Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron[edit]

Hiya, earlier this month, User:JohnValeron promised to check all of my edits; he stated: As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. This comment was made due to a soon-to-be-explained misunderstanding, as well as his lack of knowledge about what is contained in RS regarding the subject matter.

My edits are followed so closely that yesterday I was unable to fix my edits as I developed a new section, running into 3 edit conflicts as he somewhat frantically made changes to the work seconds after I hit "save page". I asked him to give me some space, due to the edit conflicts, to which he replied Truthfully, Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much...In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular.

In my experience at WP, small technical errors like those he pointed out are fixed quietly by others, or discovered quickly by the offending editor. Usually when I add new content, it takes a few edits to get all the glitches out. I've never been faulted for this before, let alone called inept. Regarding the drama and various issues he brought to the Snowden talk page yesterday, today he does not seem keen to explain himself, saying he "doesn't respond well to badgering". He does not engage on his talk page, either.

He has also made a comment about "our Hong Kong editor" but will not explain who he is speaking of, how he knows this editor's location nor why he is bringing this information to the talk page.

(Quick history: the Snowden page has been quite a hotbed of edit warring since December. John Valeron came in about half-way through and we don't actually have much history between us, so I am not sure where this level of hostility is coming from.) petrarchan47tc 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (*edited at 5:17)

  • Another questionable comment was added today in the "quid pro quo" section below: [Petrarchan47 is] the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. This outrageous claim was apparently based on the fact that I thought the date was May 2cd rather than the 4th. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It is 100% unacceptable to refer to someone as "a butcher" or "your ineptitude" - no matter the quality of your edits (which, by the way, you need to use the "Show Preview" button a little more in order to avoid issues because they are somewhat poor). There is also a fine line between validly using the "show contributions" of another editor, and wikistalking - and John appears to be on the wrong side of that line the panda ₯’ 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Because this will be likely used against me in the future, would you consider amending your comment to reflect whether you checked a selection of my edits, or as I assume, is your comment ("somewhat poor") referring only to this one section/incident? I accept that it may have been an off-day, and there were more glitches than usual, however, one could interpret your comment as a general statement about my editing, so I just wanted to clarify this. petrarchan47tc 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
DangerousPanda, I appreciate your input, but please let me provide some background. Although Petrarchan47's preceding post describes the page Edward Snowden as "a hotbed of edit warring since December," she has lately attempted to sanitize her own central role in these hostilities by portraying herself as having "sought peace over all else for the last few months."[1] However, as I replied to her post three days ago, "The notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative."[2] An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out. Day in and day out, Petrarchan47 makes war, not peace.

Petrarchan47 acknowledges that she and I "don't actually have much history between us," which is true. But the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions, eventually sucked me in. In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling her a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

But, DangerousPanda, you are totally wrong in endorsing Petrarchan47's unfounded and offensive accusation against me for Wikihounding. The facts are these:

  • 5 June 2013 – Snowden/NSA story explodes in worldwide news media.

  • 00:38, 10 June 2013 – just five days later, I post my first edit to Wikipedia's Snowden page.[3]

  • 14 April 2014 – The Washington Post and The Guardian are jointly awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the Snowden/NSA scandal.

  • 17:10, 20 April 2014 – six days later, having noticed comments in online social media mistakenly asserting that Glenn Greenwald won this prize—which is awarded to news organizations, not to individual journalists—I became curious as to whether or not Wikipedia's editors had recognized that distinction. Visiting the Greenwald page, I discovered otherwise, and posted appropriate edits to clarify the matter.[4]

  • 17:14, 20 April 2014 – after finishing my Greenwald edits, I proceeded immediately to the Wikipedia page for Laura Poitras, Greenwald's closest collaborator in the Snowden saga, where I executed similar edits to clarify that Poitras, like Greenwald, did not personally win the Pulitzer prize.[5]

  • 20:36, 21 April 2014 – I likewise edited the Wikipedia page for Ewen MacAskill, a British journalist who also collaborated with Greenwald & Poitras on the early Snowden reporting.[6]

My editing of the respective Wikipedia page for each of three journalists closely associated with covering the Snowden scandal was a natural outgrowth of my longstanding interest in Snowden, dating back to 10 June 2013.

Yet Petrarchan47 now smears me with a spurious charge of Wikihounding for doing something innocuous and purely coincidental to her own contributions to two of those three pages. (She has never edited the MacAskill page.)

This, DangerousPanda, is 100% unacceptable. I am not guilty of Wikihounding, and you are wrong to say so. JohnValeron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
You say you're not guilty of wikihounding, but right here, in this very thread, you accuse Petrarchan of "making war, not peace" and referring casually to "the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions" for which you provide no evidence. An apology is nice, but you undermine the presumption in your good faith by making such statements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple, please advise: what evidence would you accept of Petrarchan47's edit warring since June 9, 2013, when she first graced Wikipedia's Edward Snowden page? As I wrote above, "An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out." Did you bother to familiarize yourself with that history before pronouncing me guilty of Wikihounding? Given the quickness of your response here, and considering the large volume of edits to that page over the past eleven months, I seriously doubt it. JohnValeron (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
So your position is that people commenting on ANI threads have the burden of proving the allegations made in them, whereas the people who make those allegations don't? They can just make accusations without a shred of evidence (such as a history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one)? That's a new one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple, as a first stab at submitting the evidence you demand, I found three pertinent comments by user DrFleischman, posted earlier this year at User talk:Petrarchan47, relating specifically to Petrarchan47's unfounded accusations of POV pushing at the Edward Snowden page (emphasis added):
  • I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory.
00:46, 6 February 2014
  • [replying to user Gandydancer] We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV.
04:50, 6 February 2014
  • [addressing Petrarchan47] Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to address most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " [I am officially 100% EXHAUSTED by Bdell555.]". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices).
21:47, 6 February 2014
Coretheapple, as I continue gathering evidence of Petrarchan47's edit warring and often toxic relations with her fellow Wikipedians, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth, as you did in your preceding comment by stating my "position" in the least accurate way possible so as to ridicule me. JohnValeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Those are just accusations against this editor. Doesn't prove a thing. I've been accused of everything up to and including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Do you feel I should be extradited to New Jersey? Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
"Doesn't prove a thing." This from one of Wikipedia's most notorious inquisitors when comes to COI allegations. You may be sympathetic to Petrarchan's POV, thinking her McCarthyite anti-COI campaign is consistent with yours but are you aware that she goes a step further with her beware infiltrating government agents line? This after Mastcell had already tried to get her to back away when she was trying to finger Wikipedian Dr. Fleischman as a federal agent? Maybe that's too much bad faith assuming even for you, @Coretheapple? In any case on April 8 Petrarchan went 6RR in less than two and a half hours on the Edward Snowden article edit warring with JohnValeron and I and John and I let it go rather than take Petrarchan to an admin noticeboard thinking she'd be more likely to change her edit warring ways if shown mercy. Petrarchan then turns around and takes John to this noticeboard! It's right out of the Parable of the unforgiving servant. We obviously should have gotten Petrarchan blocked at the time since editors like you are making an issue out of "...history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one." We apparently need to change our tactics with edit warriors like Petrarchan and get them blocked as soon as they violate 3RR given what editors like you make out of "clean" block histories.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple, since you asked, I'll answer for the record: I wouldn't consign anyone—not even Petrarchan47—to New Jersey. JohnValeron (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, as we wend our merry way through this delightful WP:ANI adjudicating my alleged QUESTIONABLE COMMENTS, cherish this Pearl of Wisdom from Petrarchan47: "The thing is, you can't edit articles around here for very long without coming into contact with hardcore POV pushers and pure, unadulterated jerks." 20:13, 18 February 2014 Submitted here for entertainment purposes only. JohnValeron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And a comment of extraordinary accuracy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
You certainly have chutzpah, @Coretheapple. You declare in this thread that Petrarchan's got a clean edit warring record when you've participated in edit warring noticeboard complaints involving her trying to get her off. I note one gem of a comment in particular: " Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull." So stressful! Yet Petrarchan bring someone else "in front of the Admin Noticeboard", well, that just's business!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well actually I'm monitoring this board because I'm following another thread, so I dropped in on this one and another and boy! am I being yelled at. Talk about stress. It's terrible. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
You could relieve yourself from the stress by declining to nod along when Petrarchan complains of "hardcore POV pushers" given that when IRWolfie noted that Petrarchan was, yet again, trying to battle what she thinks is a "large conspiracy" by "fighting the good fight against US Corporations" and "insert[ing] highly polemic statements" at that time you were all about not worrying about whether there was any POV pushing and just focusing on whether your "wiki-friend" could beat an edit warring charge on technicalities. I'll also note that while you trumpet Petrarchan's flawless block record (and try to justify all her COI attacks), when SpectraValor took her editing to the edit warring noticeboard she got off because the complaint was apparently a few hours stale. Yet another editor started a case on the 3RR noticeboard and Petarchan was found guilty of a 3RR violation but was again let off. There's nothing to be seen here, according to you.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm seeing a lot of mud-slinging directed at her, doing a good deal to prove her original point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You demanded "evidence" Petrarchan is an edit warrior and I pointed out that just within the last three weeks she went 6RR in less than 3 hours and subsequent to avoiding a block there got taken to the edit warring noticeboard by another editor where an admin found that "Petrarchan47 violated WP:3RR". This thread could have been shorter had you let us know earlier that you would be dismissing the evidence you ask for as "mud-slinging" since we would have known your request for evidence was not to be taken seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This thread would have been even shorter if you hadn't tried to divert attention from the real issues with mud-slinging and character assassination. Coretheapple (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is Valeron's behaviour at the Snowden talk page, and the disruptive hostility. If bringing up anything Fleischman once said is supposed to justify comments made yesterday about my ineptitude as an editor, or the wiki-hounding, I fail to see the connection.
It should be noted that Dr Fleischman, shortly before leaving Wikipedia last month, admitted that Brian Dell's position - the kernel of the 3 month edit war - is untenable. Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell; he came up against the exact same difficulties I had been complaining about. Dr F took BDell555's side immediately in the edit war, and regretted it later. In the end though, the POV warriors, not RS, won the day. The Lede to Edward Snowden now contains a SYNTH account of Snowden's passport/Russia saga rather than the simple account given by countless RS (that Snowden was stranded due to the US' revocation of his passport) because Brian Dell exhausted me completely. petrarchan47tc 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Doc is an ally of yours, is he? That's why he asked Mastcell to do something about you? "Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell" Is that so? Yet after you claimed to be "officially 100% EXHAUSTED" (elsewhere saying my comments were simply too extensive for you to bother reading) Doc's reply was that "This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project" and Doc specifically addressed you.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And MastCell responded by saying that he didn't want to touch the case. The diffs I left show that after more information, Dr F progressed from blindly aligning himself with you, to becoming completely exacerbated as well and leaving WP. Before he did, he told Gandydancer: Btw, you and Petrarchan are probably in stitches over my recent interactions with Brian Dell at Talk:Edward Snowden, ad you have a right to be. Now that Brian's putting me through the ringer I certainly understand your frustration and "exhaustion." Then again while you may have been fully justified in feeling the way you did, IMO that didn't justify you expressing it to Brian, which was inflammatory and uncivil, even if honest. In any case, my reason for bringing this up isn't to justify my involvement; rather, just the opposite. If I had been actively participating in that discussion (rather than passively observing) I would have better appreciated what you and Petrarchan had been dealing with and I probably would have kept my mouth shut. So, in hindsight, I'm sorry for that indiscretion. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 petrarchan47tc 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Petrarchan47 may now claim to be fast friends with DrFleischman, but it wasn't always so. A mere six weeks ago she posted this to Doc's user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…."

