Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845

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

Noticeboard archives


German legal threat?[edit]

NAC: This seems to be over. BMK (talk) 19:17, 27 June 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.

User talk:Catflap08#Holocaustverleugnung? apparently contains a German legal threat to Catflap08.John Carter (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If any, his accusations of holocaust denial were a legal threat. And of magnitude in that. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Apparently has to do with a comment over at AN3 in this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive248#User:Horst-schlaemma reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: Article protected). As far as a WP:DOLT check goes of this legal threat, I don't think there's anything we need to do to address what triggered the threat. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked Horst-schlaemma indefinitely, with the offer that they could be unblocked if they unambiguously retract the legal threat. -- Atama 21:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest it would be useful to involve a German speaking admin as the threat was posted in German (even though this being the English speaking Wikipedia). Quote: “sondern bereits als an der Grenze zum Rufmord schwelend. Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein“. So called „legal steps“ in connection to my IP-Address I would consider a legal threat. Please also note the allegation of “Rufmord” (calumny). I myself have not posted the complaint, but have previously contacted Wikipedia via mail. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma sent me an email, stating that "No legal action is in progress or will be forthcoming from my side." I tried to reply, saying that they should post the same message on their user talk page, but my message was bounced back because their mailbox is full. :/
I think I'm going to go ahead and unblock. This isn't a bureaucracy and I can vouch for their retracting the threat. -- Atama 21:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh that’s how one deals with legal threats then? Interesting to say the least that is. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'll be a bit more blunt. Are we sure that is enough, or would some other measures be reasonably considered? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
First, yes, it's a clear legal threat. Secondly, my understanding of WP:NLT is that a legal threat leads to an indefinite block that is lifted if and when the threat is clearly withdrawn (unless there are other factors, of course). And thirdly, I think this threat needs to be withdrawn on-wiki, not just in an email. We are not a bureaucracy, but even the impression that a legal threat is left standing leads to a chilling effect. So the unblocking was, in my view, a bit premature. I won't reblock, but we should make it clear to the user that he should clearly withdraw the statement in question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Catflap, how we deal with them is based on two things, weight depending on who is being threatened, Wikipedia or an individual editor: 1. it is fine to take legal action, but you can't edit while you are taking legal action, via the terms of service. 2. threatening to take legal action has a chilling effect on discussion, it is a blunt instrument used to censor others, thus is more than a little uncivil even if it is an empty threat. This is why a retraction is required, and per Stephan, I think it really needs to be onwiki. From what I see here, he is getting off pretty easy. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree that the top priority now would be an unambiguous withdrawl of the threat. Has he been asked if he would make one? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll make another request on the user talk page. Unfortunately, as I said this editor apparently isn't getting email (unless they deleted some messages) so sending an email won't help, nor will they be getting email notifications about messages on their user talk page. Not that any of that is a reason why they wouldn't make an on-wiki retraction, but it might explain why they'll be slower to respond. -- Atama 23:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
If they're not editing, then they don't really need to be unblocked. I'd suggest re-instating the block until the legal threat is unambiguously retracted publicly, so that any chilling effect is undone. BMK (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That is kind of like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, and would just add another set of block/unblock entries in their log. I trust Atama to monitor and reblock if they refuse to make an onwiki statement. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well I am not too sure about the toothpaste issue … one might as well just dump all guidelines. What really bugs me is the fact that the threat was even posted in German. I leave it up to admins to simply take a look at the user’s entries full stop. I was threatened publicly so any retracts should be done the same way. Not my intention to see anyone being blocked indefinitely. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm bothered that Horst-schlaemma has not yet responded. It's true that email may not be working, but they were pretty quick to send an email out to me after the initial block, so they should be monitoring their user page. I've reinstituted the block, out of fairness to Catflap08 and to ease the concerns of multiple people in this thread. I'm watching their user talk page to respond if they comment there. I'd expected that an unblock would be uncontroversial if I vouched for the retraction personally but clearly I was mistaken. -- Atama 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I won't speak for anyone else, but my concern had nothing to do with my respect for you or for your word -- I absolutely believe that you reported accurately what the editor said to you, and that your unblock was made in good conscience. It's simply that threats made in the light of day should be retracted in the same fashion, publicly and not through intermediaries. The latter gives the impression that perhaps the retraction is tactical, made to restore editing privileges, and not meant in good faith. BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I probably would not have been as generous as Atama in unblocking before the public withdrawal but perhaps he is just much nicer than I am. Once done, I think waiting to reblock was prudent. And I agree, we've waited long enough, so support his decision in reblocking after giving him a good faith chance to recant onwiki. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
(An aside: apologies to Dennis for the erroneous revert. I am working from a very slow connection, and the screen image has an annoying way of jumping to a new position just as I click on something. I should probably disable rollback when working on such an unreliable terminal.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I didn't think you doubted my word. :) I just didn't expect people to be so strict about it. I'll remember that in the future. I've always been of the opinion that a legal threat should be matched with a retraction as clear and unambiguous as the threat was, and I tend to be a stickler about that, but I don't know that I've ever seen a situation where the retraction was by proxy. I thought that it would be okay but now I know better. -- Atama 22:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, this comes across as publicly issuing a threat and then whispering to a single person: "Don't worry, I didn't really mean it." It doesn't come off as an actual retraction that way.--Atlan (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Horst-schlaemma has commented on his user talk page but it doesn't look like a retraction John Carter (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So I think I understand Horst's complaint a bit better now. Evidently he takes issue with being called a Holocaust denier (I'm not certain it was explicitly stated but it came close), and seems to argue that calling him one is the equivalent of accusing him of a crime under German law. Doesn't make the legal threat okay, but perhaps there should be some discussion on whether the comment (which I think was here) was appropriate. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The comments seem to be here and here. All I see is Catflap expressing an opinion of admin action as possible holocaust denial. Horst isn't an admin. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The user in question is unblocked and I should apologise (as he stated on his talk page)? Are you serious??? I am sorry but this not a retract. Yes, I did in a discussion question his intentions as being revisionist – which is a matter of opinion. I then was challenged (in German language on the ENGLISH wikipedia by the way) that he would track my IP address in order to file charges on the grounds of calumny (which by the way is in some ways daft as I have no idea who that person is). So to get things right it was me who was legally threatened and the user now asks me to apologise? Well done Wikipedia, well done. I did by the way contact prior to all this Wikipedia via e-mail and the answer was clear as crystal. So either we have guideline or we just dump them. It was ME to whom a legal threat was posted. I never ever said I would file legal charges against the user in question to be in denial of the Holocaust. I have no idea if the denial of the Holocaust is even an issue within the State of Virginia. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: you are free to propose any other sanctions you feel appropriate now John Carter (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Horst retracted the legal threat. Strictly speaking, that's all that's necessary for him to be unblocked in this case. As a bit of advice, I would suggest you take care when using the term "Holocaust denial" with respect to another editor's actions, as even if such a comment might not constitute defamation (as Horst seems to suggest: calumny is an old-fashioned term for a particularly severe defamation), it's probably a personal attack (so long as it's without good evidence). You aren't being ordered to apologize to Horst or anything, though he seems to think you should. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree it was me against whom a legal threat was posted. The user in question did not retract but asked me to apologise, apologise for what? I never ever said I would take legal actions based on a denial of the Holocaust which, truth must be said, would be a legal matter in the FRG today.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he did retract it. You also don't seem to understand what I mean: I'm not saying your statement could be construed as threatening legal action, but that it could be construed as claiming Horst had committed a crime. That is why Horst complained that you defamed him. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Taking legal action and having opposing views are in my books a separate matter. I have so far not seen any retraction. I was threatened by some obscure IP- actions as a an individual and so far I see no need to apologise. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
He did retract his threat when he wrote "Anyway, I'm not taking any legal action." Don't confuse a retraction with an apology - he's not required to apologize. BMK (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── If someone makes statements that unquestionably deny that the Holocaust took place, then referring to them as a "Holocaust denier" is simple description, nothing more. That being a Holocaust denier may have legal consequences in one nation or another is not a concern of ours, and should not be construed as a legal threat under WP:NLT, unless a statement such as "I'm going to bring your statements to the attention of the German authorities" is made - 'that's a legal threat (but only to those living under German law). We cannot allow reprehensible statements to be bandied about freely here due to a concern about being accused of making a legal threat, that would be a kind of reverse legal threat which would itself have a chilling effect on the community. BMK (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there should be nothing wrong with making a simple description. I'm just explaining what Horst's problem was and what led to the legal threat: he seemed to believe he was defamed. When he later claimed that Catflap08 made a legal threat is pure unadulterated bunkum. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment, we do have language in WP:NLT to be careful about labeling someone's comments as "libelous" or "defamatory", as those can imply a legal threat. But having said that, I think Horst-schlaemma is vastly overreacting. This is the English Wikipedia, and the average editor is not going to be aware of German law. Most editors here would not assume that calling someone a Holocaust denier is a legal threat or even an implication. My suggestion is that if Horst-schlaemma wants to contribute here, they need to adjust to the culture here, and not expect the community to adjust to theirs. Also, I discourage communicating with other editors in German or other non-English languages even if the person you're communicating with claims to have an understanding of the language at the "native" level (as Catflap08's infobox states) unless there is a prior agreement to use such a language, or if you think that the person's English communication skills are poor, or if there is some other good reason to use that language (you're discussing a concept best described in another language). English should be the default language used here. I'd expect that on the German Wikipedia that German would be the default. It's common sense. -- Atama 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this has to be seen in the light of an understandable perception that some comments at Talk:Germany were intended to associate editors who object to certain graphic images of holocaust victims with holocaust denial or revisionist attitudes or (mis-) represent them as attempts to portray Germany as a victim or whitewash German history. Regardless of any legal threats: where this is happening, it needs to stop. --Boson (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Certainly it's messed up to suggest that anyone who objects to displaying images of Holocaust victims is a Holocaust denier. I'm not 100% sure that's what happened here, but in principle, I agree that if that were happening it's not right. Relevant to this discussion, I see where Catflap08 stated that "the Admins moves are recently supportive of Holocaust denial", and suggestions on the Germany talk page that resistance to Holocaust victim images (or giving preference to images of rubble in Germany from war damage) is giving in to "revisionist views". But I don't see direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma. Catflap08 did ask for Horst-schlaemma to be "blocked" (I think the intention was "banned") from "editing the article on Germany", but that was after accusing admins of supporting Holocaust denial, not Horst-schlaemma. And again, even if there was such an accusation, it might fall under personal attack territory (or possibly just considered uncivil) but isn't a legal threat. It's a different issue, and a difference between a "bright line" rule on legal threats and a discretionary one on personal attacks/incivility. -- Atama 23:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree that there is no valid basis for accusing Catflap08 of making legal threats. I think the more relevant policies/guidelines are WP:CIVIL, probably WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA. As regards not seeing "direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma", most of the comments seem to be directed generally at all the editors who objected to the images preferred by Catflap08 (apparently including me); I don't think that necessarily makes it any less personal, but there is also an edit that directly mentions Horst-schlaemma, though it uses an alternative spelling and gets the name of the German comedian wrong. The comment contains the following text:

