian - with a request that the source of the estimate be provided - there is no possible way that this can be interpreted as 'vandalism', and it can thus only reasonably be assumed that either (despite editing Wikipedia since 2006) Worldedixor does not understand what constitutes vandalism in Wikipedia's terms (or anyone else's I'd suggest), or more likely, that Worldedixor is being intentionally provocative. I note also that Worldedixor has chosen to repeatedly violate Wikipedia talk page policy on User talk:Worldedixor by accusing me of "violence" (over the internet?) comparing me to "Pablo Escobar" and the Cosa Nostra, and accusing unnamed others of involvement in "evil deeds by a corrupt council of politicians". [21]. I see no reason why I should have to put up with this nonsense - and I certainly see no reason why Worldedixor should be permitted to abuse Wikipedia facilities to cast aspersions on all and sundry. Frankly, I see little evidence that Worldedixor has ever been a particularly useful contributor, but if we can't block him/her entirely, I'd suggest that at minimum a formal ban on any further comments about my behaviour would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at Worldedixor's talk page again, I see that I'd missed the most offensive remark. Since I have no wish to repeat it here, can I ask that it be revdel'd and Worldedixor be immediately and indefinitely blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently (having asked via IRC) there apparently aren't grounds for a revdel - but I was advised that the offending material should be redacted, and have done so accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree - I feel the comments in this diff qualify for RD2, and I have revdel'd the text accordingly. I have no further opinion on this matter. —Darkwind (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe those comments meet RD2, but there's no point in reversing the action. Simple redaction should be sufficient next time. m.o.p 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This about an edit on South Sudan. This is neither trolling nor stalking. Bringing up my "opinion" on MY talk page and my "1 one 1" questions on policy, is just a smoke screen to prevent me from editing. My Troll/stalker and violent abuser (proven with strong and convincing evidence that he flagrantly violated WP:NPA by treating me like a street person and saying: "I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you..." is the uninformed editor who remove "factual content" from South Sudan and this was ONE of his MANY edits. There is no stalking. I simply reverted his uninformed edit of world affairs and supported my action with two reliable sources, as per WP policy, then left him message advising him that I reverted my edit. This is neither trolling nor stalking. Worldedixor (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Isn't AndyTheGrump accusing me of stalking him and being "intentionally provocative" when I simply reversed ONE of his MANY edits and advised him of my action like Don King telling me I have a bad hair day?... Worldedixor (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
When you incorrectly apply "vandalism" to an edit, Worldedixor, it becomes more than a simple reversal. It's surprising that someone with your tenure does not recognize the significance. Tiderolls 23:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have only a little idea of what has gone on before, but clearly with both parties being mentioned at ANI over the past couple of days, the simplest, easiest course of action would be for both parties to generally steer clear of each other and try not to revert each other (and if that's absolutely unavoidable, simple, neutral edit summaries should be used, so as to not antagonise the other party). That way nobody needs to be blocked, and everybody else can edit without this odd little fight going on in the background. Nick (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Bbb23 has blocked Worldedixor. m.o.p 23:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked Worldedixor for one week. The editor has been on a crusade against Andy and against Wikipedia and simply won't let it go. He should have known better than to post at Andy's talk page. He copied the entire previous closed ANI discussion to his talk page so he could rail against it. I don't agree that his inflammatory comments on his talk page needed to be deleted (they also appear in slightly different form on another editor's talk page), but they were certainly obnoxious. I also don't think that Andy's ill-advised comment (for which he was formally warned by an administrator) much earlier in this debacle (quoted again above) is grounds for Worldedixor's crusade.

If another administrator wants to change the block in any way (unblock, reduce, increase), they don't need to ask my permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 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.

Matthew Bryden[edit]

No consensus to impose any sanctions on any editor or article. The inactivity which occurred on this discussion suggests to me that there not the level of consensus I'd like to see before imposing a ban of any sort. Plus it's been nearly two months and nothing terrible has happened by no bans being imposed. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:28, 13 December 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.

A little concerned about the activity on this article and whether it is fair to the article-subject. User:Keithbob and I seem to be on the same page - the article is over-editorialized and relies heavily on a single author, Robert Young, as a source. That author writes in an op-ed style and his depiction of events conflicts substantially with other sources. WP:BLP is relevant. User:Middayexpress feels the article should be negative and has argued in favor of using primary sources as proper material for contentious material about a BLP.

Keithbob and I have been accused of secretly being paid editors for Bell Pottinger and despite two BLP posts, 1 COIN post, and miles of Talk page discussion, there hasn't really been much progress. Not sure what better way to resolve the issue than post here in hopes that there will be more engagement. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Aaaaaargh. This is a complicated matter that could do with a set of fresh eyes. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Quite misleading. The matter actually began when a self-admitted Bell Pottinger public relations employee and representative for Matthew Bryden, one HOgilvy, sought to clean up Bryden's wikipedia page on his client's behalf (c.f. [22]). Bryden is a controversial figure who was dismissed last year from the UN for poor performance as the UN's Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, a regional watchdog panel (c.f [23]). With this mandate, Bryden's Wikipedia PR representative contacted the CorporateM account above, who then proceeded to ping his wiki friends and basically tried to remove anything critical of Bryden. That includes everything from the fact that Bryden was fired to his previous place of residence according to his own alma mater. It later came to light almost by accident that CorporateM is himself a PR representative, a fact which he never bothered revealing on the article's talk page. However, on his own user page, CorporateM did express his position on conflict of interest as follows: [24]: "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." This is in direct opposition to WP:COI's instruction that "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first." This past week, CorporateM deleted this surprising Position on COI revelation from his user page [25], though it is of course still stored in the page history. So basically, we have a situation where at least one PR representative was "helping" another PR representative clean up his client's wikipedia bio page, all the while believing that "we serve our client's interests exclusively". What's best for Wikipedia is instead apparently "unethical". Middayexpress (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User: CorporateM has publicly divulged their status as a PR rep in several forums and on several articles going back several months. He/she does not edit in areas where he/she is representing a client. He/she does edit other articles on WP where he/she is not representing a client and makes good faith additions to the further develop the project as a whole including commenting at RfC's and policy discussion and improving content on WP articles like Matthew Bryden. I encourage any editor or Admin to scan the talk pages and decide for themselves which editor is pushing a point of view here. In particular this discussion where several uninvolved editors commented and criticized the use of editorials, self published and primary sources being used to malign the subject. Despite that consensus, it took a month and a thousand words of talk page discussion to remove them because of Middayexpress' continued--I didn't hear that--objections. Now, Middayexpress' last ditch effort is to make a personal attack on CorporateM (unfounded accusations with no diffs are personal attacks) and using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute which is a violation of the WP:COI guideline.--KeithbobTalk 18:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)--KeithbobTalk 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that Keithbob is one of CorporateM's aforementioned wiki friends that he pinged for support ("I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" [26]). They've basically been attempting to remove all critical material on Bryden, typically on the weakest of pretexts. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