Sound familiar? Yep, it's Petrarchan47's standard charge of Wikihounding. In March, DrFleischman was "following" Petrarchan47 around Wikipedia due to his "obsession" with her. Now it's April, Doc has made no edits for 30 days, and so it's my turn to stand accused. After all, Petrarchan47 has got to have someone Wikihounding her. If not the obsessed Doctor, then I guess yours truly will do in a pinch. "This is harassment!" Maybe so. But who, pray tell, is harassing whom here? JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can close out this thread by quoting from said fast friend: "Petrarchan47, it is time to drop this cowardly and disruptive witch hunt once and for all."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly been a interested bystander on the Snowden talk page. I'll just comment that this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Generally that means you need to ask for something specific, like a block, and give evidence that the requested action is required, for example three warnings on the user's talk page concerning a blockable offense, backed up by links to the offending edits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced[edit]

I generally consider myself to be an editor who tries to avoid all sorts of drama as far as possible. However, ever since I've started editing the Edward Snowden page, it has become very clear to me that this is one of those articles any sane editor would want to avoid at all costs. In fact, I've practically given up trying to make it look more like a biography than a battleground. I don't know what motivates some people to keep pushing a particular POV for so many months and I have to admit I do admire your determination to achieve whatever aims you have here, but I'm fully amazed that you don't even try to hide your POV.

Can we at least agree that labelling a living person as "narcissistic" on his biography, even quoting someone who did so, is extremely unconstructive? But at least this is better than turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm.

Although I think JV is a highly motivated editor, his lack of adherence to WP:BLP and his conduct towards other editors, and more importantly, his general attitude towards the subject of this biography is a serious cause for concern. -A1candidate (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect to what you say is "most important," just what sort of "general attitude" towards Mr Snowden would you like to see? I take it that it would not be Hillary Clinton's--Brian Dell (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A1candidate, please clarify your second paragraph, in which you link to the same diff for both "labelling a living person as narcissistic" and "turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm." I honestly don't understand how you can construe a single comment by former NSA Director McConnell, reliably sourced to New York magazine, as constituting an NSA quote farm. JohnValeron (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, A1candidate, if my behavior is such "a serious cause for concern," why have you waited until now to bring that to my attention—and in this highly adversarial context? I reckon you just like a good ambush. JohnValeron (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555 - An attitude that is in line with building a biography instead of fighting a battle would be more than welcome. For starters, how about not trying to remove reliably sourced information from Snowden while replacing his quotes with goveernment issued-statements? @JohnValeron - The fact that you use words like "ambush" is very telling of your attitude. Both of you obviously have a POV (you don't even try to hide it), this is something that I've long felt needed to be addressed. I always avoid drama, so this is going to be my last reply. -A1candidate (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, the fact that you stage an ambush only to turn tail and run is very telling of your attitude. JohnValeron (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on edits and ideas, not on editors'. Your comment above verges on a personal attack. Dial it down, please. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure Edward Snowden Hagiography is enforced

Note: I'm not indenting because my response applies to both the overall section Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron and its subsection What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced. Also, thanks to admin Dennis Brown and user Beyond My Ken for pointing out that my subtitle (obviously a parody of A1candidate's subtitle) should not be formatted so as to appear in the TOC.

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, at the heart of this post by Petrarchan47 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is what user A1candidate identifies as my "attitude" towards Edward Snowden. In her edit warring over the past 10 months, Petrarchan47 has exemplified the politically correct attitude of blind partisanship in favor of Snowden. Moreover, she has acted as bully and enforcer, peremptorily exercising innumerable reverts to disrupt the attempts of other editors to provide balance. Shamelessly seeking to go beyond that and punish editors who have taken issue with her, last month she targeted DrFleischman, posting to his user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…." Now, having disposed of DrFleischman (who has made no edits at Wikipedia for over 30 days), Petrarchan47 turns her sights on me, taking to this page to foster the impression that I have been Wikihounding. Her success in this smear is evidenced by the very first reply to her initial post, from DangerousPanda, who applied the term "wikistalking" to me.

No doubt the pro-Snowden partisans have the numbers to block and even ban me. But until then, I will not be intimidated. I shall continue to resist all attempts by A1candidate and Petrarchan47 to enforce their hagiography of Edward Snowden. I shall rely instead on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which states in pertinent part, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." JohnValeron (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have glossed over the part about due weight. One person calling Snowden narcissistic does not merit including the term in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
HandThatFeeds, as explained in Wikipedia's due weight policy, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In determining which viewpoint is significant in each instance, a Wikipedia editor must consider overall context, not just the particular report. For example, if an otherwise reliable but left-leaning, pro-Snowden publication runs a piece that includes 1,000 words of direct quotations from professional partisans such as Snowden lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, offset by 100 words from Hillary Clinton criticizing Snowden, Wikipedia is not required to reflect these opposing viewpoints in proportion to their numerical value. Rather, editors mush exercise judgment. The mere fact that a former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and First Lady publicly disputes Snowden makes her words more significant than the utterly predictable, canned retorts of longtime Snowden shills, whose unchanging views are already amply represented in Wikipedia's Snowden article.

As for the specific example to which you allude, in the Motivations subsection, we quote former NSA director and current Booz Allen Hamilton vice chairman Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic," reliably sourced to New York magazine. What you conveniently overlook, HandThatFeeds, is its placement near the end of a 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus our paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. In a subsection devoted to his motivations, that focus is entirely appropriate. However, in this context, it is equally appropriate to quote a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations.

Due weight does not require excluding significant minority viewpoints. JohnValeron (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Significance is the key here. Show that Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint, and you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't, and WP:WEIGHT is against you. Hagiography is definitely to be avoided, but so are unsupported POV opinions expressed only by a small number of people. BMK (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint not because a large number of people have expressed it, but because of the prominence of who did express it: a former NSA director and current vice chairman of the firm for which Snowden worked as a contractor and where he sought employment expressly for the purpose of stealing more secret US Government documents to leak. "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden told the South China Morning Post on June 12, 2013. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." JohnValeron (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors could choose to quote McConnell because he's a prominent person; on the other hand the nature of his prominence in this case makes him a particularly unreliable source. Specifically, his crude characterization of the psychological motivations of a whistleblower are made in an unavoidably political context: they're certainly not reliable, and arguably unhelpful. We're not required to quote a famous person every time they open their mouths. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Placing McConnell's statement in the "reaction" section would be more reasonable, as it wouldn't purport to give readers special insight on Snowden's motivations. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Darouet, McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is properly contextualized in the Motivations subsection. The reliable source in this instance is New York magazine, not McConnell. He is quoted here not because he's famous, but because he's a former NSA director and current vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton. In both those capacities, he brings an insider's knowledge and expertise to bear on Edward Snowden. To exclude McConnell's viewpoint merely because you personally disagree with it is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and as a former NSA director he's about as neutral about Snowden as an ex-grunt is about the Marine Corps. It's irrelevant that he's quoted by a reliable source, what's relevant is whether his view of Snowden is shared by others without a connection to and history with the Agency. BMK (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. If Wikipedia required editors to quote ONLY neutral sources, we'd have to eliminate every quotation attributed to Snowden's lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, to mention just four of many such pro-Snowden speakers. The article would be reduced to 20% of its existing length. JohnValeron (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I do believe that McConnell's statement may be notable: as a reader I could benefit from knowing what the man said even if I disagree. However, McConnell is an overtly hostile party and not a reliable when describing Snowden's motivations, which is why I think his comments fit better in "Reactions". -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drama and POV pushing[edit]

This drama pushes good editors away from the Snowden page. It is aimed at anyone wanting to add RS that implicates the US government in Snowden's 'choice' for asylum in Russia, and essentially anyone who disagrees with the edits of Valeron or Dell.