I do also wonder how openly gay living German Comedian Harald Kerkling might react to the fact that his Horst Schlämmer character is in a somewhat alienated version used to edit Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda.

That looks to me like a fairly direct statement that Horst-schlaemma is editing Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda. You perhaps need to know that Horst Schlämmer is a fictitious character played by Hape Kerkeling, an openly gay German comedian. I would be interested in an AGF-conforming explanation of the allusion to the actor who plays the eponymous Schlämmer being gay in connection with his namesake's alleged revisionist agenda. As an aside: references to the State of Virginia (?) might be a little shortsighted for German nationals and residents, which might also explain why Horst-schlaemma could be keen to robustly refute any allegations of holocaust denial, particularly in view of recent news about the German intelligence services improving their ability to monitor "social media".--Boson (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it wasn’t even me who contacted admins on this issue or filed a complaint officially i.e. started this discussion here, be honest I could not care less anymore and simply will stop editing in Wikipedia for the time being. Endless discussions and debates and a bureaucracy that makes me sometimes think to be on planet Vogsphere, correct content seems secondary these days. Enough time wasted. Bye Bye. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm allowed to post here, let me put some things straight. 1) As a matter of fact, I didn't suggest a legal issue would be filed, I just stated that one would come along as long as Catflap08 keeps accusing me of committing a crime under German law - that's what Holocaust denial is over here. So indeed, I felt legally threatened. I don't know if that's overreacting, but I made an experience of users being rather erratic and sometimes dogmatic over here. 2) Catflap08 claimed to be of German origin (and speak German) in the actual photo discussion of the Germany talk page. So ofc I assumed I could adress him in German and that he'd be aware of the law. Admittedly, adressing someone in another language at the English Wiki isn't recommended and I'm not doing that again. 3) Again: I'm not undertaking any legal actions and never have. 4) IP monitoring is everywhere, as Boson stated. It's not like you can stroll along, spread critical paddywhack anonymously and expect no one ever takes note. 5) On the initial discussion itself: I stated several times that I think showcasing holocaust corpses at Germany's FA-class country article is plain disrespectful. We're not doing that with other countries' articles either. As we had an ongoing discussion/rfc about it, I reverted any attempt to include it (later the page got protected), as some users tried to establish the image without consensus, no matter what. That's where the "holocaust denial" was coming from, which is utterly ridiculous of course. I won't unfurl my background but it'd already tell you how imbecile that claim is. 6) I wish you all some awesome Thursday and don't you worry at all. Life's great. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. You said: "Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein." "When I read such a thing one more time, I will start legal proceedings towards your IP". A clear, unambiguous legal threat which you are now downplaying, even denying.--Atlan (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It gets a little tangled, though, because Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany (Laws against Holocaust denial#Germany). Accusing a German citizen of Holocaust denial isn't just saying something potentially defamatory; it's an accusation that they are committing a rather serious criminal act. I am surprised that someone like Catflap08 – who self-identifies as being of German extraction and as having German as his mother tongue – would be unaware of this.
For Horst-schlaemma, Catflap08's repeated insistence that H-S's edits or arguments constituted Holocaust denial or 'revisionism' represent accusations that H-S had committed a crime. Such accusations should not be made lightly. Catflap08's trying to win a content dispute by intimating that H-S is committing illegal acts through his editing is at least as chilling as H-S's post on Catflap08's talk page. While H-S's response was far from ideal, it is at least understandable. Catflap08's conduct should not get a free pass. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it clear that Catflap intended to make such an accusation? Maybe I missed something but I don't see that. At the same time, if the point is that maybe HS was reacting to such a potentiality, then that should be taken into consideration. I would think that both could be warned to avoid such back-and-forth type exchanges in the future and simply bring up conduct issues in the proper venue early on, before they escalate.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, saying "X version = promoting Holocaust denial" where the difference between X and Y versions are Horst's edits is tantamount to saying Horst is engaged in promoting Holocaust denial. I'm not saying that justifies the legal threat, but Catflap should stand advised that it's probably not a very good idea to indirectly accuse editors of criminal acts in their home countries. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly clear that Catflap intended to accuse other editors of Holocaust denial: [1], [2]. As far as I am aware, he hasn't explicitly stated that he is aware of the legal implications of such accusations in Germany—but I would find it remarkable if a German-speaking person of German origin who is editing on this topic were ignorant of these laws. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, let's not run into something here. Catflap repeatedly accused others of various things and obviously struggled with editors more than once. Now he told us he'll step back. As long as he's not coming back with another load of knee-jerk accusations and fw, I'm not really bothered at all. For me, the case is rested. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a tip: ANI threads don't work like cases at law, so the fact that you're personally done doesn't have any bearing as to whether the rest of us are done reviewing this case. You should also be careful using legalese around here: it can be mistaken as Wikilawyering or mislead people into thinking you're considering litigation (this can happen if you use terms like "defamation" or "libel" and similar). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure thanks, I'm aware of that. Just saying that I'm not putting any more energy into this, as I feel it'd be a waste of time. Have a good day everyone, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:15, 26 June 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.

Legal threat by[edit]

NAC:Legal threatener indeffed for legal threats Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 27 June 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.

I've been threaten with legal threats at User talk:Bgwhite#Irish Mob & K&A Gang "edits" by you by, aka J.C. Berkery. This concerns edits at Irish Mob and K&A Gang where J.C. Berkery has been inserting his self-published books, with Amazon links, into the external links section of the articles. As I'm involved, I'll recuse myself and let others take action. Bgwhite (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Involved or not, you can always block for certain obvious violations, such as vandalism, legal threats, etc. I've blocked. There is no ambiguity here in the threat. It was obvious that the goal was to chill discussion and use the threat of legal action to change the behavior of other editors. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was on my way to block but it looks like another admin got to it before me. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Chillum? Chillum? I thought we lost you years ago. Welcome back. We'll light them up in your honor tonight. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I was distracted, but I am back. Good to hear from you. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a note that at least some previous edits (not by Bgwhite) in at least one of those articles have fallen far short of the requirements of WP:BLP. I think to the extent that I initially tried to fix them but eventually gave up and unwatchlisted the article. Self-published books aren't a WP:DOLT issue of course, but some other shenanighins (is that an Irish term?) going on there may or may not have contributed to inflaming various people. Handle with care. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done – Indeffed by Sir Dennis Brown and edits reverted. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:24, 27 June 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.


NAC: Already under discussion at WP:COIN - No need to forum shop Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 27 June 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.

Jpoindex (Jpoindex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) is a promotion only editor who is faking verification. See COIN for info on promotional writing around Pulse Recording.

some examples of faking verification:

"Past performers at HARD Events festivals include Deadmau5, Skrillex, Underworld, Diplo, M.I.A., Justice, A-Trak, Steve Aoki, Busy P, Boys Noize, N.E.R.D., Crystal Castles, Digitalism, and many more." Sourced by Baron, Zach (2010-09-13). "HARD Fest on M.I.A.'s Free New York Show: "We Don't Really Want to Be Involved"". Voice Media Group. Retrieved 2013-02-18.. Source only mentions M.I.A.
Drew Pearson (songwriter) - ""Home" is the highest selling debut of an "American Idol" coronation song, and held the #1 position on 6 different Billboard charts as well as iTunes." Sourced by "Phillip Phillips: The Billboard Cover Story". Billboard. 2013-01-07. Retrieved 2013-04-01. Source does not verify that. Source says "It has hit No. 1 on a host of Billboard charts like Hot Digital Songs, Rock Digital Songs, Adult Top 40 and Triple A and reached the top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100 (No. 7), Mainstream Top 40 (No. 8) and Adult Contemporary (No. 6)" Four not six charts and no mention of itunes.
Drew Pearson (songwriter) - "He soon moved to Los Angeles, CA where he gained the bulk of his recording studio experience with record producer Greg Wells." Sourced by "Drew Pearson Discography at Discogs". Retrieved 2013-04-01. Source makes no mention of moving or of Wells.
Jaden Michaels - "By age 20, Michaels had signed a publishing deal with Pulse Recording." Sourced by "Jess to bring it home". Northern Territory News. 2013-07-12. Retrieved 2013-08-25. The only thing source (an article about Jessica Mauboy) says about Michaels is "The 23-year-old singer and actor wrote her new upbeat pop single in Los Angeles with emerging songwriter Jaden Michaels.
``By the time I sat down with Jaden, I was two weeks into the writing session and wanted to write something about home. I was missing home a lot, she said. ``To The End Of The Earth made sense because everything I do connects to back home, to my place in the world." No metion of any deal with Pulse.
Pulse Recording had many examples where sources do not verify claims (mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse Recording). During the AFD other examples were added.
Creative Nation had many examples where sources do not verify claims (mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Nation).