So, you're arguing against Editors who know each other from their time on Wikipedia collaborating together? Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying the pinging in this instance is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think Middayexpress is saying these editors are proxying for each other (i.e. not using independent judgment) in order to work around the formal restrictions of WP:COI best practices, possibly in some sort of quid pro quo arrangement. E.g. you make my proposed edits and I make yours, and we each claim we have no COI for the changes we're making. Is that correct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the Bell Pottinger editor posted at COIN and User:Jreferee asked me to chip in on a volunteer basis. These kinds of personal attacks and conspiracy theories are standard fair for this article unfortunately... CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The quotes and difs above speak for themselves; no personal attacks necessary. As for the Bell Pottinger public relations representative, he indeed posted at COIN, and I linked to the very post where he said that he would do that. He also posted on CorporateM's talk page and repeatedly, typically requesting (and more often than not receiving) direct assistance. This was also not the first time that the account contacted CorporateM. They were apparently already acquainted before this affair [27]. Missed that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Unless I'm way off-track, CorporateM's admitted behavior is a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT, not to mention WP:COI; his/her statement that he/she serves only the client's interests and not Wikipedia's interests is clear evidence of WP:NOTHERE, and the decision to remove his/her COI disclosure is inexcusable. It's a pattern of terrible abuse of editing privileges, and harsh sanctions are appropriate IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll also note that both CorporateM and KeithBob have exhibited extremely precocious editing skills for having only created their accounts in the last few weeks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC) stricken per apology previously made and deleted by another editor in good faith

  • Fleischman, what? CorporateM and Keithbob have been here for forever. And CorporateM's statement, cited above, is interpreted in a completely incorrect manner. Midday, I just reread your comments. You're stooping pretty low there. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not exactly my fault since much of what I posted are CorporateM's own comments. I couldn't make that up if I tried. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What on earth are you talking about, Dr. Fleischman? Both those editors have been around for years. If you're going to snipe at people, at least try to keep it plausible even if not true. The same goes for the MEAT / COI / CANVAS / NOTHERE alphabet soup. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I've been here about 3-5 years now and have 16,000 edits and 13 GAs to my name. Also, it has been confirmed many-a-times when POV pushers attempt to use my COI disclosure as leverage that I may edit articles where I have no COI just like any volunteer. Midday's links and post show the type of extreme personal attacks and POV pushing we have come to expect. For example, I completely re-wrote my user-page, cut it in half, and he has selected a specific edit to make it seem like something nefarious is going on. It's just trolling and resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories in order to do whatever it takes to make sure the article reflects his point-of-view, rather than a neutral point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all of the most telling difs and quotes in my post above are to CorporateM's own remarks. That includes his own longstanding Position on COI. It's unreasonable to expect people to turn a blind eye to this surprising revelation just because he deleted it a few days before posting here. That's actually all the more reason to notice it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Beginning at the middle of the Matthew Bryden article,[28] it loses its focus of being a written account of Bryden and instead serves as a coatrack for the opinions of a variety of people, none of whom are Bryden. The article reads "According to author Michelle Shephard," "According to journalist Robert Young Pelton," "Puntland President Abdirahman Farole suggested that Bryden was," "Ahmed spent 30 minutes of a July speech criticizing Bryden,". None of these people qualify as experts on Matthew Bryden or qualify as experts on written accounts of another person's life. Their views belong in their own Wikipedia article or in an article on United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia, but not in the Matthew Bryden article. Some of source material does convey chronological life event information about Matthew Bryden, and that's fine for the biography article. However the rest needs to be removed from the article. Author Michelle Shephard ebook has a quote from Bryden,[29] and an independent third party source republishing a Bryden quote could make that Bryden quote fair game for the Bryden biography article. Instead, Shephard's view of what that means is added to the Bryden article. That is not how source material should be used to develop a biography. As for COI, CorporateM sates he does not have a COI with the Matthew Bryden topic and no one has posted and diffs that establish otherwise. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
BLP indicates that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." That said, Farole and Ahmed are quoted because Bryden and his Monitoring Group accused them of wrongdoing, so their replies are appended for balance. Shephard is also a secondary source relaying Bryden's views on a political issue related to his previous position at the Monitoring Group. If you look at the Wikipedia bios of other controversial figures, they follow a similar model but are often way more critical (e.g. Avigdor Lieberman). This bio is actually pretty tame in comparison. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I would support removing all of it as an interim solution, and re-introducing content there is consensus for. But some of that really does belong. CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of it belongs, including a lot of material that was removed for no legitimate reason. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
In earlier discussions I supported including some of the material that Midday sought to keep, though not all of it. I can't remember if any of those items are mentioned above; it's on the record though. But in general I note three tendencies: that other editor (forget their name--it's on record too) was a bit too positive on the subject, Midday was much too negative and included material that IMO was unacceptable, and Corporate sailed mostly down the middle, though I did not agree with every one of their exclusions. But to my mind Corporate Minion was the most neutral of them all. Then again, this has been hammered out on the talk page and, I believe, on the BLPN board and possibly on a few user talk pages; for my money, I'd give Bobrayner free rein and let them have at it (Dr. Fleischman, we await your apology: sooner is always better than later). Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Everything I posted on Bryden is factual. But as I've learned, it's those facts themselves that are more often than not inconvenient. By contrast, the majority of CorporateM's edits were in agreement with his fellow public relations representative HOgilvy. There was very little divergence in opinion between the two. In hindsight, it's difficult to see how there could be since CorporateM apparently believes a PR rep's duty is to exclusively serve the interests of his/her client rather than Wikipedia's interests (his words). At any rate, I would like to find a middle ground with the PR reps/friends, but this will take some doing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your astute comments and observations. If you've visited the article talk page you will also notice that CorporateM has demonstrated an immense amount of patience on the talk page for months (and myself to a lesser degree). The article was highlighted at BLPN twice and outside eyes have come in but Midday seems to have an aversion to consensus and when CM and I walk away he skews the article again. So while I do support an uninvolved editor like User:Bobrayner making deletions as needed to create NPOV for the article I would also appreciate if some other folks could keep it on their watchlist as I think Corporate and I are pretty worn out from months of copious talk page activity with Midday. User Midday is a prolific editor who I'm sure has made many valuable contributions to the project. I hope that he/she is able to step back and reconsider their approach to the Matthew Bryden BLP and move on to other more productive activities. Thanks to all who have given input here. Cheers!--KeithbobTalk 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Patience obviously works both ways. On the other hand, pinging one's friends for support does not at all constitute outside involvement. Quite the opposite. The solution here is genuine outside involvement by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to prejudice or otherwise influence his/her actions. For this same reason, the editor(s) also cannot himself/herself be a public relations/media representative. Middayexpress (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would you think that just because someone is pinged by Corporate (or anyone else) they're automatically their "friend" and thus, as you suggest, incapable if independent judgment? The instances where I agree with you and disagreed with them is sufficient evidence of the falsehood of this premise. I like to think that Corporate pinged me for my extensive knowledge and impeccable judgment. As for "genuine outside involvement"--you have been editing articles in that (geographic) area for years, and by your own argument you could be discredited for having a COI; from the discussions it's clear that you also don't come to the negotiation table without prejudice. As far as I'm concerned that does not discredit you anymore than it does me and, I might add, before you know it (extending your argument not by much) any kind of involvement is suspicious and WP should only be edited by 12-year olds who know nothing about nothing, who couldn't point out Mogadishu on a map if it bit them in the ass, in the name of impartiality.