For instance, John Valerion had these comments about editors today:

  • "At 20:40, 30 April 2014‎, User:A1candidate attempted to hijack the editorial process" *
  • "Another Edit Warrior Parachutes In - Beyond My Ken thus attempts to backdoor his way into control of the Snowden article without posting a single comment at the Snowden Talk Page...This arrogant, willful behavior even ignores BMK's own admonishments to editors of other articles, whose work he has undone with a warning to Discuss on talk page, Do not revert without a consensus to do so. Clearly, Beyond My Ken is one of those Do As I Say, Not As I Do edit warriors." *

I addressed the now 5-month edit war here, for some context. Brian Dell's friend User:DrFleischman said it well: "There is consensus that "stranded" is reliably sourced and appropriate for the lead." and "When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens o[f] reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead?" More on that is here: Retelling of the passport story.

The Snowden page has been taken over by POV pushers. Here is a discussion for more insight. A1Candidate to Dell: "you seem to be more interested in pushing a particular POV instead of improving the article as a whole. A large portion of your edits appear to be related to Russia, Russia, and more Russia. We don't know for sure whether the Kremlin is behind Snowden's flight, as you have been claiming all along. While I do think it's a plausible theory, it's nothing more than mere speculation." Please see this Snowden Talk section for more.

Today, Dell and Valeron are using Business Insider and their report on a Wikileaks tweet to support their contention that Snowden chose to go to Russia, as opposed to what RS states over and over, very clearly: Snowden was stuck in Russia due to the US' revocation of his passport (RS listed here).

Last week, Snowden's entire accolades section was reduced by John Valeron to this. Here is the talk page discussion where I explain that to cut only his awards, squishing them to two unreadable paragraphs without condensing any other sections, is POV. Valeron says that Snowden's awards "all seem equally unmeritorious". Valeron notes that he does not find the article to need condensing, so his only reasons for this editing are POV, it would seem.

He also removed a quotation cited to Snowden, though his edit summary was: "reword so as to not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Again, the edit serves the US government, but not Wikipedia.

He states: "I am participating here in good faith with the object of providing much-needed balance to th[e Snowden] article, which is overly sympathetic to its controversial subject." When asked to specifically point out how the Snowden article is biased, Valeron never responds. Instead Brian Dell pops in with another long OR rant.

Valeron has become very hostile, and besides admittedly following my edits at Snowden by seconds, looking for any mistake, he also followed me to Laura Poitras supposedly fueled by the need to set things straight: the Pulitzer was not given to her, but to WaPo and Guardian. However both Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman's articles contained the same information and were, until I pointed this out to John, left untouched. Valeron is now {cn} tagging Poitras instead of finding the citations. He tagged "1971"'s release at Tribecca, whilst a simple search finds very good, recent articles about its release.

Brian Dell:

  • As recently as April 14, Brian Dell was continuing his edit war, calling cited information OR dreamed up by User:Binksternet and inserting "allegedly" in the Lede.
  • Dell continues to push this theme, with the edit summary: ""allegedly" stranded. Legal experts say there is no legal distinction between the airport and the rest of Russia. And no independent journalist verified that he was in the airport transit zone"
  • Dell adds "reportedly" to cited information, arguing "supposedly he was stranded. The story does not hold up under scrutiny"
  • Earlier Dell declares a Fox news article "demonstrably false" and changes the Lede in this same edit war.
  • This is where Dell first appeared with his theory.
  • Here is where Dell followed me on this same day to Jimbo's talk page to make some remarks.
  • Here is where he followed me to an NSA awareness WikiProject I was working on.
  • In this comment at the WikiProject, he justifies making this POV change to the Russ Tice article saying it was done "to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower." He also states "Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Passport I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice. These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right. If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories." About NSA spying revelations, he states, "The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media."
  • When news broke that there were statements made by some US officials about wanting Snowden dead, Dell had this (predictable) response.

Besides the obvious POV pushing by both of these editors, the hostility aimed at me and others who may oppose or question them needs to be addressed. No WP editor should repeatedly come into contact with this type of behaviour - the aggression is over the top, and better suited for YouTube comment sections. Brian Dell should be topic banned (an IBAN is also a consideration), and an IBAN against Valeron would be very much appreciated. I guarantee the Snowden article and Wikipedia would be better off for it, and would not be damaged in any way by these bans. But I am no expert, the response that would reinstate a sane, peaceful environment at Snowden (read: pre-Dell, pre-Valeron, circa Sep-Nov '13) is likely better determined by administrators. petrarchan47tc 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 has now outdone herself in sheer, malicious perfidy, posting comments that I myself reconsidered and deleted within minutes. Clearly, Petrarchan47 will stop at nothing in her toxic efforts to poison the editorial atmosphere surrounding the Edward Snowden article. JohnValeron (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty fucking ballsy of JohnValeron to accuse me of trying to "control" the Edward Snowden article, when he's made over 100 edits to it in the last week alone (over 300 in the last year), and I've made three edits in total. And to say that I edited without discussion is equally ludicrous, considering that the discussion took place right here on this thread, with his involvement. I suggest that if anyone's trying to "own" the Snowden article, or push a POV into it, it sure as hell isn't me. I also suggest that an admin might like to try to machete their way through the jungle of rapid-fire edits over there to see if some level of protection isn't called for to get things to stop so that reasoned discussion can take place. BMK (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No reasoned discussion about the Edward Snowden article can take place here, on an adversarial ANI where I stand falsely accused and where my accuser is calling for Brian Dell and me to be banned. Any "consensus" about editing Edward Snowden arrived at within this ANI is illegitimate. The regular editors of the Snowden article do not follow ANI. We follow Talk:Edward Snowden, which is where all editorial discussions rightly belong. JohnValeron (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit, consensus is consensus, and it remains so even when it goes against you, and no matter where it takes place. Usually the article talk page is the best place for consensus discussions to take place, but when someone tries to dominate the discussion there it may have to take place in other venues. Besides, you've misread my comment above - if an admin were to fully protect the article - which I think would be fully justified by the volume and speed of the editing there, which indicates knee-jerk responses rather than well-considered action - then the reasoned discussion I was speaking about should take place there and not here.

At this point, however, editors have clearly despaired of getting any balance there while you and others continue to duke it out, and have come here for relief. Having felt the (temporary) sting of your displeasure, I understand precisely what they're talking about - you're trying to browbeat people into submission because you disagree with their POV (or what you perceive as their POV, which may well be mistaken), and that makes your editing as bad as theirs is, if they are also pushing a POV, as you claim. I still think temporary full protection would help, as would your thinking before you act. 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, full protection and Admin oversight for a while is a worthwhile consideration. petrarchan47tc 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Jehochman once filled this role at the Snowden page. We also spoke in January about bringing the article to GA status. It might be worth checking into these options as a way to cool the current edit warring and hostility. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I personally don't edit the Snowden article because, to be frank, my feelings about him are fairly negative. I think that's the best course of action in dealing with a BLP in which one holds a negative POV - stay away. JohnValeron might want to consider doing that too. Coretheapple (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Wikipedia's due weight policy explains, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As I pointed out above, former NSA director Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is reliably sourced to New York magazine. McConnell served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence during the period when Snowden was employed by the CIA, which reports to the DNI. After leaving that post, McConnell rejoined Booz Allen Hamilton to lead the firm's intelligence business, and was vice chairman throughout Snowden's brief (less than three months) tenure as a BAH employee. These high-level positions give McConnell's perspective on Snowden significant weight. Moreover, our now-deleted quotation of McConnell provided the only balance to an otherwise self-serving 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. By excluding a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations, you are totally suppressing a verifiable point of view that has sufficient due weight. In violation of policy, you are promoting Wikipedia's unbalanced cheerleading on behalf of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
McConnell can hold any opinion about Snowden he wants, and can express them to anyone he wants to, but he's not qualified to discuss Snowden's psychological makeup in our article because he has no training or expertise in that area. He can say that Snowden is a traitor or that he's damaged his country or that he ought to be clapped in irons or that he's selfish or immature or whatever, because these are things anyone can say about anybody, but when he says that Snowden is a "narcissist", he's making a psychological evaluation, and he is not qualified to do that, and he can't be in our article expressing that opinion except, perhaps, as an example of people's reactions to Snowden's actions. BMK (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Dictionary.com provides two definitions of narcissist:

1. a person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish.

2. Psychoanalysis. a person who suffers from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes.

Neither Wikipedia's biography of Mike McConnell nor the sentence you seek to suppress in Edward Snowden identifies McConnell as a psychologist or psychiatrist. His opinion of Snowden as a "narcissist" is not a clinical evaluation, and only pro-Snowden editors such as yourself would so willfully and disingenuously misconstrue it. McConnell is using the term in its popular, not medical, sense. Note that Wikipedia quotes Yogi Berra as saying about baseball, "90% of the game is half mental." Are you going to suppress that, too, because Mr. Berra is not a credentialed mental health professional? JohnValeron (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is showing - I am not "Pro-Snowden". In point of fact I have decidedly mixed feelings about what he did, including my belief that anyone who thinks that their government isn't in some way "spying" on them is a fool, and that such monitoring is, to some degree both necessary and harmless. But you don't know that, because you are, clearly and by your own admission, "anti-Snowden", and because I reverted one of your edits that must make me "pro-Snowden", thus throwing WP:AGF out the window.