This sort of deception is typical of Jpoindex who just writes a puff piece then seemingly randomly throws in references related to the subject but do not actually verify most of the claims. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cross-posting at two noticeboards is generally not considered necessary. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:50, 27 June 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.

Disruptive editing[edit]

I have become involved in an dispute with a editor Dolatjan (talk · contribs) who persists in adding dubious, improperly sourced, irrelevant, badly-worded and non-NPV content, for example, here, here, here. The editor also insists on ascribing action or words said to me which never happened, complaining even when edits were made to correct the editor's poor English. The editor would add unsourced content that the editor cannot substantiate when challenged, or add content with spurious source, for example as discussed here - Talk:Uyghur_people#Neutrality. Content that sounded plausible were added but when checked with the source, they cannot be found in there. The editor appears to add sources that sound likely to support the assertions made but actually don't, and insist on adding content even when shown that the source doesn't say what it is purported to say. It takes a lot of time to check the sources especially when the editor would not give page number of the books (the only time when the editor gave the page numbers it was demonstrated clearly not to say what the editor claimed it says), so it's either spending an enormous amount to time checking the source (which I don't have) or allow dubious content to stay on the page. Hzh (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I have been adding articles by adding source, On my first and second edits i did not have enough time to add Sources for the subjects im adding on the page Uyghur People, then i tried to communicate with the user Hzh (talk · contribs) about how shall we improve and how can we make the page a more Neutral page, i recommended that i would give source for every subject that i will add and i did that on sub articles like Education, Medicine and Art but when it comes to my newly added sub China Uyghur issue and Uyghur population problem i couldn't give any cites for them because of the lack of time i had, then when i saw user Hzh started to call it "Unneutral source" and "Unreliable source" i thougt if we talk about this subject on Talk page was a good idea, then i wrote about the "neutrality" problem on Talk page, user Hzh Started to deter me from editing, He replied to the talk page by calling me "Tidy up your english", It is true that i'm not a perfect english speaker, Hes started to call my sources unstable and that im lying, I showed him the page of the book where the refrences is about but he denied by saying "It is not relevant", I stopped to edit the page because it will be much better if we the editors will be nicely talking and come up with a solution about it, but user Hzh started to deter me, call me liar and untrustable, he eventually said he would not discuss no more, and now he is reporting me to block me from editing, it is Hzh who stopped discussion and starting to deter me and "insult" me, i wrote that i will provide the source of every problem that i will write and i asked to make the page more Neutral, but he ignores what i say and starts to change the main subject of the Talk section and falsely accusing me for giving untrustable source. I tried to solve this by coopration and talk but user Hzh is not willing to do it. then i started to rewrite the subject in Education even when he is deterring me by saying i will be blocked, i hope admins will see a good solution for this. Dolatjan (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll just point I wrote on the sources - here. I read two books Dolatjan cited and neither of them supported those edits. I'll leave the rest to the administrators as I won't try to make any edits on the Uyghur page for now, I simply have no idea how to deal with someone who is persistent and hard to make any sense of. I feel that I have wasted a lot of time the last couple of days just trying to find out if the edits have any merits, and fear that there are more to come. Hzh (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if I should make a point-by-point rebuttal of what Dolatjan says since there is such an odd disconnect between what he says and what I wrote. I have no idea if it is his understanding of English, or whether he truly means what he says (if he does, then it would suggest a lack of ability to critically assess the meaning of text), or just that he doesn't care what he says. It's one reason why I stopped interacting with him as I'm not sure if he truly understand the exchange. However if it is deemed necessary for me to answer any point, please let me know. Hzh (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all I have cited only one book on "Education", By this i'm little bit confused if user Hzh (talk · contribs) really even read the book, i can only say that i either don't have so much time to point out the exact detail of the source, it was long time ago since i checked the book, The book self is about the problems in chinese education strategy over Uyghur minority and Chinese in Xinjiang, When i wrote approximatley "chapter 2", i cannot remeber it and i don't have much time to find it, but i suppose you have not even read the book fully, and you are now meaning that im "stubborn", i wanted to discuss about it but you are the one who leaved the discussion without a good reason, if would need to write the reason you wrote why you leaved, it will be the same thing i wrote on my previous text on "disturpitive editing". I truely belive that articles needs to be neutral, i even pleased user Hzh (talk · contribs) to edit teh article to be more neurtral, but he don't want it, and it is true that i may have some bad grammer but i have eventuly asked user Hzh (talk · contribs) to contribute his english skill for the page. Dolatjan (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! I cannot even follow a word Dolatjan is saying in any of his posts because of the glaring grammar and misspellings. He writes similarly in all of his article edits and diffs that HzH has provided. For that reason alone, the material would need to be reverted. I don't think we have to get into the details of this argument. My suggestion would be to brush up on your grammar before editing Wikipedia so we can at the very least understand what you're saying. It's called "editing" Wikipedia. Dolatjan, I would trust HzH's edits and move on. AmericanDad86 (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)~

Oh, i am really sorry for my english then, i truley doubt that my english is not well, but atleast wikipedia is a free encylopedia, wikipedia is very usefull and good because of this, and wikipedia does set rules for the editors about being neutral, giving source, being polite...... but i belive my english is not that bad so that i should be stopped from editing and contributing new pages and little bit more knowledges to the encylopedia, there are many thing that i don't know that you may know and there are many things that i know but you may don't know, so we need to spread our knowledge and disuss about it. and im truley sorry for my awful english if i have disturbed you. (User talk:AmericanDad86 Dolatjan (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hzh has a valid point that the content you added is not supported by the cited book(s), but your response was "it's in the book somewhere, read the whole book to find it". That's not a good answer. It's your responsibility to provide the page number so people can easily verify the content you add. If you don't, other editors have the right to remove it. -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that even when Dolatjan gave page numbers, when I checked, I can't find what he says should be there (it is the same with both of the books I've checked). I have pretty much given up discussing with him because I have no idea if he genuinely believes in or truly understands what he wrote (or indeed understands what I or the book he cited wrote), or if he is just saying things regardless of the truth. The thing is that some of what he wrote in the article sounds plausible (e.g. radical Muslim families restricting female education), but we can't really accept assertion simply because it sounds plausible. Hzh (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
i have now also cited the page of the book, Please check it again, further more i have added one more book to streghten the editings i made on "Education" please have a a time to chek it also Dolatjan (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it needs to be said just to make sure - the content said to be on those pages of Muslim Uyghur Students in a Chinese Boarding School and Under the Heel of the Dragon do not quite support the edits, only one part (that education in Uyghur is "insufficent" [sic]) can be vaguely supported but it is misphrased, the rest are non-existent. The edits from the another book (Situating the Uyghurs Between China and Central Asia) referring to extremism is irrelevant to the Education section (the relevant part oddly enough was not mentioned by Dolatjan). I have all 3 books mentioned. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It cannot be "irrelevant" just because you say so, on page 168 of book "situating the uyghurs between china and central asia" says : "most recently, china have explictly sought to link its struggle in xinjang with the global "war on terrorism"............" Please read it clearly, and do not point it directly as a irrelevant source.

More of the same problems with The Zeitgeist Movement article.[edit]

