Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Destructive edits by new user Deleteasaur and unregistered user 65.220.37.9; possibly company editing its own page[edit]

I am concerned over a new user (Deleteasaur) and an unregistered user (65.220.37.9) at the GMAT page that have continually deleted credibly sourced items or entire sections from the page. Given their take that the page should exclusively reflect the opinions of the primary source, there is the concern that they are representatives from the primary source (GMAC). They may even be the same person as they both spell cite as "site" on the talk page.

The Deleteasaur's deletions:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

--TDJankins (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a very interesting issue in light of the recent change to the Terms of Use (see Paid contributions without disclosure)
As I read it, @TDJankins: is accusing @Deleteasur: of being a paid editor for the Graduate Management Admission Council which owns the Graduate Management Admission Test, and Deletesaur is accusing (somewhat more subtly) TDJankins and others of working for The Princeton Review a test prep provider. Both the Princeton Review and GMAC sell GMAT test prep material.
After reviewing all 3 of the articles mentioned above, it is not hard to conclude that all of them rely on primary material from the owners of the company and/or test. The marketing style text is the main give-away. Talk pages and edit summaries reveal this in vague and not so vague ways, e.g. see edit summary at [6] for a very active editor there.
Note that the only dispute since June 15, 2014 (date of the ToU update) is for the GMAT article.
I hope everybody can see the applicability of the ToU here. No way can an NPOV encyclopedia allow dueling paid editors to determine the contents of these pages. The solution to the problem, as always, starts with polite notifications on user talk pages, and hopefully that will be all that is needed. Further steps are available if needed - and I hope admins understand that it is best if the Wikipedia community takes care of this. I will ping @GeoffBrigham (WMF):, just in case even further steps have to be taken later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No Smallbones, it sounds like you are accusing me of being a paid editor. And just who the heck would I be paid editing for? As it stands right now, the GMAT page is heavily reliant on primary source material, so much so that it has earned the primary sources tag. Deleteasaur seems bent on removing anything that doesn't come directly from GMAC.--TDJankins (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said, Deleteasaur is a bit more subtle but the idea comes through, e.g. in the following recent exchange of 3 messages on the talk page:

I agree that citing the Princeton review about what the GMAT measures is inappropriate. This should not be a page of opinions. Or at the very least if there is an opinion it should be presented as such. Furthermore, citing the Princeton review's opinion about the GMAT is like citing McDonalds' opinion on food. In general a test preparation company shouldn't be sited on a GMAT information page. This section strikes me as a bunch of unsubstantiated fluff that should be removed. I would like to hear other people's ideas on this. Deleteasaur (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Deletasaur. A page is not to exclusively have opinions from the product owning company itself. This page has even earned the "This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources" tag because it is so out of whack. So yes, we need opinions from other experts on the test such as The Princeton Review.--TDJankins (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Calling the PR an "expert" or "credible" secondary source is a massive stretch. This page should focus on the facts about the GMAT exam. It is even struggling to get those straight. If I didn't have to waste time deleting advertising for test prep companies I would have more time to help get those facts straight so that this page could help more people get credible information about the GMAT. Please help me do that. Deleteasaur (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Particularly the part, "If I didn't have to waste time deleting advertising for test prep companies..." Correct me if I'm wrong but that refers to an edit of yours? Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Your guess is as good as mine as to what he is referring to. I'm not aware of any advertising on the page. He may think that any information sourced from a test prep company is essentially advertising, but even if that's what he believes, to accuse me of advertising for all of those companies would be wacky even for him.--TDJankins (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of what Deleteasaur believes, you shouldn't have written a sentence that presumes that I'm a paid editor ("No way can an NPOV encyclopedia allow dueling paid editors to determine the contents of these pages."). Clearly I'm not a paid editor. I contribute to many, many pages on Wikipedia while Deleteasaur contributes to one (if you can call deletions contributions).--TDJankins (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, looks like Deleteasaur is removing blogs and advertisements from the GMAT page. I see no problem with that. I think a curved object may be heading for TDJankins as he (or she) insists or putting the advertisements back in. Kosh Vorlon    21:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually there's no advertising to speak of unless information sourced from any company's website is advertising. I think that nobody cares what a banned editor thinks.--TDJankins (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Examples of advertising from [7]
  • "Test preparation courses can be very costly, but very effective."
  • Changing the "Registration" section to "Registration and Preparation"
  • "The GMAT does not measure business knowledge or skill. Nor does it measure intelligence. The GMAT is simply a test of how well one takes the GMAT." referenced to a Princeton Review link.
That edit (all the text) is essentially all you've added to the article during a month of slow motion edit warring. One of the problems with paid editors is that they get so used to adspeak that they can't distinguish an advert anymore from just regular text. My product is "very costly, but very effective" is an advert and always will be. Another problem with paid editors is that they never quit arguing, even when they are caught in the act. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