I reverted your edit because the guy doesn't have the chops to make that kind of statement and have it appear in a Wikipedia article as a factual reason for Snowden's actions. You want to put in a "responses" section, that's different, the guy is notable and his allowed to have an opinion - he's just not allowed to express that opinion as fact on Wikipedia. You get it? It's the diference between "I think he's a narcissit" and "He did it because he's a narcissist." If you can't see the essential different between those two statements, and the need for the person saying the second one to have the right credentials, then you probably shouldn't be editing here.BMK (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Quid pro quo[edit]

Never let it be said that Petrarchan47 does not reward those gallant souls who spring to her defense here at ANI. Vote early and vote often, Wikipedians, for "must-read" commenter Coretheapple as Crony of the Week. JohnValeron (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention requested: Can I get an admin to give JV an WP:NPA warning? If nothing else, his serious lack of AGF is worrying. BMK (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your broad argument on the McConnell quote, here, but the last time this came up at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding), I got more or less the same impression John has, although I would have expressed it more delicately. That said: John, knock it off. Wholesale snarkiness will only succeed in getting people to blow you off; there's plenty in Petrarchan's editing history, plainly and dispassionately expressed, to build a case against her. Choess (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Choess, I appreciate your advice, but I am not the least bit interested in building a case against Petrarchan47. As you imply, and as demonstrated by her shameless use of an Editor of the Week nomination to reward Coretheapple for supporting her in this meretricious ANI, Petrarchan47 is her own worst enemy. JohnValeron (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, now, isn't this enlightening? Following the link provided by Choess, I just read User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding posted to ANI less than a month ago by User:Geogene. It broadens one's perspective on Petrarchan47's generally antagonistic behavior and her contemptuous hostility in particular to editors who do not submit to her supposed authority. And guess who rushed to her support on that occasion? Why, our presumptive Editor of the Week, of course: Coretheapple. What a magnificent team they make! A true credit to Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, Petrachan47 and I started to discuss nominating Coretheapple for Editor of the Week back in January February. It was at my persistence that Petra proceeded to nominate him. His nomination is deserved and has nothing to do with this ANI. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Dr Fleischman, before leaving WP last month, tried very hard to build a case against me. He went to people angry at me from the BP (Geogene) and March Against Monsanto (SecondQuanitzation/IRWolfie) articles and found willing participants to help find diffs for an eventual ANI. He asked MastCell and Drmies for help, both said no. MastCell has repeatedly said he has respect for me as an editor, and as for my complaints about Geogene (who eventually took me to ANI), he said: "Back in the day, I used to feel like there was a core of clueful editors who would support each other in these kinds of situations, but most of that core has been run off the site or decided they have better things to do than argue interminably with cranks and agenda accounts."

Geogene was canvassed by Dr F, who still has a list of my wrongdoings compiled, and who appeared to be helping Geogene with diffs for her unsuccessful ANI. Geogene came to the BP oil spill articles (where I met Coretheapple, and whom btw, I had been planning to nominate for months) and began making POV changes. Her biggest grievance was with the tremendously well-cited study mentioned in the Lede of Corexit (in this version). To end the edit war there, I slashed the Lede and removed mention of studies. Geogene, who purportedly wanted to help the Project, and improve the Corexit article specifically, has not been seen since. As was obvious from the start, her efforts seemed focused on removing content harmful to BP. Once that was done, there was no interest in actually working on the article, or WP for that matter. I noted that her appearance and frantic editing coincided with the announcement of BP's Clean Water Act trail. I was asked by other editors not to make such connections unless I have proof of COI, so I have agreed to stay silent in the future.

I do not see how that ANI plays into this one, however. Valeron's behaviour should not be tolerated, and there is no case to be made that it is justified by anything I have done, or by anything that has been said about me. The NPOV requirement for editors is not being met in his case, and I think a topic ban should be considered. Just today he was reverted at James R. Clapper and Edward Snowden for non-neutral editing. * * *

Whether my edits to Snowden have been POV has not been proven, nor has a case been made that the Snowden article is biased. I have put in a lot of time and work on that article, and the atmosphere there has driven away everyone else but the anti-Snowden editors. That has been pretty stressful, and is why I have opened this, my first ANI to see whether something can be done to stop this. petrarchan47tc 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Petrarchan47 is lying to promote her punitive crusade to get me banned. The diffs she cites as evidence that "just today" I was reverted, actually date from May 2, 2014. Petrarchan47, who will do anything to get her way, is the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. JohnValeron (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
As usual I don't know what day it is. I am the most unethical editor EVER. John's ever-balanced, non-hyperbolic views will save the Pedia one way or another. Thank goodness we've got editors like this around. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously, John, this is the type of "lie" that matters around here. Wouldn't you consider this unethical? petrarchan47tc 00:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I want to say that the accusations pointed at me (again) by user:petrarchan47 have been going on all over Wikipedia for months now and are harassment. They're also lies. We've discussed this on noticeboards and Petra still doesn't understand what that study is about. Even though I haven't been on here for more than a week, she is continuing to provoke me (with the above). I sincerely believe that there are some serious psychological issues with her involving paranoia and a sense of being persecuted by pretty well anyone that disagrees with her, and we cannot fix those problems here, and which make her unsuitable for Wikipedia. I have no doubt that this will eventually get her banned. That's my say. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

IBAN for JohnValeron[edit]

I have seen too many disruptive actions taken against Petrarchan47 by JohnValeron. This behavior should be addressed by IBAN.
JohnValeron was working on the Chelsea Manning biography and the court case United States v. Manning in the summer and autumn of 2013. In late December 2013, he encountered Petrarchan47 at the Edward Snowden biography, at the Sibel Edmonds biography, and at the article about Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Talk page relations were civil at first but by February 2014 the tone was strained, then icy with disdain and hurtful irony: "Wikipedia should permanently lock out all editors except Petrarchan47, whose sole proprietorship would be beyond reproach." By March, JohnValeron was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND confrontation, trying to get a rise out of Petrarchan47 by referring back to the "sole proprietorship" comment: "I earnestly hope this meets with approval and does not offend particular editors with an aggravated sense of sole proprietorship over this article." Also: baiting Petrrarchan47 with this comment: "...rest assured that the ever-vigilant Petrarchan47 has undone my revisions in toto." At the end of March JohnValeron was accusing Petrarchan47 of having "paranoid fantasies", and insulting her with the term "schoolmarm"—a sexist putdown intended to stifle discussion. The April 8 comment "petrarchan47 has zero credibility" was a gross attack, a poisoning of the well to remove Petrarchan47 from effective discussion. I suggest that JohnValeron should be given an interaction ban with regard to Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, given the admission of POV towards the topic, a TBAN could also be considered. petrarchan47tc 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As wondrously premature, and use of a draconian solution, which rarely actually works. A POV is not a "disqualification" but simply an indication that the person must assiduously work towards compromise and accept that others have differing POVs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support If we can get rid of this problem, I will Die happy, This user has committed Personal Attacks against a single target, just remove contact with that target. Boom, done - Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like nothing better than to stop interacting with Petrarchan47. If you could craft an IBAN that did not in effect amount to a topic ban against my editing Edward Snowden, I'd be the first to endorse it. But as a practical matter, it is impossible to avoid this proprietary, pro-Snowden partisan intent upon, as she wrote above, "implicating" the United States Government. Petrarchan47 has singlehandedly made 19% of all 6,106 edits to said article. She has racked up as many edits as the next three most active users combined. She is inescapable and intransigent. Moreover, her domination of Wikipedia's Edward Snowden has long since passed from good-faith stewardship into exclusive ownership, enforced first with haughty reverts and ultimately, as seen here, with vindictive demands that editors who dare to trespass on her turf be banned—under whatever pretext she and her supporters can contrive. Is this any way to run an encyclopedia? JohnValeron (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Perhaps you would like a TBAN to be kept away from editors who you commit Personal Attacks on? Maybe we could Implement Both and Get 2 birds with one stone? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I see no basis for an IBAN or a TBAN on JohnValeron. Certainly he has made some uncivil comments, and for those he should be sternly admonished. But that is no basis for a permanent sanction; an admonishment by an administrator should be more than sufficient, and if John ends up re-offending then the issue can be re-examined. I've also seen no evidence that John has had any trouble interacting with those outside of Petrarchan47 and those defending her, and that alone means a TBAN is inappropriate. At the same time, I also feel strongly that this thread should boomerang against Petrarchan47, who seems incapable of working collaboratively with anyone with whom she disagrees on any topic. Plenty of evidence of that, and she has even been warned by an admin on ANI. (If there's sufficient interest in posting evidence against Petrarchan here, please put a note on my user talk, as my wiki bandwidth is extremely low these days.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
NOTE, PLEASE READ: I am deeply disturbed that a large number of my views and comments have been discussed, interpreted, and fought over in this ANI thread by several editors without anyone haven giving me any notice whatsoever. Believe it or not, I still exist despite my current wikibreak. Worse, several of my past contributions and comments have been grossly mischaracterized. I don't want to get into a pissing match about comments made over a week ago so I'll just say, folks, please don't do that again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This IBAN does not solve the numerous issues with Petrarchan47's conduct. She mentioned that I recently "disappeared". Yeah--because I can't stand dealing with her horrible personality any longer. She makes editing Wikipedia intolerable. She ought to be site banned forever!! Geogene (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Since this thread has now surpassed 9,000 words—far more, in my opinion, than the issue warrants—please let me reiterate something I wrote in my first post here, seven long days and 8,400 contentious words ago.