User: Earl King Jr., seems to have taken the inconclusive result of the previous ANI thread [3] as a license to continue with POV-pushing edits, personal attacks and edit warring, in line with his 'ownership' of the article. Specifically, the issue has been if and how a piece by Michelle Goldberg in the Tablet magazine should be used. Earl seems intent on cherry-picking the source to prezent TZM in as negative a way as possible. In his efforts to get his way he has claimed 'consensus' for his edits - but when asked to provide evidence for this supposed consensus, not only failed to do so, but made repeated personal attacks - see this thread: [4] While many of the personal attacks are minor, and probably best ignored, Earl has repeatedy accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", both on the talk page [5][6] and in 'warnings' on my talk page. [7][8] Since this accusation is clearly a direct attack on my credibility as a Wikipedia contributor, and since Earl has repeatedly made it, but failed to raise the matter in an appropriate place when I suggested he do so, [9] I am raising this supposed 'disruption' here myself, with a request that Earl provide the necessary evidence to back up this claim - and a request that should he fail to do so, he should be held to account for his own behaviour. I see no reason whatsoever why he should be permitted to engage in such intimidatory tactics without being obliged to back them up with evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor above is removing information from that page, whole paragraphs and citations and sections now [10]. There are very few good reliable citations in the article. Now he is removing them and the cited information and going out of his way to be as contentious and nasty about it as possible. Rather than copy edit something he is removing swathes of the article along with SomeDifferentStuff an editor that was blocked previously on this article for edit warring and tendentious editing [11] Andy and that editor are editing in tandem now on the article in a negative way in my opinion because they are removing information that is critical of the Zeitgeist movement though it is sourced. I am a neutral editor in approach. Andy uses a rhetorical approach to other editors which in my opinion is not needed. A lot of his arguments do not make sense because he assumes that another editor is anti or pro does not mean that is so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
As the link Earl shows, I have explained in edit summaries that the Goldberg piece is being misrepresented: e.g. quoting her as asserting that TZM is "the world's first Internet-based cult..." whereas she actually wrote "At times, it even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult..." - an equivocal statement, not the definitive one the article contained. And yes, I removed the section entirely, since as it stood there was clearly no agreement as to how the Goldberg piece should be used. This isn't remotely ""disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", as I'm sure should be apparent to anyone. Earl has once again failed to produce evidence for anything other than further baseless assertions - and he seems to be trying to distract from the issue by instead bringing in irrelevances about other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Earl King has persistently edited articles related to the Zeitgeist Movement and Zeitgeist films to try and paint the group and its ideas as antisemitic. The basis for this are a minority of partisans, yet Earl has repeatedly tried to give their biased and baseless attacks a disproportionate share of the article and unwarranted prominence within it. Repeated attempts to eliminate the article on the film by making it a redirect without any prior discussion seem to be an escalation. Unfortunately, I think it is time Earl should be given a lengthy vacation from this whole subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't just the 'antisemitism' claims though (sourced incidentally to an article which doesn't actually state that TZM as a whole is antisemitic, and which described some members as "genuinely baffled" when accused of antisemitism) - Earl has systematically cherry-picked sources for the most negative content. It should also be noted that as I documented in the earlier ANI thread [12] he had earlier used the talk page as a soapbox for a conspiracy theory about how the whole TZM thing was a money-making scheme by its founder, and had accused TZM and or its founder of "brainwashing", "meme control" and "neuro linguistic programming". This gives the lie to his protestations of 'neutrality'. His editing behaviour isn't remotely neutral, he is instead intent on piling negativity upon negativity into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talkcontribs) 18:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I doubt some of that. Before Earl King Jr. arrived, articles around TZM were a mass of promotional fluff, cherrypicked praise, and economic illiteracy framed as great solutions to humanity's problems. I haven't been watching such articles lately, but Earl King Jr's earlier edits were a net positive - and a great deal of effort went into dealing with elaborate misrepresentation of sources by TZM fans. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
What matters is what he is doing now. Should prior good acts mean Earl gets free reign to defame and attack the people he detests? More than a few editors who go after promotional writing turn out to have vendettas of their own that only become clear after the promotional activity has been effectively restrained.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Some TZM supporters have been relentless in trying to spin the article their way, and at times have driven us to distraction. That doesn't however make efforts to spin the article the other way legitimate - which is what Earl has been doing. What is needed is strict adherence to WP:NPOV policy - including WP:WEIGHT considerations, which require balanced use of the available sources, rather than cherry-picking half-sentences for effect. And of course adherence to talk page guidelines is also necessary, which obviously precludes soapboxing, speculation about the supposed financial motivations behind the movement, and nonsense about 'brainwashing' etc, along with repeated assertions that I'm 'disrupting' things. Since Earl has entirely failed to provide the slightest evidence for this supposed disruption, I think we can safely assume there is none - and accordingly he needs to be held accountable - if for no other reason than that it makes it well nigh impossible to get TZM supporters to comply with policies that Earl refuses to acknowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
These articles are ridiculous....why don't we just impose 1rr per week on each of these TZM related articles and that will put an end to all the "POV pushing". There are some things worth arguing about Andy, but any defense of the crackpot nonsense that is the Zeitgeist junk is a monumental waste of brain cells.--MONGO 02:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of TZM, like mine, is of no relevance here - if we are to have an article on the movement (personally, I'm not entirely convinced that it merits one, though I probably tend to set my sights higher than most when it comes to notability criteria), it needs to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy, in my opinion you misrepresent in grand flourish the issues. You did remove a whole section of the article recently with reinforcement from Zeitgeist supporters [13]. That is the reason I warned you on your talk page and opened a discussion about it on the article talk page. It was only quotes from the story. The idea is to get a balanced view of the subject for the article. You kept claiming copyvio or this and that about removing information which you could have copy edited easily. Also, bringing an old, very old debate from the talk page and reframing that in as disturbing and provocative way as possible is not the way forward. SomedifferentStuff used partial 'happy talk' phrasing from information in that Goldberg article also to make fluff points. I added the complete thoughts in the article and that was removed by you two. Now the Devils Advocate, another pro Zeitgeist editor, as history shows, is here to reinforce. Andy has been blocked numerous times for tendentiousness. Taking extremely puny points now and trying to explode them into issues from weeks to months old talk page trivia? It looks that way. Its a pity more neutral editors do not oversee those related articles but they do not. There are several people that keep loose tabs on it and probably that is the reason I am there, to keep some kind of restraint on the Movement members that show in droves. Now for whatever reason, his excuse varies, Andy is tandem editing with the Zeitgeist movement members for whatever reason. Now its especially not an improvement that he removed one of the only sourced and viable citations and information aspects of the page which sought to point out the far right origin ala John Birch Society and Alex Jones of the Zeitgeist original movie. They have removed that documented from multiple sources information which is in the Goldberg piece. She is a mainstream writer in a mainstream paper on this fringe topic. I really do not like the real or fake anger that Andy displays every day, the fake attacks, rhetorical shouting, arm waving and fake paraphrasing he does mis-characterizing my contributions. If he does it to me he is doing it to others. The subject is listed as a controversial article, care should be given. Andy is misrepresenting talk page aspects of old material for effect now. In my opinion he is editing like a rough sport, sadistically and cynically here in this. I did not bring this here. He says he is reporting himself because I asked him to cool it. I am not a litigious type of editor on Wikipedia. I just thought it best to caution him about removing the information from a viable, 'ggod' source in an article that has little good sourcing. One more thing the user TheDevilsAdvocate has a block record of edit warring on related '911' conspiracy theory articles [14] and previously edited in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Evidently Earl seems to think that attacking other contributors here is a good smokescreen for his inability to provide the slightest evidence that I've been "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And incidentally, I can't find the slightest evidence to back up Earl's assertion about TheDevilsAdvocate "previously edit[ing] in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article" either [15][16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I would note that I have made plenty of edits that Zeitgeist supporters and conspiracy theorists would not like. Characterizing my edits as "pro-Zeitgeist" or anything similar is nonsense. Most of my edits to the Zeitgeist articles have been to remove edits claiming or strongly insinuating that the Zeitgeist film is antisemitic. Those edits have been primarily pushed by Earl.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


  • Mmm. After being absent from the article a long time you suddenly come here to slash and burn another editor? You also are editing the article in an edit warring matter over whether the group is conspiracy theory oriented as to category which seems pretty obvious which direction that is going as to the answer. [17]. As mentioned you were blocked from editing a 911 article for edit warring and now you are edit warring that the Zeitgeist Movement is not in the conspiracy category. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw the report on ANI. That is how I became involved here at this moment. As to the category, it is redundant as the Zeitgeist Movement category is a sub-cat of the "conspiracy theorists" category. I do think the article itself could do more to note the role conspiracy theories play in the movement, but the category is redundant.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am honestly surprised at the level of inaccurate material being posted here by Earl King Jr. -- Just to be clear, on June 22, Earl King Jr. cursed at another editor on the talk page [18] -- Yes, we're all adults here, but that should never be acceptable. -- Regarding his editing in general he is one of the most polarized editors I've come across on Wikipedia. The article in question is viewed as a type of ego war; when he doesn't get his way he tries to find another angle. For example, his wall of text above has to attack the credibility of other editors in order to preserve his own. He attacks Andy because he removed some hotly disputed material when in fact it was one of the wisest editing decisions I've seen during my years on Wikipedia. To give you an idea of how inappropriate Earl can be when it comes to evaluating material, have a look at this discussion. [19] -- Under the assumption that I will also be attacked here, I need to disclose that I was blocked for edit-warring on the article in question in August of 2013. The block was appropriate and I take full responsibility for it. What Earl also needs to understand is that another editor's behavior should never be used as a defense for one's own. -- On the topic of edit-warring, I brought a complaint against Earl in May of this year which could've resulted in a block [20] (See the admin's closing comments). -- I won't state what I think is required here but I ask that whoever takes on the task of evaluating Earl's behavior to please investigate it thoroughly. Regards -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

My guess for the future of this series of articles are wide spread topic bans...none of you are innocent. I reiterate that arguing on behalf of a crackpot notion like the Zeitgeist nonsense is one of the less useful ways to spend ones time.--MONGO 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And I would remind you that WP:ANI isn't a forum, and that our own personal opinions about what is or isn't a 'crackpot notion' is of no relevance to how we should behave on talk pages, or on how we determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Heh...looking at that article and your "contributions" there maybe you should quit while you're ahead. I predict a minimum of a topic ban should you persist with your ownership and personal attacks.--MONGO 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note. Since it seems evident that nothing is going to be done to rectify Earl King Jr.'s endless POV-pushing, and since I'm no longer prepared to put up with TZM supporters describing me as 'Fascist' for objecting to their endless use of the talk page for the promotion of their deranged ideology (which incidentally has more than a passing resemblance to early Italian Fascism in some respects), I'm taking this article (and the related movies) off my watchlist. I'll leave the POV-pushers on both sides to fight it out amongst themselves - hopefully, our readers will be able to see clearly enough that Wikipedia is incapable of producing encyclopaedic coverage of such topics, and will look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea!--MONGO 18:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Up to you on that. Apparently the motivation of this Ani is your being upset that I warned you on your talk page about removing a whole section of information [21] and you decided to self report yourself and turn that in to some kind of a contest of wills and policy. I pointed out that you have been editing in tandem with members or hangers on of Zeitgeist in order to in your mind keep the article neutral. I think that was a mistake in the sense that we have to go where the citation information brings us and sometimes that might seem like someone is being overly critical, but doing things like cutting off parts of written thoughts from sources to get a certain feeling of positive promotion in the article goes against honest representation of what the thing is. If you edit to keep things like that in the article then you become part of the problem of skewing the information. Balance is looking the citation information not tit for tatting pro's and cons of this and that about the group. I suggest you keep editing the articles but less aggressively with the Zeitgeist supporters and stop accusing this editor of malicious intent. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Listen, you obnoxious little shit, I have said I'm not involving myself with the article any more - I don't need lectures from a semi-literate dishonest and hypocritical POV-pusher like you on how to edit neutrally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rough sport plaything really where you can attack people for next to nothing though you just did that. It takes some social skills also. I never pushed a pov beyond citations and that is not my pov. Also I am not 'little', actually I am quite large. Last time I checked I seem to be rather literate also. I guess all humans are dishonest and probably hypocritical to some degree but this is probably not a good time for you to bring that up. I have the right to comment on what you are saying here. Your anger notwithstanding is misplaced anyway since you never got that I am just trying to improve that particular article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