  • That Deletesaur and all employees and contractors of the Graduate Management Admission Council be banned for two days for sockpuppetting, edit warring and/or undisclosed paid editing. This should be just enough to get their attention and prevent it from happening again. Note the IP in the title of this section traces back to the town that's their HQ, and there are many editors in the article history adding public relations type material cited solely to GMAC. If GMAC responds here in time and says they won't do it again, then no ban or block need be imposed. (I'll notify Deletesaur on this proposal)
  • That TDJankins and all employees and contractors of The Princeton Review be banned from editing for two weeks for edit warring and undisclosed paid editing. This should be just enough to get their attention and prevent it from happening again. The "extra time" is because TDJankins's complaint here shows that he knows that edit warring and undisclosed paid editing is against our rules, but did it anyway (aka boomerang).
  • Support as proposer Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It was always called the "Registration and Preparation" section. "Test preparation courses can be very costly, but very effective" is a true statement as evidenced by the sentence that follows it and it's something that's just well known. I am strictly not an employee or paid editor of the Princeton Review (or anyone else) and have added information sourced from many of their competitors. The citation sourced from the Princeton Review is from one of their books, not to a link. Thank you for confirming that I was right about the unregistered user being a representative of GMAC. Please stop your unfounded, belligerent accusations that I'm a paid editor.--TDJankins (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban of TDJankins - no evidence of a COI.--v/r - TP 21:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm. There is zero evidence presented anywhere that either TDJankins or Deleteasaur have any relationship with any company. Trout for Smallbones and TDJankins for making personal attacks with zero basis. There ~may~ be an issue with WP:NPOV - if so that is a matter for WP:NPOVN, not this board; more narrowly, there may be an issue of whether a given source is reliable (a matter for WP:RSN). Recommend blocks on Smallbones and TDJankins if they continue making accusations of COI/paid editing with zero basis - we cannot have people making unfounded accusations like this, especially with the new ToU in place. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'm not asserting that Deleteasaur is a paid editor, I was just concerned about the possibility and was hoping someone could further investigate his account and the account of the unregistered user given their desire to remove anything that did not come directly from GMAC and the fact that they solely edited the GMAT page. And it appears that my suspicions were confirmed at least about the unregistered user. Anyhow, thanks for your time.--TDJankins (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You "raised a concern" about another editor's RL identity with when you wrote "there is the concern that they are representatives from the primary source (GMAC)" and you had no basis for that. You can see where Smallbones ran with that and how what you started came to bite you back in the face, with just as little justification. And when it was done to you, you reacted with indignation. Let that be a lesson for you not to go there without solid justification - like the person actually saying it. We don't WP:OUT people here. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Being concerned that something is so does not mean you are asserting it is so. I will reiterate that clearly I did have reason to be concerned given (1) Deleteasaur and the unregistered user's desire to remove anything that didn't come directly from GMAC, (2) the fact that they solely edited the GMAT page, and (3) the fact that it appears that my suspicions were confirmed at least with regard to the unregistered user. At the end of the day, it appears that nothing has been accomplished here other than the harassment of someone who came here to try to solve a problem. Unbelievable. --TDJankins (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
TDJankins, my comments are focused solely on your bringing unfounded allegations of COI. Again, we do not WP:OUT people here, and you were wrong to speculate about COI with no evidence about the RL identity of Deleteasur and the IP. Two bad things happened because of that mistake that you made: 1) Smallbones ran with it and turned it back on you; 2) I and others here have told you that you did something wrong. Your concern about Sock was clearly justified; there is a legitimate concern about sources (both the ones you wanted to keep and the ones left in the article), and you could have framed your concern about edits by the Deleteaurus and the IP with respect to WP:NPOV. Those are all distinct from the COI "concern." When you go to the drama boards, things can blow up in your face and boomerang on you, especially when you make mistakes. You can learn from this, or not. But please do not continue making accusations of COI without clear self-disclosure from the editor about whom you have a concern. And if you have concerns, the proper way to handle them is described in the COI guideline, in a section called "How to handle conflicts of interest", which you can find here which I strongly encourage you to read and follow. If you want to fix the problems in the article, I suggest that you look for reliable secondary sources (not blogs!!) and edit the article according to them. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I couldn't support a block on Smallbones. Despite feeling he is wrong, he is acting in good faith and is part of all of our attempts to figure out how the new ToU is implemented. We are in a very grey area with an infinite amount of shading and I don't think Smallbones behavior is outside what could be acceptable while we are still discussing what acceptable behavior even is. This needs to be a demonstration of boundaries, but we can't react negatively ex post facto of those boundaries being defined. Even now, this boundary is cursory. I also couldn't support a block on TDJankins, Deleteasaur's edits are very focused. If they are not a paid editor, they at least are a SPA.--v/r - TP 22:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I recommended: "if they continue making accusations of COIU/paid editing with zero basis". Not now. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough.--v/r - TP 23:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
* Oppose - That curved object really flying close to you now. Quit while you ahead. No evidence of meat or sock puppetry has been shown, further Deletasaurus has been removing blogs and advertisments, which are legitimate removals, you however, have been placing them back in. Kosh Vorlon    16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi All - sorry I'm late to the game here. I've been super busy. I am in no way affiliated with GMAC. I find it pretty sad that TDJankins had to sling mud at me to cover up his work on the GMAT page. If you look at my edits you'll see that all I've been doing is deleting opinion which seems to support or promote certain test prep companies. It also seems that the advertising is mainly coming from TDJankins. Why he/she is consistently re-posting the advertising when other people edit it out is beyond my knowledge. For some reason TDJankins keeps adding Shawn Berry, Optimus Prep, and Princeton review to the page. Again, I don't know his/her motivations but regardless of the motivations I think that representing test prep companies on the GMAT page is not appropriate. I'm new to wikipedia - so I have to apologize if my approach to whole thing was incorrect. I'm happy to be a part of whatever the solution is for this page. There still is a lot of work to do. I hope that in the near term we can get this page in good shape. Thanks Smallbones for notifying me of this discussion. Deleteasaur (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin relisting an RM in order to give one side more time to respond[edit]