Of course a PR rep's edit should be scrutinized carefully, as was done in this case by all parties, including Corporate--and I challenge you to find a PR person more transparent than Corporate (never mind the fact that he is not on anyone's payroll in this particular case, as far as I know) in their dealings with companies/articles/organizations where they might have a genuine COI. Besides, it's unlikely that four editors (counting myself) would all have the same damning POV in a case like this, which I think is another of your suggestions. I stand completely neutral towards the subject of this article, and my POV is NPOV. That doesn't make me right in individual editorial decisions, but whether they're made correctly or incorrectly, they're editorial decisions, unguided by any kind of partiality toward the involved governments, journalists, publications, freedom fighters, weapons dealers, non-governmental organizations, and Wikipedia editors. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's bizarre to me to keep reading that you somehow think that "pinging one's friends for support" is a bad thing. It's called collaboration and as long as one isn't canvassing Editors to come participate in a deletion decision, RfA or contentious discussion, it is a good practice that happens all over Wikipedia every day, often organized through WikiProjects or more informally. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS, there's an appropriate notification protocol to follow when seeking additional input. Pinging random friends -- which CorporateM certainly did; every editor he pinged was a prior amicable acquiantance of his, with no connection to the topic other than that (one actually gave him an award of some kind [30]) -- is an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). WP:COI is also quite clear that "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". It's in the first paragraph and bolded for emphasis. This is in direct conflict with CorporateM's apparent general position on COI [31]: "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." At any rate, given the foregoing, the only conceivable solution is genuine outside involvement i.e. by an editor(s) who has had no prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions. This should be an acceptable compromise for all parties interested in a neutral page. Middayexpress (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you're wikilawyering, clutching at every straw because consensus might be against what it is that you want the article to present. One could read your commentary and opinions there as evidence of extreme bias against the subject of the article; your insistence on unreliable sources to make the article state that the subject was fired from that UN group could, hypothetically, serve as evidence. Mind you, that's based on actual things you said. HOgilvy clearly had a certain interest in the article, and so, I surmise, do you: HOgilvy in favor, you against. Corporate, Keithbob, me, Bobrayner, we are not (AFAIK) interested in the subject as such. And might I reiterate, for the now-bored onlooker, that Corporate got involved with this to prevent COI editing? This article, Middayexpress, is better off without you.

If anyone still cares, the general pattern displayed in this thread is evident on the talk page as well. Midday was at pains to get an editorial from an online organization accepted as a reliable source; Corporate points out (in Talk:Matthew_Bryden#Hiiran_Online_.26_other_op-eds) that Hiriian Online is not a reliable source. Look at the paragraph starting "Here we go", where Corporate makes a pretty convincing case that the website is run by a lobbying group. Midday's response? "Policies and guidelines come up in many Wikipedia discussions..." followed by a complete avoidance of the issue. This is why Midday's contributions here are ultimately useless and their behavior frustrating. They bring sources and context, which is helpful, and refuse to back off even after everyone else (that is, four editors, not counting HOgilvy of course--note Lexein's contributions) disagrees with them. And now this interminable thread, full of wishy-washy nonsense about suspected involvement when there is not a shred of evidence of foul play on Corporate's side, again halting progress on the article: I propose a topic ban for this article for MiddayExpress. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the editors named above are CorporateM's wiki friends who he pinged for input. They are certainly not outside editors in this particular instance, and have no connection with the topic other than that shared friendship. So the fact that they see eye-to-eye on pretty much everything isn't exactly unexpected. This is the definition of inappropriate notification, as the WP:COI links and quote above show. If I were to have done the same (as I easily could've, btw), CorporateM et al. would surely in turn have complained about it. This is almost certain since, rather ironically, he already complained that my contacting another editor who by contrast had already edited the page would constitute canvassing [32]. At any rate, my interest in the article is as a WikiProject Somalia member, which this bio on the former UN Coordinator of the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group certainly falls under. It's in this capacity that I edited the page, just like any other Project page. What first caught my attention was some editor (CorporateM) removing huge swathes of material from the bio with no prior talk page explanation or discussion. I did notice, though, one post by another account (HOgilvy) requesting a cleanup of some sort [33]. This account described himself as as a Bell Pottinger public relations representative and said that Bryden was his client. We already had problems in the past on other Project pages with Bell Pottinger PR reps, so that disclosure certainly caught my eye as well. I assumed that there was some sort of connection between the edits, which was confirmed when CorporateM linked me to a COIN discussion that HOgilvy had posted where he requested assistance. Since then, what I've been trying to do is retain some sort of balance on the article. This has been a challenge when CorporateM et al. seem to be believe that any material critical of Bryden is unacceptable, not just the Hiiraan Online piece (see here for a discussion of that source in its proper context). However, Bryden is a controversial figure on the Horn of Africa political scene, so some degree of criticism is to be expected. Attempting to ban me or any other editor from the topic is not a solution, as all that does is remove any semblance of balance from the page. The only neutral solution is what Keithbob proposed above i.e. entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party. My one condition is that this editor(s) should not have had any prior contact or dealings with any of the involved parties since that might serve to influence his/her actions. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I think any objective observer who looks at the talk page discussions will see your comments for what they're worth; at the very least, they'll see that you are incorrect in your easy claim that everyone pinged saw eye to eye with Corporate. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Of the topic-ban per user:Drmies. A couple clarifications are in order though. The problem with the sources were that they were op-eds written by opposing political interests, not that they were published by Hiiran online, which may be a reliable source in other cases. And the UN DID fire Bryden, or at the very least they claim to have. If a new editor not previously involved (User:bobrayner was mentioned a couple times) wants to take a crack at it, I wouldn't mind abstaining as well for the sake of keeping the peace. CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
See above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The only source for the firing is a report by the Inner City Press--and I assume that this document, a primary source which does nothing more than list the next members of the UN Monitoring Group and says nothing about Bryden, is still in the article at Midday's insistence. Thanks for the other clarification as well. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • A reasonable point of discussion between civil and thoughtful editors. IMO, Inner City Press does seem like it may be a bit of an advocacy-type source. You know, one of those, "we uncover the truth not covered by mainstream media" types. And employers will often claim they did the firing while employees have a different POV. In this case in particular there is a political backdrop that makes it more complicated as well. I think Inner City Press may be acceptable to use, as long as it's done with caution. But that is a discussion best left for another time, after an environment is created where a thoughtful and civil discussion can occur. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Inner City Press is an accredited media agency at the UN headquarters, the Federal Reserve and various other agencies [34]. This is why its byline location is signed "United Nations", and how it managed to report on Bryden's dismissal as it was happening [35], [36]. This as well is explained on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The reasoning given here by DrFleischman and others to suggest CorporateM is meating brins up an interesting hypothetical. Suppose I edit a certain article and think a section needs to be rewritten. Another user who also edits the article thinks the same. By the explanation given by some, I am violating WP:MEAT. KonveyorBelt 04:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Not at all, at least in my mind. My understanding is that CorporateM and KeithBob were proxying for each other rather than exercising independent judgment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The solution seems to be to entrust the page to an uninvolved editor(s) with no prior association with any of the involved parties. This uninvolved editor(s) would then gradually edit the page, explaining each edit on the talk page as he/she went along. The editor(s) would also consider/hear the feedback of the erstwhile involved parties. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The above discussion focuses on the content dispute, rather than the conduct dispute, and misses the bigger point. CorporateM has admitted (here for example) he/she frequently edits as a paid advocate, he/she serves his/her client's interests exclusively (see here) in direct violation of WP:COI's prime directive. (bolded in first para: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") My understanding is that Middayexpress has accused CorporateM and KeithBob of proxying for each other, and those accusations should be taken seriously in light of these COI issues. Regardless, even if they're incorrect, by his/her own admissions CorporateM has committed gross violations of WP:COI and should be sanctioned accordingly. Let's not get bogged down in the content dispute; that's what DR is for. As for the proposal to topic ban Middayexpress, I make the (very reasonable) request that WP policy be cited and discussed before sanctions are imposed simply for slowing down "progress" on an article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM's userpage doesn't quite say that. Cherrypicking a diff and then misrepresenting it as a violation of a guideline (not a policy) in order to call for sanctions is a Bad Thing. And then you go on to ask for a policy basis for topic-banning Middayexpress? That's an impressive feat of doublethink. You're really not helping your case here; if you think the facts support your way forward, bring some actual facts - or step aside. We have enough drama already, we don't need people making up more. bobrayner (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with my so-called cherry picking? Is anyone even going to address Middayexpress's allegations, or are we choosing to sweep them under the rug? And I thought WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE were frequently cited in support of sanctions? And, again, what did Middayexpress do wrong? I'm not saying he/she did nothing wrong, just that as a general practice it would be a good and reasonable thing to identify what rule was violated before sanctions are imposed. What am I missing here? (P.S. There's no reason for me to "step aside" when I have no dog in this fight and I'm not an administrator.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
With respect, that is not what I'm arguing. Please see below for that and the way forward from here. Middayexpress (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering this discussion is going to get archived soon, can we refocus on finding resolution? Someone should suggest a course of action, such as a topic ban, article-protection, mediation, whatever in a new sub-section, for voting and consensus so the issue can get fixed. It's not as if all this back and forth sniping is productive - and I am concerned it will get archived without any meaningful solution, as has already occurred in the past at BLP and COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Entrusting the article to an uninvolved third party has already been proposed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman: The issue is essentially a content dispute, which unfortunately seems to have gotten out of hand. It makes little outward sense when you consider the fact that although CorporateM has admitted to being a paid public relations representative, he insists that Bryden is not his client. CorporateM is also not a WikiProject Somalia or WikiProject Eritrea member. In other words, he has no declared connection to the topic. His stated reason for editing the page is that he was pinged to do so at COIN [37]. Besides CorporateM's stated Position on COI, what makes the situation especially awkward is that HOgilvy is himself a paid PR rep and specifically for Bryden. HOgilvy and CorporateM also apparently previously worked on something else together [38]. So although CorporateM in this instance appears to have volunteered his services, he was hardly a neutral volunteer to begin with. Given the foregoing, the simplest solution to the impasse would be to entrust editing of the page to a neutral third party i.e. to a genuinely uninvolved editor(s), with no prior association with any of the involved parties that might influence his/her actions. He/she would then follow the protocol suggested above at 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)It sounds like there may be some common ground here, but I'm no less troubled than before by your allegations. Drmies et al: I understand this is a nasty can of worms, but it represents a potentially pervasive practice of end-running around the formalities of WP:COI that, IMO, could damage WP and its credibility in the long run. If the allegations are true, then that has troubling ramifications not just on the accused editors but on the whole community, particularly in light of the recent related media stories about paid editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Would this by any chance be one of the paid editing stories in question? I actually dealt directly with the "Biggleswiki" Bell Pottinger public relations representative that is profiled in that piece, and on the very Dahabshiil wiki page that is also mentioned therein (another WikiProject Somalia page, incidentally). Hence, my preference for entrusting the Bryden page to uninvolved volunteer editors. Middayexpress (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress, I appreciate your comments. DrFleischman, there is no reason to presume that just because Corp has a fully disclosed COI in one area or another, they should have some kind of blatant COI here--that doesn't make him necessarily neutral, but that's another matter. I think that three editors have said that by now; time to listen--you can't prove that Corp has a COI here just because they say they have one somewhere else. Frankly, your claim is a bit irritating, and I think you're in a hole and should stop digging. (For instance, I think you're inflating Midday's "allegations" in order to save your first unfortunate remark here.) Let me reiterate what I indicated before: I think Midday, Corp, etc. are in principle perfectly fine as editors for this article--the case for HOgilvy is obviously different. My beef is with Midday's behavior in the discussion, which I consider to be less than helpful, but I am not claiming they should be topic-banned because they have a COI or are incapable of editing neutrally, not at all. And, again reiterating, I do not agree with how Midday seems to define "uninvolved", but that's a matter of judgment. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
True, I don't see any direct evidence of a COI, but based on Middayexpress's allegations one wouldn't expect to find any. There would be circumstantial evidence in the form of communications between and among the conspiring parties, which is what Middayexpress may have been pointing to. I agree that these communications viewed in isolation aren't a problem (and in hindsight, they might not constitute improper canvassing) but are they signs of a larger, very bad pattern? We don't know because no one cares to take the allegations seriously. I find it alarming that CorporateM's actions would receive zero scrutiny (as far as I can tell) when he/she has stated that he/she regularly edits in a paid capacity while representing his/her clients' interests exclusively and at the expense of the project. Does CorporateM get a free pass because of his/her lengthy editing history and friendly manner? Don't mind me, I'm just the canary in the coal mine. Nothing to see here. This will be my last comment in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that would be the most obvious example of a straw man - putting words in my mouth like "at the expense of the project". When in actuality, my words are more like[39] "It is in the client's best interest I think. The best way to ensure the durability of the content and deflect COI criticisms is to simply make sure the content itself is exceptional" regarding bringing my COI works up to Good Article status. COI has almost nothing to do with this article whatsoever, except that a PR rep brought the article to the community's attention by asking us to add more primary sources. My response instead was to delete most of the article, which relied heavily on junk sources. The COI and canvassing accusations are just the actions of an editor frustrated that consensus is not in their favor and determined to make the article reflect their point-of-view by resorting to personal attacks and conspiracy theories. Midday is the one violating WP:COI by making unfounded COI accusations in an attempt to win an argument.