" Last time I checked I seem to be rather literate also". Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

I propose that Earl King Jr. be banned from any edits related to The Zeitgeist Movement. To sum up the reasons:

Seems clear Earl has a hostile POV towards the films and movement and he is editing the article to push that POV.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'Devils Advocate' above, a pro Zeitgeist movement editor recently removed the category of conspiracy theory on the article by marginally edit warring. The Zeitgeist movie is all about 911. It appears according to The Devils Advocates Block log that he is topic banned from Zeitgeist material then because it is all about 911 conspiracy things [56]. So it appears that by editing at the Zeitgeist movement and related articles he is in violation of his topic ban. That explains why he stopped editing the article a while back. It looks like he is back editing 911 things again (Zeitgeist). A neutral editor on this subject is upsetting to him. Could the Admin that sanctioned him previously and topic banned him take a look or be referred here to take a look? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Attacking the messenger? You are mistaken in various respects, but this is not about me. Your attempts to deflect all criticism by going after those opposing you instead of defending your own actions speaks volumes.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if The Devil's Advocate is pro-Zeitgeist or not, but the original movie and stance of the "movement" was that 9/11 was an inside job and the movie DOES in fact have anti-Semitic overtones. The Devil's Advocate was twice topic banned from 9/11 related articles and twice was blocked for violating his topic bans. I do believe his topic bans have expired though.--MONGO 01:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the Grump's edit that seemed to spark all this Undid revision 614238059 by Earl King Jr. (talk) THIS MISREPRESENTS THE SOURCE - revert again and I will report the matter. The source is "misrepresented" to this extent that the first quoted text omits a qualifying "at times it seems". Surely an editor with advanced literary skills ought to be able to make the necessary corrections without entering into a screaming edit war over it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Coat of Many Colours. The problem with Earl started well before that edit. Here's clear proof of that.[57] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well plainly there's form here (at least one would hope so when highly articulate and literary editors start slagging each other off as "obnoxious little shits"). My guess is that most of the world plus the few thousand actively editing Wikipedia bar four or five and their mums simply aren't worrying too much presently about this The Zeitgeist Movement article. I appreciate that POV abuse is insidious and hard to control, and in the end one simply has to walk away from it as Andy felt constrained to do, and I sympathise. I'm not going to make a vote on the Topic ban proposal because I don't know the issues. But I do know that Andy is fundamentally right about Wikipedia's shortcomings when it comes to controversies like this and I don't think you can topic ban the problem away. The whole drama is rather thoroughly debated on the Talk page and Michelle Goldberg views presently don't appear in the article. I suspect historians of popular culture (and frankly those are the hostorians most likey to interest themselves in Wikipedia) of the future will find as much to interest them in the Talk page as the Article itself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • STRONG SUPPORT for a topic ban -- Earl King Jr.'s problematic behavior did not stop after the first ANI brought against him[58] -- or after the admin's closing comments here[59] -- or after his recent cursing another editor on the article talk page[60] ---- Aside from being disruptive, both Earl and MONGO should know that using The Devil's Advocate block history is not a form of defense for Earl's behavior; it's clearly a deflection strategy, but odd to witness due to its transparency -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Since you and Andy tandem edited the article for weeks and you are a long term pro spin Zeitgeist editor along with 'TheDevilsAdvocate' who is a 911 buff previously blocked for editing tendentiously on conspiracy related articles, a few more pro Zeitgeist people may show here. How did Andy reporting himself and calling attention that he thought I made a mistake warning him about edit warring information on his talk page suddenly turn into a witch hunt for mostly non existent 'evidence' that I deserve a topic ban and yes SomeDifferentStuff because of your super tendentious editing on these articles you were blocked before and its fair to bring that up since you are throwing everything and the kitchen sink into getting a neutral editor put off from the article, so here it is again if there is any doubt [61] since you are hamming up my supposed misdeeds, what I think is going on is that want your pro Zeitgeist spin to prevail, something you succeeded in recently with support from Andy. Neutral point of view and balance balance does not come from pro and con supporters, it comes from reliable sources. The M. Goldberg article was one of the few of those and Andy removed it. You also chopped snippets from it to promo spin the 'movement'. I agree with 'CoatOfManyColors' that Surely an editor with advanced literary skills ought to be able to make the necessary corrections without entering into a screaming edit war over it.., if it was really simple editing and working together on the project he would have done that but he did not do that though I asked him to do it, instead of arguing and editing tendentiously. Andy in my opinion really should be blocked from editing for the charm offensive he used above describing another editor. What gives with that? Really my experience of him is that he should not be on Wikipedia at all because of his attitude and way he does what he does. Should he really get a free pass with his statements above? I don't mind a little bitching, but that was way over the top. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Earl is not the problem. It would mot be appropriate, and it would not improve the article, to ban him. Earl knows the source material, and his edits pretty much reflect the view of the movement found in the sources. Tom Harrison Talk 12:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No Andy has been proven wrong in this latest attempt to prove what he is trying to prove. I am not pro or con. I follow the citations and see where they lead. Its a pity the pov editors try to arrange information for their pov. Balance is not attained by factions but by reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support + topic ban from making new threads at ANI and AN.--v/r - TP 01:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Aeon-characteristic (Closed)[edit]

User was blocked indefinitely by Kevin Gorman.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:51, 28 June 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.

User is an SPA, basically trolling the Zeitgeist pages, called Andy the Grump a "fascist" this discussion.--MONGO 11:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Par for the course unfortunately, and I doubt that a block would achieve anything of lasting significance, which is why I'd tended to just try to explain policies about sourcing, NPOV, not using the talk page as a forum etc, and then ignore it. Which is fine until experienced contributors start using the talk page as a forum. Experienced contributors including you, Mongo. [62][63] Why should we expect TZM supporters to comply with policies we ignore? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That's right, Andy....why should you expect others to abide by policies that you ignore. I guess it would be unfair to block the SPA for calling you a fascist and not block you for calling him insane....very valid point!--MONGO 15:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That's right - I lost my temper after having to put up with endless soapboxing from the likes of Aeon-characteristic and you on the talk page. What's your excuse? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy! You're the one that started the thread, and its one of several of late that you have been advocating for penalities to be applied against Earl King....and on that page you're insulting everyone and you're doing that here even calling Earl an "obnoxious little shit" above and you want action brought against others yet your hands are just as dirty. Really?--MONGO 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Clearly an editor who is not here to edit an encyclopedia, but the individual has made no article edits and has only been active for a month. Seems to me like you are just trying to distract from Earl's conduct.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Block the I.P. and also Andy for gross breaches of editing civility. No free pass for Andy being above the guidelines and in this case over the top breach of civility like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick type of breach. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See below. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocked Aeon, pretty much per TDA's reasoning. I found him through his edits on my watchlist and not this ANI section - and thus haven't reviewed the comments of Andy or of Earl. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:14, 28 June 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.

Proposal for blocking Andy the Grump from editing (Closed)[edit]

Andy will not be blocked for one single grumpy comment/insult, but if he continues I will block. Now back to the matter at hand please. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 28 June 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.

I propose this because if he is treating me like this he is also doing it to others Listen, you obnoxious little shit, I have said I'm not involving myself with the article any more - I don't need lectures from a semi-literate dishonest and hypocritical POV-pusher like you on how to edit neutrally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) end quote. I think this has all gone too far. I don't care how long he is blocked or what the constraints of a block are but maybe it could be for outrageously ignoring standards of civil discourse. Any value that Andy has as an editor I think is annulled by his rhetorical upbraiding for little to no reason of fellow editors. So, I think the statement he made above is a little like a block death wish by him. He is making that statement with utter impunity here. This deserves a block in my opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow Earl, you just completely violated ANI guidelines by inserting this thread. Hopefully an admin will block you from any further disruption (but I won't hold my breath). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Given your complete failure to back up your repeated assertions that I'd been engaging in disrupting Wikipedia with the slightest bit of evidence, and give the fact that you responded to my statement that I was taking the articles off my watchlist with a patronising (and semi-literate) lecture on 'neutrality', I suspect that there may well be some sympathy with my characterisation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I am asking that you be blocked for making the statement you made above, this one Listen, you obnoxious little shit, I have said I'm not involving myself with the article any more - I don't need lectures from a semi-literate dishonest and hypocritical POV-pusher like you on how to edit neutrally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) which to me signifies a lot of your style of editing and interacting with fellow editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we can see what you are asking. Though people might well wonder why someone who claims to be offended by my comment feels compelled to repeat it verbatim in successive posts... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Because I think you abuse En.Wikipedia using it as a punching bag with little to no regard for people you are supposed to be working with. You do not play fair with others. You bully people. Your initial point that I was POV pushing is not accurate but you will not relent. It has been pointed out by experienced editors here that it is inaccurate. You have support with two pro Zeitgeist editors that you tandem edited the article with prviously. Thats about it. I never insulted you just asked you to stop what you were doing and warned you on your talk page. You then self reported yourself to contest what I was saying about removing the M. Goldberg citation information. Experienced editors, NPOV editors have confirmed this in their opinion here above. Since you originated this litigious of your opinion discussion that I am a pov editor on these article and only have support from SomeDifferentStuff a person formerly blocked on the article for tendentious editing and edit warring and for sure a pro Zeitgeist supporter editor and TheDevilsAdvocate a 911 conspiracy buff blocked numerous times for edit warring pro 911 conspiracy theory, it seems that you characterized the situation wrong and your supporters are either ax grinding Zeitgeist or that 911 was an inside job. Now in this ANI you have done what you did above which is off the charts against guidelines of responsible editing by name calling. I am asking you be blocked because partly you have a long block history of uncivil action that does not seem to deter you in the here and now. The last ani you did you repeatedly called my contributions bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. You are not above the same expectations that Wikipedia guideline ask for and the original reason for this ani at the very top has not proven out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:37, 28 June 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.