  • In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling [Petrarchan47] a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

I trust the admin who resolves this ANI will not overlook those 42 words, and will forgive my lapse in civility. JohnValeron (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Admin: I'd like to take this opportunity here to ask an admin to administer a short-term block on Petrarchan47 for her COI accusation against me in this thread [7] which is part of a much larger pattern of serial COI accusations against me (see, e.g., User:MastCell's talk page), and in which she actually says that she has been asked by other editors to stop this behavior (but apparently is unable to stop). She continues to break the rules while admitting that she knows she is breaking the rules, I find this absurd. Geogene (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious canvassing is obvious Apparently we should all find it a coincidence that two editors, User:Geogene and User:DrFleischman, both suddenly came back to editing after weeks of absence to come to JoshValeron's defense on the same day. Looking at their contribs, Geogene hasn't edited since 23 April (2 weeks 1 day ago) and DrFleischman hasn't edited since 27 March (6 weeks ago). And yet, like Wiki-magic, here they are within an hour of each other. Methinks someone canvassed via email.--v/r - TP 17:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Obvious canvassing is obvious Well, you're wrong. Of course, you'd have no way of knowing that. Geogene (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Of course I'm wrong, because if I'm right then you three are now in violation of WP:MEAT for abusive off-wiki coordination. I couldn't possibly expect you to admit such a thing. But the edits speak for themselves.--v/r - TP 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, well, I suppose when I logged in and saw that I could have noticed how recently Fleischman's reply was, anticipated your suspicion, and waited a few hours so that you wouldn't jump to conclusions. But that would be guile, now wouldn't it? Besides, even if I had been responding to an email canvass, my arrival time would have been determined by how often I check my email, which is sometimes not that often. My "canvassed" arrival might have happened at any time after I got your hypothetical email, so your "canvassing" theory doesn't eliminate this coincidence so your logic doesn't lead anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis, if you're alleging that I canvassed DrFleischman, Geogene or anyone else by email, that is an outrageous lie, which I emphatically deny. This is a low blow even for you, TParis—the Wikipedia Administrator who famously doesn't give a fuck. JohnValeron (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very much alleging it. And if you think me not giving a fuck is a novel idea that will outrage or shock anyone, you're seriously mistaken. Feel free to share it with everyone. No one...cares.--v/r - TP 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I care. JohnValeron (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah. So Tparis may not really be ignorant, only involved in a dispute with JohnValeron. I feel so much better now. Geogene (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been angry for as long as these accusations have gone for months without even an admin admonishment, but this really takes all. A basic understanding of logic should be required before anyone gets the Tools. But for his education, before he decides to solve more "mysteries" I suggest he read Littlewood's Law [8] and the Post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy [9]. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In a discussion on TParis' talk page, I have demanded that he either conduct a SPI or retract his meatpuppet accusation. I don't want him to slink off from his disruptive accusations like he didn't make them. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

TP, I don't know what you have against me, but your accusation is completely unsubstantiated and false. You and I have no history so I don't know what your beef with me would be. The fact that an experienced admin would throw out such complete horseshit reflects very poorly on this community and its governance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

All I have against you are weeks of inactivity and then you suddenly showing up miraculously and within an hour of someone else who has been inactive with the claim that it was a cosmic miracle that you both show up to defend John on the same day. Other than that, I hold no ill-will toward you or anyone.--v/r - TP 01:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess it was a cosmic miracle then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin attention requested -- I have repeatedly asked User:DrFleischman (here and here) to adhere to WP:POLEMIC by either putting to use or removing his laundry list of my diffs that he is accumulating in his sandbox. He said he was working on a RfU about me, and had low bandwidth suddenly, but would get to it soon. That was six weeks ago. Now he is back, but still refuses to respond to this request. petrarchan47tc 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly support IBAN for Editor JohnValeron. When viewed as a whole the above AN/I speaks for itself. No editor should have to put up with such vile attacking. In 5 years of reading many,many article talk pages, I have never witnessed such demeaning and bullying utterances about another editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and another completely impartial editor registers his unbiased support for Petrarchan47—User:Buster7, who just happens to have been awarded A Barnstar for you! & new WikiLove message from…you guessed it: Petrarchan47. Ain't Wikipedia grand? JohnValeron (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support iban and/or tban. None of us can build Wikipedia alone so all the sources, facts and prose are worthless if we can't collaborate in a collegiate fashion. An unwillingness to cooperate that borders on belligerence is not offset by other contributions. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Reliable sources, documented facts and polished prose are never worthless. Collegiality that results in The Triumph of Mediocrity? Now, that's worthless. JohnValeron (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:BLUDGEON is worth a read. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I am responding in good faith to the accusations and insinuations against me on this unjustly open-ended and interminable ANI posting. If you are now adding WP:BLUDGEON to the grab-bag of allegations, I deny it and request that an uninvolved administrator render an opinion on this particular point. JohnValeron (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Trolling[edit]

When Dr Fleischman, Brian Dell and John Valeron were simultaneously active on the Snowden talk page (Valeron re-entered the Snowden talk page just weeks before Fleischman went silent), User:Jusdafax had this to say:

  • I have not edited this article, but have it watchlisted. Petrarchan47 is correct, in my view, when he notes that the article's longstanding stability is being disrupted by parties who appear to have an agenda. I suggest other eyes may be required to get a fair consensus here. I also support investigating further the motives of those parties given the high target value the article's subject has. My hat is off to Petrarchan for standing up to the bullying tactics this page now clearly documents. 1 March 2014

On the Today Show this morning, Glenn Greenwald was asked about Snowden and his asylum in Russia. This information is the subject of most of our talk page activity at Snowden since mid January, and of the edit war to which JusDaFax refers. A quick glance through the last few archives and current page will show this. It will show that I have brought heaps of RS to say exactly what Greenwald did today, and that edit warring and original research by irate and overly passionate editors have won the content dispute by exhausting rational editors. This means the present coverage in the Lede of the simple story is very unclear. In Greenwald's words 3:46:

"He didn't choose to be in Russia, Matt. He was trying to get through Russia to get to Latin America to seek asylum. The US government revoked his passport and pressured other countries and so forced him to be there."

This is supported by the body of the article, but no iteration of this telling (like this version in late January) has been allowed to remain in the Lede.

Much like with the Geogene/Corexit scenerio, I am being fully trolled for nothing other than trying to keep reliably sourced material, clearly worked, in the encyclopedia. Geogene was enraged that I had quoted RS at the Corexit article (re: last sentence in Lede) and after two RS noticeboards, and an ANI about me, left the scene the moment this well-cited study was removed from the Lede. When told that major controversies (like this study) need to be mentioned in the Lede per WP:RS, her final comment at Corexit:talk was to say that we don't need to adhere to all the rules (here).

Dr Fleischman found Geogene and Brian Dell and asked both of them (* *) to help him take me to a noticeboard or RfU, while engaging in a lot of gossip about me on their talk pages. Although this ANI was to address very specific behaviour from Valeron at Snowden, this trolling, canvassing and meat-puppetry needs to be addressed too, or is this tolerated and accepted as the price one pays for editing WP? petrarchan47tc 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

By being allowed to fester unresolved since April 27, 2014—more than two weeks now—this multi-section ANI posting by Petrarchan47 has become a catch-all for every grievance that she imagines has been done to her at Wikipedia. Her latest accusation is "trolling." Yet again I find myself having to deny a spurious charge for which there is no evidence. How much longer will the admins (assuming there are any left who have not already taken sides) allow this neurotic, open-ended inquisition to go on? JohnValeron (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
JohnValeron's timestamp above is darned inconvenient, but I'm not going to wait to defend myself to make sure everyone's placated. First, I find it odd that my disappearance from Corexit is mentioned as if it's somehow sinister. I'm glad we accomplished some things like not misrepresenting the Rico-Martinez study, but I just got fed up with the environment there and left. It's disingenuous of Petrarchan47 to complain about going to the RS NB the second time because she asked me to start a thread there, ostensibly because I could not be trusted (Diffs: [10], [11]). I did as she requested. Note how the discussion played out there, and how it degenerated into her WP:SOAPBOXING her conspiracy theories about the EPA [12]. But I hope that we can move past this and I don't have to interact with her any more, to include her not slandering me here. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Add by edit: Oh, I'd prefer you use the third person pronoun "he" when referencing me. It's really not a big deal, but it makes these threads easier for me to follow. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pattern of reverting edits made on other user's talk pages[edit]

User:Katieh5584 has a pattern of repeated reversion in other people's user talk pages, where the edit was OK and not vandalism or a violation of BLP, such as at:

This user also reverted my edits to her user talk page, when I warned her what she was doing was wrong. A lot of the edits mentioned above are actually reversions of people removing warnings from their talk page, which is discouraged but allowed on Wikipedia. Also, when I warned her [17] what she was doing is wrong, she continued to edit war [18] on User talk:A_delicious_pot_pie. She was warned by me and FreeRangeFrog 3 times in total, and continued to edit war at A delicious pot pie's talk page. She was, in fact, given a final warning by Barek, and this continuing pattern of talk page reverts against newcomers should be considered under Wikipedia:BITE. Pretty much all of her reversions affect people who are new users, and I think that we need to deal with this continuous use of vandalism rollbacks (using twinkle) on other peoples talk pages, as this may be an abuse on Wikipedia tools. There are many more examples, which I will post if you ask. 123chess456 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is why @FreeRangeFrog: idef semi-protected her talk page for user request within own userspace, as I thought that admins where not allowed to protect talk pages for that as it prevents newcomers for asking questions, and only protect if consistent attacks are happening to the user. Also, yes I think that Katieh should be notified about reverting talk pages unless the edit is a Attack or BLP violation. TheMesquitobuzz 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind she's autistic, so I think it's a lack of not knowing better, rather than stubbornness. I'd hate to see her lose the rollback because she has made a lot of reversions of genuine vandalism. Perhaps we can explain this rule another way and help her learn?
People were being downright nasty on her talk page/user page. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Meteor Sandwich, she should not lose rollback because of this, rather an explanation of the rules and then if it continues after that, then it should be discussed if she should lose rollback, but i don't see that is needed ATM. TheMesquitobuzz 01:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen Katie do some fine work in anti-vandalism. She shouldn't have rollback revoked this time, even if she's revert-happy. As much as I understand how Autism can make it difficult for someone to know what is appropriate and what is not in certain situations, it doesn't affect her overall intelligence and shouldn't be used as an excuse for things. In addition to an explanation of the rules, I think what would help most is someone working with her to improve communication skills, which she has indicated she struggles with. I am more than willing to assist/mentor her despite not being an admin or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm autistic too, but on the "high" end of the "spectrum"; i.e., I can understand people a little better. I can take some time to try to help Katie, but I'm not sure what she needs help with.
I provided diffs or pertinent links, interested in understanding exactly what Katie doesn't get. Take a look at this diff. The person says: "Cmon, he my friend Irl and i'm just trying to troll him xD #SwagCorp.©" That's kind of a borderline case, I'm not really even sure what it means: not vandalism, not cursing, not exactly threatening, but strange and sounds like it might be threateneing: "I'm just trying to troll him" in particular (I'm guessing).
In nearly all the other cases, a failure to understand Wikipedia:BLANKING. It's policy that even blocked vandals can remove all warnings or notices as long as it doesn't interfere with communication. Most notices are for the user, not the admin: the admin can search through the history.
To specify exactly what should be reverted:
Revert these:
  1. attacks that only try to hurt the other person (insults, name-calling, profanity)
  2. inappropriate images [19][20]
  3. blanking or trying to mess up someone's page
  4. deletion notices (speedy deletions, MfD, PROD, etc.) for the page the deletion notice is on. The deletion notice is for the user, and they can remove it. So restoring the notice of Luxinstant's userpage deletion was not a good idea, but reverting someone who removed a speedy tag from their user page is an example of an okay revert.
Don't revert these:
  1. nonsense, rudeness, or arguments
  2. removal of warnings, block notices or bans, claims of sockpuppetry
Did that clear anything up? Feel free to revert me if I'm not being helpful. I find more information easier to work with, because I have to guess what people mean a lot less. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Katieh5584 ask if you have any further questions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to chime in and add that Katieh5584 has been very helpful at both SPI and COIN in reporting problematic editors. So I support the efforts to give Katie guidance rather than sanctions. -- Atama 00:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I second that. Even though Katie isn't new, she may find the Teahouse or other places helpful. We should be gentle rather than hostile, even if editors aren't new. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
comment Note that Katieh5584 has been advised of WP:BLANKING at least once before in 2011 [21], just before she retired for three years over this exact same problematic reverting behaviour. I also think it's bad practice for such a prolific revert button-masher to have a semi'd talk page so she can avoid communication with new editors/IP's. 94.195.46.49 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It would help a lot if Katieh5584 came to this page and responded to the questions people have. In fact, it seems essential. Liz Read! Talk! 13:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Either that, or we bring the discussion to her page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that's the answer, XXSNUGGUMSXX. What I can conclude by reading this complaint is that there are problems with some of Katieh5584's edits but that she is a valuable contributor. If she can address these issues on her talk page (and she will participate in the discussion), it can be moved there. Liz Read! Talk! 12:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The user hasn't edited since May 10. Wait a little until she gets back to editing. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

fake accounts from selected IPs[edit]

More Altimgamr shenanigans (the OP here is yet another sock). -- Atama 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please research. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faraone Lk (talkcontribs) 16:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Odd goings-on[edit]

This account and another have created and blanked User:The Bushedranger. I note Faraone lk is impersonating User:LFaraone. KonveyorBelt 16:27, 13 May 2014 (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.

Personal attack by User:Paeancrime[edit]

Both Paeancrime and the creator of the article he was trying to get deleted turned out to be Mangoeater1000. Checkuser fell, everyone blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 13 May 2014 (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.

Paeancrime is making personal attacks against me and Kndimov. They have called me a sockpuppet of a banned user multiple times[22][23][24]. They have called Kndimov a vandal for fixing citations on an article and restoreing sources.[25] They have also said they were going to take care of me.[26] would someone look into this? GB fan 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I was about to do this myself! -- Kndimov (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see my talk page, section "Edits concerning Edward Guiliano". I am called a vandal, my constructive edits are called "shit" and I am told to "shut up and stay shut". -- Kndimov (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
GB Fan and Kndimov are sockpuppets of a banned editor, who is hellbent on keeping the highly NON-NOTABLE Edward Guiliano on Wikipedia. Note that this article has been deleted twice, with its talk page. GB Fan and several other of his socks are editwarring with me--Paeancrime (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I was asking GB to check on sockpuppetry of someone involved, given the history of article creation and user name.--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore on the page history of Edward Guiliano, Paeancrime says: "Kndimov agreed with me that GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet" and "kndimov agreed to take back his edits, see his talk page". Dear Admin, I encourage you to Please check my talk page like he says: I never agreed to anything. He is putting words in my mouth and attacking me. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I 'll find an admin who will delete the article and its talkpage third time! no worries.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This smells of WP:BLP... - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The guy is mad and not notable--that is why no reference. He's president of a third class college. Must be deleted--Paeancrime (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a notable claim while it is able to be deleted for other reasons this isn't one of them Dudel250 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That also suggests the Editor has a COI with The person the page describes and is editing with the assumption he just wants the page gone Dudel250 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The page and its talkpage has been deleted twice, and will get deleted again very soon. As I said, I will find an admin who will do so very soon. You wait and see.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My Offer: Any admin who deletes the article and its talk page third time gets $300! Not joking. Talk to admins who previously did so! Just put your contact info on your User-page or contact me through email.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a competence issue... 206.117.89.5 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) (Former User:Ansh666)
Very much WP:NOTHERE, at any rate. Paeancrime, I don't know if we have a policy on bribery, but we do expect users to play by the rules. If your speedy delete and PROD were declined - and that's what happened, the article was not actually "deleted twice"; you tried twice and failed - you should have nominated the article for deletion at AFD. This will make editors less likely to take your word that the president of a major educational institution is non-notable; you sound like you have some kind of grudge. --NellieBly (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The article has been deleted twice as a WP:G5. I found it tagged as a WP:A7 and WP:A1 and declined those. Then tried to fix the article. After others edited the article then someone brought up the previous deletions, but so far no one has raised the issue of the creator of this article being a sockpuppet at WP:SPI. GB fan 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I created a sockpuppeteer SPI since I have no way of knowing who created the first two articles. The CU might be able to move it to the proper user should they match.--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Loriendrew, this is becoming fun!--Paeancrime (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Note'''Next Time you Attack a Editor You will be reported and likley blocked, Scarcasm Counts as a insult @Paeancrime:Dudel250 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
it was created by Sony Chiba1 and Roweltenon GB fan 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone just block Paeancrime already. This is just silly. Someone's trolling. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't threaten me--Paeancrime (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I succeeded twice and will succeed again! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Edward+Guiliano --Paeancrime (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note: A report was also made at ANEW reporting Paeancrime (t c) for edit warring at the article in question. I am closing that report as forum shopping redundant without comment on the validity of either thread. —Darkwind (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I overlooked the fact that each thread was opened by a different user. Not forum shopping, but still redundant. —Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The article in question is a new stub about the president of a university with nearly 5,000 students in the U.S. and 14,000 worldwide. This is a school that competes in NCAA Division 1. It is not Harvard or Yale, but it is also not a diploma mill. I think that it is highly likely that this person meets WP:ACADEMIC but the proper place to make that determination is WP:AFD not here. Paeancrime has not yet nominated the article for deletion, and instead is resorting to belligerent and combative behavior. I hope that this editor will be advised through this process by others to "cool it" as I have just done, and I hope the message gets through. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocked, which does not mean I think this is ready for closing. Sorry, Darkwind, I disagree about closing the AN3 thread, and I've blocked Paeancrime for 31 hours for 7RR. The edit warring report clearly had substance, and nothing much seems to be happening here. Possibly everybody's stunned by the $300 offer. (I'll take it.) If somebody wishes to add more offtime for the personal attacks and other issues here and elsewhere, be my guest. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