In any case, this string has now become sufficiently long and convoluted enough, full of personal attacks and a pouncing comment from Midday on every editor with input, it's becoming increasingly unlikely anyone will bother to read the entire string or care to get involved. Who would volunteer to dive head-first into so much drama? CorporateM (Talk) 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfounded accusations? Your user page of longstanding stated that you are a paid editor and that your Position on COI is that "if a PR person served Wikipedia's interests and their client's simultaneously, this would be a conflict of interest and would be unethical[..] we serve our client's interests exclusively." Those are your own words, not mine. Pinging other users with no connection to the topic at hand is also an example of inappropriate notification ("Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"). And please don't argue that you didn't ping them cause you did, and you said that you would too (viz. "I thought it would be better to just start a fresh string I can link to and ping a few editors so we can get additional input" [40]; "I've attempted to summarize the issues here and asked Drmies to get involved so we could have more than two editors and maybe figure things out" [41]). These are your own words and actions, so be sure to assume responsiblity for them. Middayexpress (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Per the discussion above, I suggest voluntary topic bans for Midday and myself, from article-space and Talk-space, while a new, previously uninvolved editor(s) from this board boldly make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: As nominator. Plenty of other articles for us to work on and no reason to feed the drama on this one. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: I would support the proposal above for voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it: a) applies to all the involved parties equally, b) is temporary/lasts until the issue is resolved, c) the uninvolved editor(s) has had no previous dealings with any of the involved parties, as that might serve to influence his/her actions, d) the uninvolved editor(s) for the same reason must be a volunteer and not a paid editor. Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
    • But that would disqualify all other editors mentioned here, no? (Including me, I suppose.) Then who's left who cares? Or, I don't see why bobrayner and Keithbob and Lexein and perhaps others should be excluded just because the two main parties are recused. I'll gladly recuse myself, since I have little interest in this biography, and I am sure you don't want me editing that article, but I see no grounds to disqualify the others--except, again, for HOgilvy who, setting aside the presumption of good faith I usually have, should probably not be editing this article. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As a Bryden official public relations representative, WP:COISELF bars HOgilvy from editing the page directly. Keithbob and Lexein were both pinged to the page by CorporateM. Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM. To ensure neutrality, the uninvolved editor(s) shouldn't have any previous associations or dealings with any of the involved parties (myself included). The Wikipedia:List of administrators seems a neutral place to select a candidate(s) from. Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not acceptable. I see no valid reason to bar those editors from editing the article. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
(Um, COI PR article editing by HOgilvy for small corrections with WP:IRS sources, and COI PR discussion on talk page for everything else, would be appropriate, IMHO). --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting, seeing as how WP:COISELF stipulates that "you should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics[...] This includes people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life[...] If you have a personal connection to a topic or a person, (such as being an employee, familial ties, or other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you really that deliberately dimwitted? I choose my words very carefully, as in "small corrections", just as allowed explicitly in WP:COI, and "discussion on talk page for everything else", just as explicitly stated in WP:COI. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Insults are uncalled for (see WP:CIV). That said, the only exception WP:COI makes in this regard is with defamation or a serious error, and even here there's a very involved administrative protocol that must concurrently be followed: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly[...] If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons." Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Your selective reading notwithstanding, I presume. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob and Lexein participated in the talk page discussion after being pinged by CorporateM. Keithbob also edited the page itself. That makes them involved editors. This proposal is for a new, previously uninvolved editor(s). Middayexpress (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Look, Middayexpress, with respect, you're really going about this all wrong. Look at my edit history. Take me to any disciplinary or sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry noticeboard you like. Not only will any kind of charge you could possibly fabricate be instantly thrown out, but you'd better be wary of WP:BOOMERANG. I'll edit any article I want, and I'll discuss on any article talk page I want, because I've never been article-banned, topic-banned, blocked, or disciplined anywhere, in seven years here. I'll delete claims sourced by unreliable or biased sources everywhere I find them, because you don't get to turn Wikipedia into your own personal attack forum. And I'll support on-policy edits by any editor I choose, based on my experience and familiarity with relevant policies, namely WP:BLP. If it takes this ANI for you to learn how to edit neutrally, so be it. Learn or be banned, that's my advice to you. Don't say I didn't warn you: I warned you directly that you really wouldn't like it if I got involved. Do you know why? Because you're wrong about nearly every claim you've made, and I'm not wrong. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Please settle down and kindly stop WP:SHOUTing. You are putting words in my mouth and answering allegations that were never even made. Everything that I actually indicated in my last comment is factual. There is a difference between appropriate notification for input and inappropriate notification; if there wasn't, the canvassing policy would serve no purpose. Pinging/contacting an editor with no connection to the topic -- other than the fact that they happen to be friends or acquaintances -- is a clear example of inappropriate notification: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive)[...] Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand[...] Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). This happens to be what CorporateM did (another e.g.: "I was even more surprised that User:Lexein or someone else didn't revert him back[...] But if nobody else does the reverting, than it is inappropriate for me to get into an edit-war just between the two of us" [42]). If I had done the same, this surely would not have been difficult to appreciate. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have frequently worked with Corporate M. When he edits for a client, he is scrupulously neutral, though his style still sometimes shows traces of his long experience in the PR industry,. He also edits more generally, andI respect his courageous willingness --especially for someone himself known for his declared COI editing-- to work in areas which have been thoroughly disrupted by others editors with a declared or undeclared COI. When he does work in these areas I trust both his objectivity and judgement, including his awareness of the problems that may be present in other people's editing. I have not myself investigated the sources in this area, but if anyone can straighten them out, he can do so, and so far from banning him from the subject, I think we should be encouraging him to take it in hand. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Not that my COI work is actually related to this article, but I am both flattered, but hesitant to accept User:DGG's compliments. Sometimes I over-compensate for my COI and other times it shows more than I think. But where I do have a COI, I lean on other editors to keep me on the straight and narrow and they rarely fail me. Since I do not have a COI here, it's a bit of an offshoot topic. If someone wants to discuss my COI work, they should start a separate string at WP:COIN. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • [Edit conflict] In addition to User:CorporateM, User:Drmies and myself, other editors like User:Lexein, User:HOgilvy and User:DGG, have been active on the talk page. Maybe they would like to comment on this situation.--KeithbobTalk 00:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Also note that concerns for this article have been posted recently at BLPN by User:Jreferee on Sept 2nd and by CorporateM on Sept 13th.--KeithbobTalk 00:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