Poss legal threat[edit]

NAC: User blocked per WP:NLT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:26, 28 June 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.

Hi all,

Michelle bega has made multiple edits to article Leslie Bega - in which they either remove content verified by reliable sources, or change content not verified by reliable sources (ie. source non-existent). In their latest removal, they made a legal threat here.

Michelle continues to change the DOB of Leslie from 1967 to 1977 and changes the one of three sources used to verify the age from to — the latter source does not exist. Furthermore, the other two sources used to verify Leslie's 1967 birth, both confirm the latter too: [64], [65]. —MelbourneStartalk 06:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked for both the legal threat and the continuing disruption after multiple warnings. Black Kite kite (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! —MelbourneStartalk 09:18, 28 June 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.

Uncivil actions and unbased accusations by ProgGuy[edit]

For several days now, an edit war has existed between ProgGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and anonymous user have been edit warring over musical genres listed within the infobox of Mr. Bungle article. Neither user were in violation of 3RR, nor were they vandalizing the article. was reverting to a version of the genre list that has been generally accepted for about 4 years now. ProgGuy would then revert the article back to the way he wants it. After the second day, ProgGuy did address the issue on the Mr. Bungle talk page but it was more of a command to stop adding the death metal genre, than it was an attempt at coming to a consensus. [66] Two days later, ProgGuy took to's talk page with a demand that the reverts stop. He also stated that the information was unsourced yet his own reverts were equally unsoured. I also suggested both of them trying to actually discuss it on the article's talk page in order to gain a consensus by everyone and not just him. [67] It was then that I attempted to step in and address both of them. [68] That led to a response from ProgGuy in which he made unbased accusations of being and that my using an anonymous IP was considered by him to be "an act of cowardice." [69] I assured him that I was NOT the anonymous user and invited him to have an admin do an IP check on me to prove it. I additionally mentioned again that the version he was reverting to himself was also not sourced. [70] Personally, I don't have a opinion about what genres are listed for this vastly multi-genre band. In the end, genres can be a matter of opinion and taste. My point all along has been that if someone is going to remove information that they feel is poorly sourced or not sourced at all, they should also have to provide sources for the information that they are putting in its place. ProgGuy's next course of action was to place a bogus edit warring report against in which he stated that the user had been warned multiple times to stop edit warring. [71] No procedure was followed before doing so. BOTH users had been edit warring but no proper warning procedure was followed and the accusing party was just as guilty. In fairness to the anonymous user, I spoke up and made these facts known. [72] The result was an admin semi-protecting the article for 3 days. [73] Meanwhile, the reverts continue on the article and the "discussion" continuing on the article's talk page. ProgGuy continues to assess the reverts as vandalism and to accuse me, once again, of being the anonymous user, In doing so, he's also brought name calling of "coward" back into play. [74] This is not an isolated issue. It's also worth noting that he has made the accusation against another user, SonOfPlisskin, of being the very same anonymous editor, within the Mudvayne article talk page. [75] It seems anybody with a different opinion must be using an anonymous IP address and that we're all cowards in ProgGuy's eyes. Many of us are vetran editors and no, we're not all going to agree or even get along, but for the most part, we all try to work together. Before the edit warring is even address, the big issue seems to be civility. Name calling, accusations and false reports do not have a place here. NJZombie (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The semi protection was inappropriate and I have notified the admin involved accordingly. Will warn all editors involved in the edit warring, hopefully people are willing to provide proper sourcing and discuss it, rather than doing pointless reverts. —Dark 11:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
On a completely separate tangent and for future reference, admins are unable to run IP checks. Our elusive checkusers are the only ones that have access to those tools. —Dark 11:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. That's what I actually meant but just chose the wrong wording. Thanks again! NJZombie (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you really just claim that no procedure had been followed on my part? Seems like you're the one making these edits and are actively trying too hard to defend them rather than acknowledging that maybe there's a problem with adding a fancrufty genre without any sources to defend it. "Generally accepted" nothing. It's either accepted or it isn't. You can't be "somewhat pregnant". ProgGuy (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
And the baseless accusations continue. I did say you failed to follow procedure. You filed a report on the user and said you gave warning when all you did was tell him to stop while continuing to edit war yourself. Whether you're wrong or right, continuing to revert back and forth is edit warring. You also accused them of vandalism and although annoying, no, putting up information you disagree with, wrong or right is not vandalism. While I truly do not care about your suspicions that I'm that editor, PLEASE use WP:CHK and follow that procedure to file a WP:SOCK report on me and that user. Even without the check user process, it's actually pretty simple to look up an IP location and see that the editor in question is in Florida. My own IP address of is in NJ, hence the NJ in my username. that being said, I've now given you the link to start the procedure of proving me to be this other editor. Use it and put your mind at rest. Sometimes people just don't agree with you and will say it. NJZombie (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Obiwankenobi[edit]

NAC: Since the only real call for action - the topic ban - has been closed, what remains is essentially a very messy content dispute, which should be taken elsewhere. BMK (talk) 19:14, 27 June 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.

There has been a multi-day pattern of disruptive editing by Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) , specifically on articles and categories related to Misogyny/Misandry:

Today, Obiwankenobi edited the category for “violence against men”, to make it so it’s no longer a subcategory of “Misandry” [[76]] He did this while involved in a debate on the original research noticeboard about that very category in question. The debate specifically involves this category’s relation to the misandry category, so it seems inappropriate to alter the category during the course of the debate. He also seems to be making a lot of controversial edits on many different categories related to misogyny/misandry, I'm not familiar enough to comment on all the other changes, but I think someone knowledgeable about categories maybe should look into the multiple category changes currently being made by this editor.

Additionally, this is all occurring after an informal admin effort to help this user avoid a topic ban for disruptive editing on another article related to misogyny/misandry, YesAllWomen. On this article, Obiwankenobi bludgeoned the article talk page and closed an RfC he was involved in. Full details can be found at:, but in the end, Obiwankenobi agreed to edit something unrelated for a week or so, to avoid formal action, but this he hasn’t occurred, so it seems formal action may be needed. to avoid issue being brought to ANI. At the very least I think there needs to be more eyes on all the category changes.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify where formal action was threatened anywhere? The way you've worded it is that Obi agreed to a week to avoid formal action, but when I read the thread, it appears Obi agreed to a week in good faith.--v/r - TP 23:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize there's a lot to wade through in the above linked discussion, but here are a couple of difs to relevant comments:
[[77]],[[78]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talkcontribs) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I will leave this in TParis's capable hands, but you are both correct. He agreed to back away, thus avoiding it being taken to ANI, where action was possible. I think you are just wording it differently. ie: "formal action" == "taken to ANI", rather than it meaning any particular sanction. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: I'm actually heading off to the gym. Sorry, I just wanted clarification on this point. I hate to see good deeds misconstrued as admission of guilt.--v/r - TP 00:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
In this case, it was an offer of a good dead after realizing he had probably pushed it a bit far in the discussion, but a good dead is only a good dead if you follow through. Bob doesn't seem to be asking for a block here, he is asking for oversight. I've done what I can, but my methods of come up short, and I'm just not fully well right now. It needs an another experienced, calm mediator to review and assist. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I hate how the categories are used here, so no comment there. I see nothing to make me think Obi's agreement was to avoid any sort of sanction. Arkon (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
For example, it appears that one of the changes put Domestic violence and pregnancy in the "violence against men" category. [[79]]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Only indirectly as a grandparent. In the same way, adding Category:Rape as a subcategory of Category:Violence against women means Male rape now has a grandparent of Category:Violence against women. There are many such inconsistencies, please don't blame them on me! This is due to the nature of this part of the category tree - we have gendered parents with ungendered children like Category:Rape or Category:Domestic violence - so as a result some of the articles in the ungendered categories don't really fit in the gendered grandparent categories. This isn't my doing, this has been this way for a while as far as I know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • comment Bobo is correct that I went too far in a recent debate. I let my emotions get the better of me, but I've apologized, and I apologize again to Bobo and Tara for the disruption there. and I have already stepped away from that particular discussion on the advice of Dennis. As for the other edits, I do a lot of category editing and when categories are mentioned I take a look and make changes if I think they are warranted. The discussion Bobo refers to was not about the proper parent categories of Category:Violence against men but rather whether a particular article should be categorized in a particular category, i.e. Category:Violence against men in North America. I made the change to make Misandry->Violence against men a see also link instead of a parent/child relationship, since violence against men is not always driven by misandry, but often by other motives, such as religious hatred or political violence, terrorism, war, etc (see Srebrenica massacre for a classic example of violence against men that was nonetheless not driven by misandry but rather by ethnoreligious hatred). That said, in the interests of good will I am self-reverting those changes and will engage on the relevant talk pages to seek further consensus. It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. I welcome any other suggestions you all have here on how to de-escalate this situation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point on Srebrenica. Given the historical rareness of Amazons in military ranks, we might as well put Category:Battles into Violence against men, but that doesn't mean that battles should be considered misandry. I quote a relevant passage from Commons:COM:OVERCAT, which is simpler than anything I see here on en:wp —

Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page. Example: Assume that Category:Spheres contains only pictures of crystal balls. You must not add Category:Glass in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have spheres made with a great variety of materials. Normally, any picture showing a glass object would be already categorized in Category:Glass (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Spheres is really crowded with crystal balls pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Glass spheres or Category:Crystal balls, categorized in Category:Spheres and Category:Glass.