:::Correction: NYIT has nearly 8000 (4796 undergraduates) students in the USA (EXCLUDING ONLINE STUDENTS) per USNEWS [27] and a bit over 13000 worldwide.--OppanBambiStyle (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious, and blocked (although if you go by "oldest account is the master" it's Paencrime who's the sockpuppet...) - The Bushranger One ping only 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually...looking into this further: OppanBambiStyle was created 00:55, 13 May 2014, and three minutes later created Edward Guiliano; Paeancrime was created 01:02, 13 May 2014 and started attacking the article - but as we can see above they're loudly quacking...so {{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 Completed - Paeancrime is Mangoeater1000. OppanBambiStyle is  Technically indistinguishable from Paeancrime. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
New sock. Maybe semi-protect? --NeilN talk to me 13:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That one is absolutely a sock, and blocked. Given the socking Paeancrime extended to indef. Need a check to see if OppanBambiStyle is genuinely another, as I'm off to bed... - The Bushranger One ping only 13:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Pangaman is also Mangoeater1000. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected one week while the AFD (which isn't protected) plays out. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not sure what he's up to here - good hand/bad hand socking? - but all three of these accounts appear to be Mangoeater1000. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. A new user creates an article. And then creates a sock account to try to get this article deleted and criticize editors who try to improve that article? Some people have way too much time on their hands. Liz Read! Talk! 15:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think this behavior is a form of WP:BLP violation, pitched to take place at a meta-level outside the official rules. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Not a new user, Liz. Mangoeater1000 is long term PITA. Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Mangoeater1000. --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the This is becoming fun! comment and the $300 offer to delete the article were signs that this was a prank. PITA is right. Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 13 May 2014 (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:Volunteer Marek inserting POV-slanted original research in ukraine topics[edit]

Volunteer Marek has been going around the articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis inserting original research and completely made up things supporting his POV while reverting any efforts to change the statements to actually represent what the sources say, while deceptively claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing "misrepresentations" and "original research".

One example is the Euromaidan article where i had removed the claim that "some of the snipers were not allowed to shoot" for not being supported, nor even mentioned, in any of the sources.[28] Besides being original research, the statement made it seem as if only those who were not allowed to shoot were surprised by those who were (ie implying that Janukovich snipers were allowed to shoot and were the ones doing it, something completely unsupported by the sources). However, since such a wording, and made-up stuff, fits his POV he immediately reinserted that claim.[29]

Another example is from 2014 Crimean Crisis where i had removed a whole bunch of claims unsupported by the source [30] [31]. As anyone can see the source [32] does not say anything about any "ukrainian officials", "Refat Chubarov", it being "undemocratic", "hastily prepared", "falsified" or "not reflecting the real will of the Crimeans". However, since the claims made it appear as if there is a widespread belief that only 40% participated and that the referendum was falsified, rather than just one man's speculations about how many participants there could have been given turnouts in earlier elections, which perfectly fits Marek's POV, he promptly reinserted the original research.[33]B01010100 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is sour grapes over the fact that I filed a report on User:B01010100 for edit warring ([34] - s/he got blocked then block was reduced after B01010100 promised to behave, which appears to have been an empty promise) and had the temerity to point out that it's a sketchy-as-hell single purpose account who's arrived recently (?) on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of engagin in some good ol' fashioned WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
No, this is over the fact that i'm constantly working to fact-check sources and rewriting the articles to more accurately present the sources but you constantly reverting and reinserting OR for no other reason than that it fits your POV. Besides, even if it were sour grapes, i'll just refer you to Ad Hominem.B01010100 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how Marek's contributions are in any way controversial, and am going to have to side with them in this regard. If you guys have a dispute, work it out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I am not seeing anything here that is concerning, especially when one looks at B01010100's talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. B01010100 needs to stop focusing on Volunteer Marek, and start concentrating on ensuring his own contributions are not becoming problematic. Coming here each time he perceives an issue is not going to go down well. If there is in fact a dispute, a conflict or some grievance about Volunteer Marek which needs to be addressed, the appropriate thing to do is utilise dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I find Volunteer Marek's edits so much POV that it's very difficult to keep assuming good faith. I don't want to look non-neutral, but, frankly saying, I am beginning to think his aim is to add as many anti-Russian stuff as possible and to remove as many pro-Russian stuff as possible. (I'm not trying to deliberately attack him, but I just want to say what I am actually beginning to think after seeing his edits on the Ukraine crisis-related stuff.) IMO his edits can seriously upset any editor who tries to be neutral. And he keeps pushing them in, keeps reverting people who try to stop him. I seriously hope some admin takes a closer look at Volunter Marek's editing patterns. Just look at his edits and think, "1. Did he add something against Euromaidan or something good about Yanukovich or Russia just once. Did he? 2. Why does he like to call people who are against Euromaidan nazis: [35], [36], [37], [38]? (It's, like, the first thing he does in any article.)" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It is difficult to take seriously allegations of POV pushing from an editor whose username is "Moscow Connection". BMK (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You mean that's beyond your ken? See how easy it is to do stuff like that, so how about focusing on content rather than usernames?B01010100 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Admins will see this Volunteer Marek's edit: [39]. Admins, please, just think, "What does the editor actually do on Wikipedia? Are all of his edits look somehow the same? Is it someone who actually expands Wikipedia, who writes good articles, who actually wants to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia?" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that you guys are warring over the Euromaiden/Ukraine issue and are dragging the drama here. Neither side is in the right here in terms of attacks, but the dispute resolution page is probably the best bet for this discussion, as both sides have rather strong opinions here. Moscow Connection, I think you are going in the right direction, but this isn't the place to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources (User:Lvivske goes so far as explicitly defending his practice of not reading the sources before reverting[40]), or the talk pages. There were existing talk page discussions regarding exactly those changes, but does he follow the consensus there or even read them? No. If there is nothing controversial about making edits going against the talk page discussions, then why do we have talk pages in the first place? You say to take it to dispute resolution, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says to go here, which is why i went here. Where exactly should this be taken then? The issue isn't any particular instance of his edits, but the entire underlying pattern of behaviour, which seems like a conduct dispute to me and hence why i took it here. At this time there is simply no point in making any contributions since if they don't fit his POV they'll just get reverted again irrespective of what the sources may or may not say.B01010100 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. In what you quoted I specifically talked about fact checking, just that its safe to assume if a portion of your sources are junk then the rest likely are too, especially if it's an IP or SP account --Львівське (говорити) 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
When an editor deliberately introduces text complete with citations and the citations do not support the text, the citations are fake. If an editor has the habit of using fake citations, then it is not very surprising if people check-by-sampling, and revert all the untrustworthy edits as vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Except that's not what has been going on. The editor who first removed the text did not introduce any text, and hence did not introduce fake citations, he removed them.[41] This was only his second edit, so he couldn't have had a habit of such things (his first edit was adding a source to a quotation to comply with WP:BLP). Volunteer Marek then reintroduced the fake citations, even though it should be BRD rather than BRR, giving as reason in his edit summary "restore sourced text" even though he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he was introducing.[42] The only thing going against the edit he reverted was that it was made by an IP-user who happened to be based in Russia. Rather than reverting again i rewrote the text to remove the parts that were not in the source and more accurately represent the source [43] (and subsequent edits), as well as using the talk page to discuss those changes. [44] Volunteer Marek then simply introduced the fake citations again[45], completely ignoring both the talk page discussion and the call to read the source first. It seems, to me, that if anyone is making a habit of using fake citations it would be Volunteer Marek. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, it's a general pattern.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize if i have misinterpreted your linked comment, but in the context of the discussion where you made that comment it was Volunteer Marek who kept introducing text not supported by the source by reverting the editor who, rightfully, removed it - thereby showing that he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he kept introducing. It was for that i called him out on blanket reverting others without even reading the sources, which you responded to as sometimes being appropriate. I realize now that i have misinterpreted your comment to some degree, but i presume you can understand the misunderstanding given the context.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention at these edits, which introduce Reductio ad Hitlerum-linked car analogy, in violation of WP:SEEALSO (which demands that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant"). Nazi/Soviet events of 1938 and 1940 aren't related to modern Crimean events. Seryo93 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it." BMK (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
We may add those parallels as attributed (such as in Reactions section), I won't oppose that. But not in See also. And BTW, quote above can be likewise applied to NATO expansion towards RF borders. "Those who fail to remember history...", so I suggest to avoid WP:SOAPBOXing (which, I admitt that, coming from both sides of 2014 crisis) Seryo93 (talk). 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Updated 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
NATO? NATO hasn't expanded since 2009, and Ukraine disavowed any intent to join in 2010. I believe the current brouhaha originated over Ukraine wanting closer ties to the EU, a non-military association. And in any case, if the Santayana quote draws attention to parallels between Germany's actions prior to WWII and Russia's current actions, what is the parallel you're drawing between Ukraine's associations with NATO and the EU and the situation back then? I see none.