      • None of this has anything to do with "pinging" or any sort of deliberate ganging up by experienced editors. It only has to do with awful bias by an intransigent editor, PR editing done without the cleanest possible hands, and a bunch of long time editors (including one open PR editor editing cleanly outside his PR area) stepping in to try to clean up the toxic, biased, badly sourced mess. --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it has plenty to do with pinging/inappropriate notification. Had that not happened (or had I been the one doing the pinging), the proceedings and involved parties would have been (and indeed were up to that point) very different. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep it up. I couldn't do a better job of getting you topic banned than exactly what you're doing. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Editors' only concern should be to create as reliable an encyclopedia as possible. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm That's what you're doing here? We always exclude unreliable sources and avoid bias and unbalanced and unattributed sourcing in BLP, but that's not your thing, I guess. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Good to hear. I will be sure to keep that in mind. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support voluntary topic ban by Middayexpress, voluntary article-edit ban by HOgilvy. By wanting everyone out of the pool, Middayexpress assumes bad faith, and wholeheartedly declares the pool contaminated, and so de rigeur supports reverting the article back to before the "firing" edits were added. You don't evacuate the pool and then just leave the turd floating in it. Alternatively, Middayexpress either trusts experienced editors who understand BLP and writing neutrally, or not. If so, Middayexpress will voluntarily self-topic ban. If not, then we know Middayexpress's agenda. What Middayexpress fails to understand that even the worst news can be presented neutrally, and attributed to the source, so the reader can immediately glean the apparent bias in the source. See? Done. One sentence. In my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not at all the situation or what transpired. The fact is, if I had a so-called "agenda", I wouldn't be willing to entrust the article to an uninvolved volunteer editor(s) as I've repeatedly proposed. You'll note above the link I produced pointing to the List of Wikipedia administrators... now surely there's no better place to select a genuinely neutral candidate from. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Pretend as much as you like, but noone is buying it. Your take on events is quite skewed and not at all in line with policy, guideline, or essay. Nice try. Plus, again, you fail to address your lack of comprehension of neutral writing, and fail to respect that comprehension and skill practiced by others. The fact that I object to your failures has no effect on my ability to be neutral with respect to article content, even to the extent of trivially and completely fixing all of your mistakes in one step. You continue to fail to ask for help from knowledgeable editors who really know how to accomplish neutral writing. Your inability to discuss effectively is evident from your edit count and edit history, given that only about (generously) eight percent of your edits have been performed in Talk pages. Only your voluntary withdrawal from that article, and corrective involvement directly in it by myself and other editors who have earned my respect, will save it. Your demand that anyone who has even discussed the article stop editing it is a transparent gambit, and it is in bad faith. Such a demand would, if in good faith, be accompanied by a willingness to revert to before your edits. Hence, your demand is in bad faith. Answer my question: do you want me to get involved? I haven't gotten involved in the editing of the article yet, in case you hadn't noticed. Consider your answer carefully. --Lexein (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal jabs aside, as one of the main contributors to WikiProject Somalia, I am a knowledgeable editor in my own right and have certainly helped build many a project page. That is why most of my contributions are indeed to article-space. Project members can vouch for that. As for the article in question, I never demanded that anyone who has even discussed the page stop editing it. I pointed out that the proposal CorporateM made was for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)", and I indicated that I supported a voluntary withdrawal from editing the page provided that it applied to all the involved parties equally. Anyway, that was a while ago, prior to Obiwankenobi's helpful remarks, after which I agreed to his suggestions, including recusing myself from the article-space and instead engaging in civil talk page discourse. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't say you didn't: you did. Are you really that deliberately ignorant of what you wrote? Now I dread even looking at WikiProject Somalia, given the gaming and bad faith editing and bad faith accusations you've spread around here. I abhor the now necessary task having to vet every single claim and cited source you've ever added anywhere. Just because you've gotten away with something for apparently years doesn't mean you were ever right about any of it. 80,000 edits of the low quality you performed at the BLP under dispute? Horrifying to consider. You just don't seem to get it. Stop discussing on article Talk page as long as you persist in campaigning against the letter and spirit of BLP. Article Talk is not your private learning experience zone; do that at IRC, your own Talk page, and Help. --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't know anything about me and vice versa. We only just met the other day asfaik. You are also not in a position to tell me what to do. For the rest, please see WP:CIV. Middayexpress (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress[edit]

  • Support as nominator for persistent counter-consensus editing and disruptive Talk page participation, such as abusive COI accusations, ABF, personal attacks, etc. As mentioned above, I would volunteer for an IBAN myself to reduce drama, but it doesn't seem like it would matter - being that I can't force others to volunteer for one and if we all the involved editors withdrew, there would be no one left to edit the article. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Based on this thread and my experience on the talk page there doesn't seem to be much willingness to collaborate or respect consensus. The subject of this BLP deserves neutral editing by this community. If Midday is topic banned I would be happy to walk away from the BLP and allow any other editors to adjust it as they see fit. --KeithbobTalk 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The discussion was between myself, Bryden's official PR rep, another paid editor/CorporateM, and acquaintances of CorporateM's that he later on pinged for input (such as Keithbob above). Most of the actual editing, however, was between myself, CorporateM and Keithbob, and took place after the initial discussion page posts by CorporateM's other pinged parties. So talk of a retroactively applicable consensus does not apply. That said, I indicated earlier that like CorporateM, I was willing to voluntarily withdraw from editing the page until the content issue is resolved. However, note that the stated proposal was only for "a new, previously uninvolved editor(s)". To ensure neutrality, my suggestion was that this new, previously uninvolved editor(s) is selected from the List of Wikipedia administrators rather than this board. This seems to have fallen on deaf ears, though, and instead the very editors that CorporateM pinged for support are now ironically trying to topic ban me from the page. Clearly, there's a misunderstanding here about what constitutes WP:CANVASSING. I'll contact the editors who drafted that policy for clarification. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Good luck with that. Why you'd want an admin to do this job is not clear to me. What CorporateM was supposed to be canvassing about is also not clear. CorporateM's messages were limited, neutral, and open--and they would have to be non-partisan, since he cannot possibly know what I would think of Bryden and his biography (in part because he couldn't, in part because I didn't have any thoughts on a man I'd never heard of before). Drmies (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
That's just it. The problem is both in the choice of editors ("users with no significant connection to the topic at hand") and the notification method used/pinging ("soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed"). One obviously doesn't ping strangers, only people one already knows/acquaintances. Middayexpress (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I was asked by Middayexpress to opine on the issue of WP:CANVASS here, as I'd been involved in editing that policy and proposing changes in the past. This is a delicate situation. I've looked over the notifications by CorporateM, and while they were generally neutral, there were targeted at a specific set of experienced editors, some of whom presumably have had interactions with CorporateM in the past (in what guise I haven't taken the time to dig). I don't think this was a chummy notification of CorporateM's best pals, but the selection of editors could have been biased towards editors who CorporateM may have believed would agree with them on the general issue of sourcing around BLPs - this could have been unconscious or perhaps it didn't even happen; another perfectly reasonable explanation is that CorporateM selected a few wise editors who had deep experience in BLPs w/o any particular thought as to how they would come down on any particular side of a content dispute. This is the reason the canvassing policy specifically asks you not to target specific users unless you can demonstrate some previous involvement, to avoid the appearance of vote stacking. Nonetheless, on the scale of 1-10 of canvass violations, I would rate this at about a 2, since this is not an RFC, nor an AFD, and there isn't any !voting going on here, rather it is a slow simmering content dispute, into which it is almost always a good idea to add a few more neutral heads, and such collaboration happens all the time - indeed, DrMies talk page is a veritable cornicopia of "Hi Drmies, something's happening at this article you've never touched before, would you mind taking a look?" Thus, CorporateM's idea of bringing more bodies to the party was a good one, I just think in retrospect given the blowback and the rather tense editing which precluded it, it could have been handled in a bit more of a collaborative fashion, and with a notification that was slightly more neutral (for example, here we have "Well, instead I started taking a heavy axe to it, because it was full of primary sources, op-eds and the like. When I started cutting the controversies too, I started bumping into disagreements and edit-conflicts, etc. with another editor." - it's not quite neutral, as they are positioning themselves in the "right" - e.g. who wouldn't want to cut primary sources and op-eds, and the other editor in the "wrong", because they disagreed). I myself try to use {{pls}} for any such notifications, without adding too much comment. Another way would have been proposing/agreeing upon a set of neutral/uninvolved editors along with Middayexpress who would be notified, or by using dispute resolution / 3rd opinion or other facilities available for these situations. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this merits much sanction, except perhaps walking CorporateM past the fish market so they can smell the fresh trout - but in my mind this isn't worth even a minnow.