Let the misandry category be for articles about subjects such as militant feminism. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've reverted those changes now, but I am starting a discussion at WikiProject gender studies to cover this and the misogyny category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. You shouldn't expect anyone to have unlimited patience with you. Bobo and I had both addressed your tendentious editing on your talk page previously and were rebuffed. When every objection to your behavior is met with 'it's water under the bridge' and 'let's move forward' rather than any acknowledgement that you could have handled the matter better, and when the behavior itself keeps recurring, you have to expect that eventually someone is going to turn to a dispute resolution venue of some sort. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me make an observation: Here just as on my talk page, I think everyone is acting in good faith. Some nerves are a bit raw but no one is asking for sanctions, no one is getting rude. Both sides of the original dispute are frustrated, but that is just part of editing in disputed areas. It happens. We seem to have an agreement by Obi and good faith actions on his part. Perhaps we should just close and walk away and let time heal old wounds. I don't see any "bad guys" here, and I don't want this to get dragged out to a point that we create one. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I am acting with good faith and I'm not necessarily asking for sanctions. I just think you should be aware that the calm reasonable response that Obiwankenobi has been giving in front of you and other admins, who have the power to impose sanctions, is in contrast to the continued behavior and the repeated rebuffing of fellow editor's concerns. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I really think that a less biased editor should be the one who does things like unlink the category Violence against women from Misogyny or Violence against men from Misandry. The former is a long standing category which covers dozens of articles. More importantly, there are a number of instances where an article would have been in both Misogyny and Violence against women and that it now would not be. The article for Violence against women describes it as "Violence against women (in short as VAW) is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive." However, Obiwankenobi seems to be convinced that these kinds of violence do not presuppose the victim's gender as a motive. I believe this is to eventually move towards including things such as acts of war as gendered violence and completely restructure the way that both categories are used. Considering this editors contentious stance concerning feminism, I think it is very possible that these efforts are an attempt to "move the goalposts" as it were concerning categories that focus on both men's and women's issues -- (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. If you'd like the participate in the discussion on this topic, I started it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Misandry.2FViolence_against_men.2FMisogyny.2FViolence_against_women. That said, I would be careful about relying upon our wikipedia article, I'd focus on the sources themselves instead, which I provided an example of in the discussion I just linked, which gives about 6 or 7 different reasons for rape in warfare for example. the way we have used these categories in the past is for violence where the victim was selected for violence based on their gender - not where the gender of the victims MOTIVATED the violence - the causes of violence are complex, but they sometimes manifest themselves in particular people being selected for violence based on their gender. For example, sexual trafficking of women is not motivated by hatred of women, but by profit. Sometimes both happen at once, but not always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If we are editing directly against the basic ways that a term is described on website, then it shows we, as a community, have some significant problems with our understanding of said terms -- (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You may want to read this, which gives about 20 pages of different theories as to the causes and motives of violence against women. Very few of them are "Because they are women". It suggests to me we should update the lede of our article, actually. Anyway, we're getting off topic here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
That's true, but without specific guidelines concerning how to use a category, surely we should use how the topic is described on website? -- (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we close this now? Arkon (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, there hasn't really been any contribution by admins and the discussion seems to be unresolved. I'm certainly still very unhappy about how disruptive Obi's editing has been the past few days -- (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this should be hastily closed either. It appears the category referred to above “violence against men”, has been nominated for deletion: (here) and the arguments for deletion coming from multiple editors relate largely to Obiwankenobi’s use of this category. I’m not sure the answer, but if admins could help facilitate the use of this category by Obiwankenobi, it might go a long way in saving a category from deletion, which has the potential to be useful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A category like that sounds like a novelty item, like the proverbial "man bites dog" (or more recently, soccer player). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I encourage people to take a look at the sources I provided here which provide some quotes and context for just a small part of the literature around gender-based violence against men (I didn't provide sources around Male rape outside of war, Domestic violence against men, Prison rape, and other forms of gender-based violence against men, I just focused on things like gender-selective killing of civilian males in conflict and sexual violence during conflict enacted against males.) I realize this is a sensitive topic, and many people may not have been exposed to this literature (and some express disbelief that violence against men is a real thing!); and it's certainly a topic much less covered than violence against women, but the topic of gender-based violence against men is a real field of study and I think it's quite useful as a category. Like all relatively new categories, it is still undeveloped and needs help to grow and refine inclusion criteria. Your help and input would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This story is every bit as qualified for a "Violence against men" category as anything you've argued for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: This guy is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and a classic Men's Rights Activist POV-pusher. His disruption is seen across the website on articles related to the topic of "Violence against Men" which is an advocacy position of the MRAs. He denies being involved in such, but in his contributions it is easy to see that his actions are never helpful. At all. jps (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem to be letting up -- This is what some might call a snow job. Why are we tolerating this kind of behavior? jps (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a new concept for me at wikipedia - an editor who on talk pages offers reliable source evidence on why a category is relevant is attacked for doing that. How about you address the sources and content rather than the editor. If you believe the material is irrelevant, then you should make that case. My reading of the material indicates that indeed there are instances where men are subjected to violence because there are men. If you are arguing otherwise, I'd like to understand why?Mattnad (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
jps: the only way to get him off gender issues would be a detailed case before ArbCom - "the community" doesn't have the attention span, and there are too many ignorant, sexist doofuses here to ever get community consensus behind a ban for tendentious sexism, or relentless realisation of the MRM agenda. Something like the Noleander case might do it. Does Obiwankenobi misrepresent sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that he is turning "gender-based violence" into "violence against men" as means to claim victimhood where there isn't any evidence that the gender itself is victimized. This is a rather ugly tactic that the MRM has been using as of late, similar to other groups who find themselves with only polemical and ideological support, they twist sources that are completely not about MRA into such. That's basically what's going on here. jps (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
jps I've only been tracking the debates around the 2014 Isla Vista killings‎‎ where some editors have objected to adding the category to that page. In my view, there's enough support in reliable sources for including those attacks in Violence Against Men cat. I'm curious to whether or not you'd agree. Is it really a stretch?Mattnad (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's a stretch. The only reason that this is being argued over is because it was pointed out early on in social media that the perpetrator of the shooting spree was a raging misogynist. No, he was not a misandrist. He was a misogynist. And he was directing his hatred towards women as a class. That his violent actions ended up being acted out against men is quite beside the point, but the people who picked up on this are all MRAs with their hatred of the #yesallwomen cri de guerre inspiring action against misogyny. I don't think either categorical violence label really needs to be on that page, but the violence against men category is clearly just being included out of political tit-for-tat. There is no other reason. jps (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
JPS do you have any sources that support your assertion that men are not subject to gender-based violence? Any sources, at all? I've provided about 30-40 that explicitly discuss various forms of violence against men as gender-based violence or sexual violence or 'sexual and gender-based violence'. Do you have sources or are these just your personal opinions? Preferably high quality sources like [80] which studied sexual and gender based violence against men and boys in the congo?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I have already pointed out on my talkpage that what is actually missing is a single source which indicates that men are subject to violence against them solely as a gender. You didn't respond. The study you cite is not looking at targeting men as men, but rather targeting men of the larger groups that are being targeted. But you cynically and MRA-lly use that and other studies which study gender segregation in massacres as evidence for a categorical claim which is not based in sources but only in the misogynistic MRM politics you pretend not to care about but seem to enjoy citing (e.g. Adam_Jones_(Canadian_scholar)). jps (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
So are you saying violence against men isn't studied as a topic? Or are you saying you don't think it's a valid /real topic unless such violence is targeted at every man on the planet? Do you have any sources which take this point of view? It sounds a lot like a personal opinion. Me, I go by sources. If a source says "X is gender-based violence against men", I tend to trust it esp if said source is cited by lots of other reliable sources, which is the case with Jones work. What sources are you relying upon? Your contributions have been remarkably source-free. If you think that (violence against (gender)) is not valid unless the whole gender is targeted, then you would be in disagreement with a vast literature on violence against women (and the growing literature on violence against men), which studies the intersection of gendered and sexual violence with relations of power, ethnicity, religion, social structure and so on. You would be hard pressed to find many examples of "I hate all women on the planet" in the VAW category - instead you find such gender-based violence, even against women, intersects with ethnicity or other structures. and by the way, I can cite that too, but will you read it?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, that would be a great idea. Certainly calling people who disagree with you sexist worked out so well last time. Arkon (talk) 15:44, 27 June 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.

Topic ban for Obiwankenobi on articles relating to gender discrimination, misogyny and misandry[edit]

A proposal for a measure this stern needs overwhelming consensus; there is not even a weak consensus for it. But, as many editors have noted, Obi is put on notice. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 27 June 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.