Putin seems stuck in the age-old Russian desire to keep a buffer between itself and Europe, either by the conquests which created the Russian Empire, or Stalin's creation of puppet states after WWII. This need for "security" at the expense of the independence of other countries appears to be a long-established part of hard-line Russian thinking. Failing to point out those obvious facts (through citations from reliable sources, of course) would do a disservice to our readers. BMK (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-military? Please get your facts straight. The parallel would be the expansion of a hostile military bloc eastwards in violation of the relevant agreement with Russia on that, just like another hostile military bloc's eastwards expansion in WWII. That's the issue with inventing Nazi analogies in wikipedia articles, all you do is open a can of worms.B01010100 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not (and in fact never, you can see this from my post before!) objected to carefully attributed parallels (look at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary for examples). About NATO: I've meant expansion since fall of USSR, which Russia - country, that dissolved its own NATO - views as a hostile encirclement (see also Cordon sanitaire). Either way, parallels can be found for anything. Seryo93 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Upd: 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Please don't change the contents of a comment after it's been responded to. IN this case it makes my response look provocative, instead of responsive to yours. BMK (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. Seryo93 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The Warsaw Pact dissolved itself, and the Soviet Union really didn't have any choice in the matter, so there's no reason to give them props for that And what of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation that succeeded it? That Russia is now less powerful than the old Soviet Union was is a fact of life, and certainly fuels the Russian paranoia and loss of self-respect that appear to be part of Putin's motivations - but, here again, the rebuilding of Germany's self-regard was one of the factors that entered into the provocation of WWII, and, again, the Santayana quote is pertinent. No one is saying, I don't think, that the situations are exactly the same, but one rarely comes across two world-historical circumstances that are so closely paralleled as these two are. BMK (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
See here (remark about Gorby claims - but this is logical consequence of "unwritten promise"). Anyway, I'm not opposed to statement that "Many compared X to Y...[refs]", as in 2014 Crisis commentary section. Seryo93 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sharing a POV is not an excuse to have it included where it obviously doesn't belong.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

B01010100, Seryo93, Petr Matas: I suggest you look into this: [46].
(I'm not sure, but it looks like the person (under a different account name) has already been banned from the Eastern European topics for participation in a coordinated anti-Russian campain on Wikipedia. As I understand, the edit I linked suggests going to WP:AE to enforce the decision. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The original case can be found here [47] (the old user name is Radeksz). The topic ban was for a year [48] but has been rescinded by motion [49], and even if it wasn't rescinded it would've passed now anyway. So there isn't anything to enforce at this time, however point 4 of the motion should be relevant.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@B01010100: Where is this point 4? Could you provide a link? (By the way, I probably won't be able to do anything myself, but I want to help other editors who might want to do something about the problem.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscow Connection (talkcontribs) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe that he meant the 4th supporting vote of this motion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy to get caught in edit warring with VM, it happened to me as well. You have to be very careful. It is also useful to focus on one thing at a time in the discussion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's hardly suprising, edit warring is after all one of his proclaimed methods to keep the content the way he likes it.[50].B01010100 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This still going on? Guys, as flattered as I am to be the subject of your discussion, you do realize that you are basically talking to yourselves? The uninvolved editors, Ktr101 , Ncmvocalist, BMK and a few others, commented above and I think that's pretty much all there is to say. So how about closing this and the few of you that have axes to grind behave yourself in the future? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC) ───────────────────────── I have a suggestion for both of you. Are you overlapping in the areas that you edit or does it look like one is following the other? I suggest that one or the other has a go at editing a topic that the other would seemingly never touch, if the other party starts editing the same area then a problem is clear cut there. If I had a dispute problem that's what i'd take a look at doing. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) (I did this! Me!) 21:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek works hard to fix NPOV problems on topics which are besieged by pov-pushers and single-purpose accounts. AN/I threads like this aren't a sign of actual misdeeds, they're a sign that VM's work is effective. bobrayner (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have edited with Volunteer Marek on quite a few articles and their edits have been exclusively from a WP:NPOV standpoint. Furthermore, I have seen them frequently confront editors who are trying to push their POV into articles. I highly doubt they are inserting "POV-slanted original research" to the article, at least, looking at the evidence provided, I don't see any question of it happening here, and I suggest that this ANI is closed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
So, for instance, inventing "Ukrainian officials said..." even when the source doesn't mention anything of the sort isn't original research? Would it then be OK for me to add, for instance, "UN and EU officials said..."?B01010100 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Just doing a search on his most recent 50 contributions, we find: removing from an article's talk page a complaint by another editor that the article lacks neutrality[51], two personal attacks against other editors in edit summaries (even after having been warned about that behaviour on his talk page, not that this makes any difference) accusing them of sock-puppetry[52] and being a "newly created SPA"[53] (interesting how he can know that an editor who has only had a single edit will turn out to be a SPA, but then why refrain from biting the newcomers when you can), removing the Donetsk and Luhansk referenda from the article listing independence referenda[54] claiming WP:UNDUE contrary to general consensus (the article even includes internet polls), removing a statement showing the disputed status of the Crimean peninsula between Ukraine and Russia to show only Ukraine[55] contrary to general consensus (the article on the Crimean peninsula shows it as claimed by both Russia and Ukraine favouring neither). But since this AN/I is about POV-pushing, let's see how many POV violations that subsequently had to be reverted by other editors there are in those latest 50 edits. We have removing the infobox on the Donetsk referendum[56] because he doesn't like how having an infobox makes it look legitimate(??) even though adding an infobox is standard (there even is one for that internet poll referendum in Venetia), putting scare quotes around "referendum" and adding some slanted phrasing[57], removing a paragraph of well-sourced information on Blackwater mercenaries operating in Ukraine[58] because of a single word (it said "regime" rather than "government", what happened to rewording something rather than deleting entire sections for having one wrong word?). Perhaps not the strongest evidence, but then it's just from taking a quick look at the latest edits, but good enough to show that "editing from an exclusively NPOV standpoint" is hardly accurate.B01010100 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should switch to the RfC/U process. Please help me compose an RfC/U at User:Petr Matas/Volunteer Marek. Petr Matas 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... you just spammed the fact that you're composing this RfC/U, and "asked for help" to like every contentious talk page [59], [60], [61], [62] [63] related to the topic. And this after your repeated WP:FORUMSHOPPING attempts to somehow get me into trouble, here, as well as at Help desk and on the talk page of Crimean status referendum [64] where you insist on discussing "my conduct" (i.e. the fact that I reverted some of your POV edits) rather than the subject matter (which is what the talk page of an article is for).

Look. Your spamming of these "notices", and your forum shopping across several pages, is just a pretty transparent attempt to alert anyone that I have disagreed with to come and join your little witch hunt. It's sort of starting to piss me off, as it's becoming a bit of an obsession on your part and is crossing... jumping ... over the line between "dispute resolution" and "stalking and harassment". I'm sure there'll be some tendentious editors who come to help you out, and I'm certain that there'll be quite a number of newly created, single purpose accounts who'll pile on. But you see, while we edit articles collaboratively, we don't harass editors collaboratively on Wikipedia.

I'd appreciate it if you undid your spamming of those notices from the relevant talk pages. I'd also like it if you just gave up your crusade and junked the RfC but that part, hey, that's your prerogative. The spam notices though - if you don't remove them, and soon - I will.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that you should understand, that I am not trying to get you into trouble anymore. Now I am trying to find out objectively, whether your behavior is harmful and let all of us understand, what needs to be changed to move forward. Yes, I linked the RfC/U from 6 talk pages referenced from this ANI to draw attention of other involved editors, both agreeing and disagreeing with you. There is nothing to loose except some time, but someone is surely going to understand that he is wrong, maybe even all of us. Petr Matas 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You really have some chutzpah putting the phrase "I am not trying to get you into trouble anymore" right next to the phrase "I am trying to find out objectively, whether your behavior is harmful". My behavior is fine. Don't try to get sneaky and insinuate otherwise. Cuz that's your behavior being harmful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Have Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions warnings been issued? Through I agree that at least one related account look like a SPA returnee who probably knows them well already... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Petr Matas: While i understand the frustration, i have to agree that asking people at several different locations to compose an RfC/U can seem a bit off, even though i realize that it's with good intentions. But if you want my input, it seems that now, with more editors collaborating on those pages, that the most egregious of his edits get quickly reverted and the main problem is slowly solving itself. That it's still far from an ideal collaborative environment is true, and getting him to engage in any sort of good faith consensus-seeking process will be a long uphill battle, so i can see where you're coming from - and that's why, frankly, this constant [insert expletive] isn't worth my time anymore. However, what does bug me is his incessant personal attacks against new editors, even after having been warned about it as well as multiple people complaining about it on his talk page. That sort of stuff is highly damaging to the wikipedia project as a whole, not just something temporarily annoying about a couple of articles. Just think for a minute about how many new editors have been put off from further contributing to wikipedia because the response to their very first edits was being accused of all sorts of stuff by Volunteer Marek, usually sock-puppetry but now he seems to prefer "newly created SPA" (while apparently not even realizing how ridiculous such a statement is, given that being a SPA is a function of a certain editing pattern, something a new editor with maybe 1 or 2 edits obviously doesn't have yet). So it seems, to me, that if you're going to apply a RfC/U and you want it to help remove harmful behaviour from wikipedia that you're better to include that stuff rather than (or in addition to) the refusal to follow BRD and general consensus-seeking, as the latter will slowly solve itself as the contentious nature of the articles tones down and more editors start collaborating on it while the former is simply unacceptable under any circumstances.B01010100 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if it is you, who says that I am not going the right way, I will have to accept it – I have removed the last remaining notice myself. But I don't think that I will be able to formulate the complaints on incivility; somebody else will have to do it. Petr Matas 04:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Adam Farley[edit]

Silvershamrock123 has removed content from Adam Farley with the comment "Farley was later found to be not guilty of this offence and does not want it on his page! He will take this to court if the-edited! Thanks"[65] on the second occasion. The editor's account was AFarley12 before requesting a name change[66] and the editor has claimed to be the article's subject.[67] I'll notify them of this post now. NebY (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that the source cited (via a non-working URL - it can be seen here [68]) doesn't state that Farley was 'charged' with anything ('charged' implying a legal process, rather than FA disciplinary action), the removal looks legitimate to me, regardless of any COI. I would suggest that rather than citing WP:NLT, it might be better to look into this further, per WP:DOLT. If the disciplinary action was indeed later revoked, the article should certainly say so. AndyTheGrump (