I do feel in general, given the tenor of the conversation above, the two key actors involved to date, Middayexpress and CorporateM, should voluntarily step away from the article for the time being, and a broader set of notifications about this article should be placed at 3-5 notice boards/wiki projects to get more neutral eyes on the article. I would also strongly suggest to Middayexpress (and others) that they also assume good faith w.r.t CorporateM - I haven't had many (or any?) interactions with them but from afar they are certainly one of the more full-o-disclosure paid editors at the project - we have oodles of COI editors who never declare themselves as such, and CorporateM seems to be much more circumspect than others - as such, we should give them the benefit of the doubt here and not make accusations of some sort of behind-the-scenes quid pro quo arrangement. Ultimately, this is a content dispute, so we should all simmer down on the alphabet soup of accusations, provide some broad (and repeated if necessary) notifications to attract some other editors to the cause, and focus on the article content. An instructive example can be found at Robert_Clark_Young, who committed several "crimes" against the wiki, yet the article itself is rather neutral, balanced, and well sourced. The sausage factory that made it that way was a bit ugly, but ultimately commonsense and reason and calm thinking prevailed. If we can do it for Young, we can do it for Bryden. There isn't a rush on Bryden's article, and I think setting up some general principles for sourcing (what sources should be allowed) and coming to rough consensus around that, then rebuilding the article around those is the best path. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on my brief reading to date, I would oppose a formal topic ban for Middayexpress at this point, provided they ease up on the alphabet soup of accusations, and consider self-recusing themselves from edits to the article and participating in a civil/non-combative manner on the talk page instead.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the refreshingly even-handed assessment, Obiwankenobi. I do not object to self-recusing myself from edits to the article-space and focusing instead on civil talk page discourse. The Robert Clark Young example cited above is especially helpful; I agree that that indeed is an instructive model to follow. Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Did we really have to bring up that example? Obi? That's a painful blast from the past... Thanks, BTW, for that lengthy analysis: your time and effort are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
A few other thoughts - on the subject of neutral editors, I don't know most participating there except Drmies, who is a deeply experienced editor on BLPs, so I would be very comfortable with his neutrality on this subject. My perusal of the talk page also suggests that the other editors who came into the discussion - even if the notification wasn't 100% ideal - are arguing from a position of policy and BLP, and even though they disagree with you at points I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. It can be hard to write a neutral piece when most pieces are negative, so this requires some delicate handling, and patience. I also think the one editor with a proclaimed COI has been very forthright about same, so we shouldn't shame them for having openly declared a COI and proposing edits on the talk page. I can see from your history that you edit a lot of articles on Somalia and are well versed on the region and issues thereof, but you need to be careful to ensure your own views aren't coloring your approach on this article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I do edit a lot of WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea pages, as I am a member of both Projects. That's what brought me to the Bryden page (he's the former Coordinator for the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group). My skepticism with regard to the neutrality of public relations representatives was shaped by a previous encounter with another such PR rep on the Dahabshiil project page. He didn't disclose that he worked for Bell Pottinger and that Dahabshiil was his client, and there was a big scandal over this. HOgilvy did, however, disclose that Bryden was his client and I commended him for that, though I gotta admit I was still a little apprehensive about the whole thing. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Point of information: I have participated at BLPN for years and have almost 300 edits to that noticeboard alone. I have written a few BLP's, reviewed a few at AfC, brought a few to GA status, and reviewed a few for GA status. Overall, I'd say I've made very significant contributions to more than 100 BLP's, and minor contributions to a few hundred more during my 5 years at WP. Many of 'significant contribution BLPs' are listed in the Projects section of my user page in case anyone wants to see a partial list. Peace, --KeithbobTalk 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, and would hence add you to the list of "neutral editors who should be allowed to have a go at this" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
And I will recuse myself, since my admin status may color how others perceive me. (Midday's suggestion to look at a list of admins to find neutral editors isn't a very good one.) In addition, though Midday hasn't said it in so many words, my involvement would probably hinder their acceptance of any resulting version. I don't mind recusing myself, by the way, since I have no interest in Bryden and I hate editing biographies. BTW, I have faith in Keithbob and Bobrayner, and I can come up with a half a dozen other names, but I do wonder who'd want to touch this with a stick.

One more thing and then I'll bow out. I really appreciate Obi's words. Here's the thing with involvement, as loosely defined as Midday does it. Robert Clark Young's article mentions a librarian in Tuscaloosa. It's entirely possible that this librarian is the one who "explained" belly button shots to me; last names weren't always mandatory in the bar I used to frequent. Does that mean I should stay away from the article? By the same token, I have on occasion defended Qworty's edits (SOME of them!); does that mean I should stay away from that article? I have on occasion worked with Obi (see Kristin Beck), and I have on occasion had harsh exchanges with them. Does that mean we two are "involved" with each other in a way that impedes our working together in a neutral manner? No. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have faith in Obiwankenobi's judgement. If he gives you the green light to edit the page as an involved editor, then I have no objections either. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban for Middayexpress (and if CorporateM wants to volunteer for a topic ban, so be it). The former's ownership and conspiracy theories are causing real problems. I realise that some of the drama is hard to follow for people stumbling across this thread, but if Middayexpress now even takes the line that uninvolved members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation are unable to edit the article neutrally... that's just absurd. bobrayner (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, I did not say that uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members are necessarily unable to edit the article neutrally. I said that "Bobrayner was not involved; however, he appears to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation member along with CorporateM". In other words, I was simply pointing out an association that had not been previously been disclosed. Now that I've agreed with Obiwankenobi's suggestion to voluntarily recuse myself from the article-space and instead focus on civil talk page discourse, would you object if uninvolved WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members were to edit the page alongside the involved editors that Obiwankenobi okays and the uninvolved WikiProject Cooperation members? Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think being members of the same wiki project is something that needs to be disclosed. I also don't want to be seen as an approver of who can edit, I was simply stating that for a few ppl I've looked at I see no problem personally with them editing. As for the Somalia project people, I say the more the merrier, so notify those projects neutrally and see who joins - they don't need permission from anyone here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; will do. Middayexpress (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is support for a topic ban from User:Drmies, User:Lexein, User:Bobrayner, User:Keithbob and User:Obiwankenobi with some saying we should both recuse voluntarily. And even Midday and myself seem to support it, save that Midday has additional conditions. There are no opposes, except that User:DGG has said that I should continue editing. I don't know how these drama boards work - is that enough to get an action on this? CorporateM (Talk) 12:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Note - I don't support a formal topic ban; instead I suggested a voluntary self-ban for both Midday and CorporateM, to allow some other editors to dig in and bring this article up to snuff.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are Obinwankenobi and Dr. Fleischman, and neither supports a topic ban. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. As for me, I support what Obiwankenobi does: voluntary self-recusing from article-space until the issue is resolved. Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Few people in this thread will (or should) take DrFleischman seriously. They have mistakenly branded CorporateM as a newly-established COI editor; that they have struck some of those comments doesn't take away from the fact that they are under some serious misapprehensions and don't seem to own up to it (in a hole, they keep digging). Their involvement, thus, prevents them from being an acceptably neutral editor in a tendentious BLP. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have had extensive interaction with CorporateM, and they are always VERY VERY cautious and "by the book". Even if they volunteer for it, I would oppose a topic ban for CorporateM. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a !vote on the original proposal? --Lexein (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI - in the context of Midday's canvassing accusations, I have worked with North extensively on articles where I actually do have a COI, but I did not notify him/her of this string. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC
  • Strongly support topic ban. Mddayexpress has aso been editing in anti-Somaliland edits in other parts of wikipedia, such as trying to get Somaliland-related categories deleted. he oviously is not impartial in this area. Pass a Method talk 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha, I promised I wouldn't comment anymore in this discussion but this one really made me laugh out loud! I never realized that impartiality was a prerequisite to editing! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pass a Method is a longtime disruptive presence on the Somali-related pages. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I only just finished editing. A clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The categories that he alludes to (which he created) were, incidentally, removed by another editor [43], and one was ultimately deleted as well by an admin [44]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Middayexpress It can be a mild one (shorter and automatically expiring). Absolutely oppose even a voluntary topic ban of CorporateM. There is absolutely no reason to even consider that. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden[edit]

Would an admin like to summarize and close this 11,570 word thread?--KeithbobTalk 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Added me. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: That is incorrect. Pass a Method's vote doesn't count since he Wikihounded me here from another page. The only uninvolved, non-WikiProject Cooperation members are User:Obiwankenobi and User:DrFleischman, and neither supports a topic ban, nor obviously do I. No WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members have also weighed in. The actual summary should thus read: Voluntary self-recusing from the page accepted until issue resolved. Editing by WikiProject Cooperation, WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members on page allowed (see 00:09, 24 October 2013 comment above by Obiwankenobi). Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. You're clutching at straws. Of course Pass a Method's vote counts. We don't discount people cause you don't like them. Fleischman should be "counted", but his comments taken with a grain of salt since he...etc. If an admin closes this as "yes, topic ban", just for you, then it's not voluntary. Six vs. three (or one and a half, since really you're out and Fleischman's comments are tainted by inaccuracy) may not be much critical mass, but it may be enough since it's only for one specific article (and its talk page!). Drmies (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, that is fact. Pass a Method followed me yesterday to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, which I had only literally just finished editing. That is a clear example of WP:Wikihounding ("Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work[...] This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia"). The vote count is thus five to three, hardly a consensus. Per the appropriate notification clause I have also just alerted WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea members to this discussion so that they may weigh in for the first time. Middayexpress (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
        • It's possible a broad topic ban is needed, if MiddayExpress is using Wikipedia to express his personal views against the secession of Somoliland project-wide. I find it unlikely that this editing pattern only exists on this particular BLP and the pattern of editing seems to be related to the article-subject's support of the country's secession. However, that is probably beyond the scope of this string, as is establishing whether there is some hounding going on. In any case, disqualifying participants from voting based on membership at a WikiProject is well.... yah.... There are actually no opposes to the topic ban, only difference in whether I should also voluntarily stay away from the page, whether the topic ban should be voluntary or forced, and if other conditions are applied. There is no need to hammer out these details - an admin should make a bold close and I will respect whatever their decision is, whether it involves my staying away from the article or not. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
          • I've never added any personal views/comments to the Bryden page, so you're reaching there. Everything I did actually add was sourced; the most you can do is thus complain about the cited sources (which apparently includes Bryden's own alma mater). That makes this a standard content dispute. Pass a Method's vote also indeed doesn't count as its a clear example of Wikihounding. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, and within minutes of when I had replaced an image that he had added earlier there and voted along with two other editors to streamline the page's controversies section [45]. Time stamps readily show this (incidentally, I was also later thanked for those edits by User:Gareth Griffith-Jones). As for the actual number of votes opposing a topic ban, there are three. Besides myself, User:DrFleischman has not supported the proposal. In fact, he actually appeared to recommend that you be sanctioned for your own behavior (his remark above from 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)). In his own post above from 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC) User:Obiwankenobi also clearly indicated that he would oppose a formal topic ban provided that I agreed to recuse myself from editing the article and focus instead on civil talk page discourse. I've agreed with those conditions. Despite this, you for some reason keep overlooking Obiwankenobi's position statement, even when he told you directly that "I don't support a formal topic ban; instead I suggested a voluntary self-ban for both Midday and CorporateM, to allow some other editors to dig in and bring this article up to snuff". For my part, I agree not to revert wholesale back to whatever the previous page version was after the self-recusing period has ended. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, now its a 12,320 word thread. Would an Admin like to summarize and close?--KeithbobTalk 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Patience please. The Horn of Africa Project members were only just contacted for the first time, and they should weigh in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
So--you can 'contact' your editing friends at the Project, but when CorporateM does something like that it's conflict-of-interest generated 'ping'ing? Nice. And why should we wait? The Bryden thing has been going on for weeks, and this thread has been here for far too long. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
CorporateM's friend contacts are a fait accompli, and are largely the reason why the discussion has gone the way it has. Although Bryden is a Horn of Africa specialist and the UN's former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, the thread starter by contrast never bothered notifying the Horn of Africa projects of this discussion (which btw is allowed per appropriate notification: "an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following[...] the talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion"). I therefore took the initiative and notified those projects and "the user talk pages of concerned editors [including] editors known for expertise in the field", but only after having received the go ahead from User:Obiwankenobi (comment above from 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC): "As for the Somalia project people, I say the more the merrier, so notify those projects neutrally and see who joins - they don't need permission from anyone here"). That said, those project members/concerned editors should weigh in shortly for the first time. Closing the thread prematurely won't take into consideration their input, so it won't reflect the actual community consensus; just a selective portion of it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No banlet them agree to stand back: Let me first apologies this is so much text I am totally lost. I just cannot follow it or grasp all of the issues. I feel like I should weigh in. I am not experienced at editing on these kinds of things also. My position is all editors should on their own not continue to edit the page. but should be available to answer questions on the talk page.(i have a few) They should control themselves so as not to fly off into long tracts of text. B/c what is happening is there is more text on arguing than text in the article. I honestly want to know what the issue is with the article so I can assist in any way I can. but It would be better for all editors involved to agree to step back. state the issue on the TK page and let fresh eyes look it over. --Inayity (talk) 16:43, 26 October 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. reverting, blanking on Calorie restriction[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been removing content from Calorie restriction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since October 20. They have only used edit summaries three times, and all of them have been fairly misleading. They have not attempted to discuss the issue on any talk page, despite a final warning about 8 hours ago. The editor has mostly removed content related to the implications of pregnant and young people, especially young people, undergoing calorie restriction. Many of their edits have also broken header formatting, and some have also introduced improper grammar and/or punctuation. Links to edits that they have done: [46], [47] (might just be downright vandalism), [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. I decided to bring the issue here because the edits aren't clear-cut vandalism, and they haven't broken 3RR. —