  • Oh come on guys, this is easy. Support topic ban. WP:PUSH, WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Chronic disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. If we topic ban everyone who's willing to work on this topic, then what? I realize that it's a sensitive subject area, but there are also a bunch of overly sensitive people working on it. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia needs to crack down on POV pushers who put knowledgable, conscientious editors through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. That hemorrhages our best people like nothing else. Obiwankenobi, as concisely as possible, please state your claims and provide links to the reliable sources that support them.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
You're right, we do need to crack down on POV pushers, but Obiwankenobi is not one of those POV pushers. If anything he is the one being put through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. It is not Obi's responsibility to come here and defend himself unless you first put forth a decent case against him. The original ANI filing did not contain much in the way of diff's to claim Obi was disruptive. And this topic ban proposal contains absolutely nothing other than one editor's unsupported assertions as to his behavior. As such I Strongly Oppose actions against him, and think maybe we should be taking a look at cracking down on some actual POV pushers. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If you wanted evidence that Nikola Tesla and not Galileo Ferraris invented the first practical AC induction motor, I could give you five books printed by some of the English speaking world's most reputable academic publishers in less then 10 minutes. Common Obi. Now's your chance to shine.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Atlantictire. If you're talking about violence against men, I've added a bunch of sources here that discuss the topic of gender-based violence against men You may also be interested in reading this piece which was released last month, entitled "Into the Mainstream: Addressing sexual violence against men and boys in conflict" and highlights the specific issues faced by men who have been victimized by such violence. There is also a recently started campaign with a video here worth watching that covers the double standard of societal reactions to violence against men vs violence against women, which we also see playing out in some of the reactions to these categories. Note that none of these materials come from MRA, they come from respected NGOs, scholars, international organizations, and the like. I think at some point it would be worth developing a decent article on this topic, the old articles which did exist were not good. I realize this is a contentious topic area and I also accept that I have gone too far in certain conversations, and I'm sorry for that, sometimes I let emotions get the better of me, and I have backed away from several discussions already in this regard. I don't think it's POV pushing however to populate a category of violence against men, any moreso than it would be POV pushing to populate the category of violence against women (for example, I created Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan and populated it with several instances. I know there are a few items that have been disputed that have been added to these categories, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss those (not here),and will abide by consensus. If there are other corrective actions you'd suggest in lieu of a topic ban I'm also willing to consider those.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Obi, you can dispense with the overwrought niceties with me. I consider WP:NPOV far more important than spectacular displays of civility. Let's keep it real.
So that's it? All you've got for me is one paper? That does not a topic make. If a bunch of papers are stitched together via a premise that isn't explicitly advanced by any reliable sources, that's WP:SYNTH.
Second, your paper is in no way arguing that men and boys are targeted because they are men and boys. Do you understand? There are places that are extremely violent where everyone is targeted, and then there's the specific targeting of women and girls because they are women and girls. Your paper even says that even in these places where many men and boys are victimized, victimization of women is still more prevalent. You need to find something that specifically says boys and men are targeted as opposed to women and girls because they are men and boys. Otherwise, you're superimposing an WP:OR reading on your sources and wasting everyone's precious time and driving them insane.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could take this to another board? Maybe we could discuss the category at WikiProject gender studies? Or my talk page, if you wish. Briefly, I didn't provide one paper, if you click the link above, I have provided 11. And that is just on the topic of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict situations. A lot more could be provided around domestic violence, and male rape. At least one of the papers I've found explicitly states "A relatively recent term, coined to indicate mass killing that targets a specific sex, is gendercide. The term denotes sex selective mass murder—that is, killing women because they are women or men because they are men." Many of the other sources call these forms of violence "gender-based violence", which is the stated scope of the category. I agree there is non-gender based violence that affects men and women in conflict, such as bombs going off in market-places or security forces fighting one another, I wouldn't call any of those gender-based violence. re: Synth, remember that we're discussing a category, for which SYNTH doesn't apply. If at some point an article is developed, then you'd have a point re: synth, but some of the sources do explicitly link sexual violence against men WITH sex-selective massacres of men (e.g. gendercide/androcide), and with forced conscription and human trafficking for labor (or, sometimes, sex trafficking). I concur that this topic is not at all covered to the extent VAW is, but it a topic and is differentiated from non-gender-based violence that happens to affect men, such as soldiers, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so now we have two papers, which still does not a topic make. One on extremely violent places saying men are targeted as well as women, although women are still targeted more frequently. The other which bizarrely calls men killing men of other ethnicities "gendercide." I believe the non-WP:FRINGE term for that is genocide.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I provided 11 papers in the link, actually, did you look? As for men being targeted because they are men, Jones' work on gendercide may be useful here, he studied the history of sex-selective massacres, one of the most famous recent examples being Srebrenica massacre, where the men and boys were separated from the women and executed. Being selected for death because you are a man is the very definition of violence because they are men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Jones is not helpful here because Jones is the author of a POV website and not a reliable source. I wouldn't care if the topic were gender discrimination or daffodil varieties. This is NOT about Obi being a sexist pig or something. If you had been doing this to me for weeks, I'd be ready to explode as well. TParis and other admins, this is exactly the kind of endless game that needs to stop if we want to keep people who are knowledgable and serious about content.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
So, the Journal of Genocide research is not a reliable source? Or... While there has been some academic dispute about Jone's approach, that is no reason to throw out his ideas entirely, esp since they have been taken up by others. Anyway, if you want to discuss the VAM category further please go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and start a section there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Jones is a WP:FRINGE academic supporting the same WP:ADVOCACY that you are supporting. jps (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Fringe" argument is starting to take on the boy who cried wolf characteristics. Fringe has deviated on this project from a word meaning deviating from accepted science to meaning anything we disagree with. Biased sources are not banned per Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. They should receive appropriate weight for the level they are accepted in academics. If they are poorly received in academics, then we attribute to the source and we don't use Wikipedia voice (and give it less prominence in prose). But it isn't outright banned.--v/r - TP 21:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Nothing has been presented to warrant such a thing. Arkon (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban or 1RR restriction This editor is aggressive in both promoting fringe topics concerning men's rights and framing radical and separatist feminism as misandrist. It would really be best if these topic areas were framed by people editing from WP:NPOV and not used to push bias. Furthermore, this user badgers anyone who disagrees with his stance on talk pages with an energy that prevents two-sided debates. These bad edit habits are especially valid in his editing in the Violence against men, Violence against women and Misandry categories where he defines consensus as "whatever I like" and hounds editors who disagree with him on their user talk pages. There is definite WP:OWN on these categories and I don't think you could find a single article in Violence against men that has not been added and defended by him and him alone -- (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- having unpopular opinions is not a bannable offence. Reyk YO! 16:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's absolutely fine to have unpopular opinions. What isn't fine is wasting talk page space and hours and hours of editors' time with endless wordgames and violation after violation of WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICK in service of a WP:FRINGE POV. WP:PUSH is Wikipedia's deadliest habit, and it's very, very, very civil.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The person is here as a classic POV-pusher for the MRA. His attempt to WP:OWN these types of articles is an extreme and utter distraction. He needs to be removed as unsuited. jps (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Obiwankenobi is one of the better editors here and a number of people here view him as possible admin material. He is far braver than most to take on such an important yet divisive topic and the amount of personal attacks, false accusations and intimidation he receives for doing so is a disgrace and needs to stop (see this discussion for some examples [81]). The fact that Obi has remained calm and courteous throughout this experience is to his credit. As for issues such as POV pushing and breaches of NPOV etc, well those problems apply infinitely more to the editing patterns of one or two of the people who'd like to see a ban happen and I hope such it boomerangs back against them. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Comment - 'I'm not ready to vote yet, and will need to think about it more, but Obiwankenobi I'm still concerned because you haven't acknowledged that you've gone too far in your actions. Above, you acknowledge going too far in conversation, but honestly, it’s beyond that. It concerns edit warring “violence against men” category into articles where it doesn't seem to belong [[82]], [[83]],[[84]], and closing RfC you were involved in [85], and aggressive reverting of Kevin Gorman when he was merely trying to clean up that mess you made when your category changes put the article domestic violence and pregnancy into the “violence against men” category. IMO, what is needed to help end the disruption is an understanding on your part that your repeated actions have caused disruption, not just passionate conversation on the issue. Additionally, I think an alternative to a topic ban for Obiwankenobi might be imposing a 1RR restriction for this user in this topic area. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
(fixed ec) Hi Bobo, I have indeed acknowledged going too far, and acknowledge same in terms of editing content as well as on talk page discussions, I was wrong to put that RFC on hold, although I did so with the best of intentions, but I also saw the error of my ways and reverted and apologized and added my neutral framing instead. As for Kevin Gorman's issue, I've discussed this with him already, the basic problem is having a non-gendered category such as Category:Domestic violence that is in a gendered parent like Category:Violence against women. As a result of this, Domestic violence against men is now a subset of Category:Violence against women which is the grandparent; in the same way, Male rape is in Category:Rape which is in Category:Violence against women, thus the inconsistency that so disturbed Kevin actually cuts both ways, it's inherent in the structure and isn't a problem per se with Violence against men, the same problems happen with the VAW category. I've proposed a discussion on the inclusion criteria and on the structuring of both the VAW and VAM categories, but here is not the place to have that discussion, as soon as things calm down I'd be happy to engage and seek consensus on the best structure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think a 1RR restriction within this topic area would be a great solution to this and probably encourage talk page discussions between editors here. Obi quite often passes 3RR when trying to implement 'Violence against men' to articles and this would help keep the editors patterns in line -- (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is that there are no reliable sources to support the POV. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. When editors just keep going, playing endless word games, and refuse to surrender to reliable sources while remaining civil, they eventually force everyone into ArbCom. This is deadly for editor retention.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you haven't engaged with the sources I provided. Can you find any sources whatsoever to support your point of view, e.g. that men are not subject to gender-based violence? I'm waiting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This looks like a content dispute, not essentially a behavioral one. BMK (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Under no circumstance - This is a ridiculous amount of overkill and doesn't fit the situation in any way. There is a content dispute, a little bludgeoning went on, it never got nasty, just frustrating. There is no way I could possibly oppose this any stronger than I do. I find the very idea offensive. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I am familiar with Obiwankenobi's editing pattern and I believe that his is an obvious case of WP:POV pushing in order to right great wrongs. I had lengthy discussions with the editor in three articles where his stated objective was to prove that "gender-based discrimination exists for men". A few editors, myself included, explained that this is not what the articles where about and that we needed to summarize what reliable sources have to say about the subjects (some examples from one discussion about the men's rights movement: [86][87][88][89]), but Obi kept bringing these sources about discrimination against men. I was surprised that an experienced editor didn't seem to understand our core content policies like WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:NPOV. Since then he has been doing those weird things to our category system, adding his Category:Violence against men and other categories to all kinds of articles (e.g., he says that the