Consensus is that relist was within reason.--v/r - TP 19:40, 8 July 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.

A requested move was filed on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, asking for it to be moved to Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (without the "The"). This evening, admin Jenks24 relisted the discussion with this comment:

Relisting comment. Obviously an issue that is very important to some people so I'm giving this another week primarily so that those who are opposed to the move have the opportunity to make a better case. If I closed the RM at this moment the consensus would be to move it. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purpose of re-listing any Wikipedia discussion is to allow more discussion where there has not been sufficient discussion to allow a decision to be rendered, it is not intended as a device to allow one side of the debate to rack up more comments than have been posted so far. I suggest that Jenks24's relisting was an abuse of admin privilege, and that it should be considered whether Jenks24 understands the proper roie of an admin sufficiently in order to continue to retain the bit. BMK (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jenks is a calm, even tempered, unbiased, excellent closer. He is a role model closer. The relist comment was obviously intended to help ensure a proper consensus would be reach. This complaint is unbecoming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Bullshit. BMK (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing inappropriate about that decision. This move discussion isn't about icosahedrons but about rather about religion. Some topics are simply more near and dear to some people's hearts. It wasn't required that Jenks24 do this, but neither do I have an objection to them doing so. NW (Talk) 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So, with the discussion open for a longer period, and more people (possibly) use the opportunity to respond on the side of the request that Jenks24 seems to prefer, will Jenks24 then keep the discussion open longer to allow more folks from the other side to respond? #1 I don't think so, #2 when does it end, #3 will Jenks24's personal opinion be the determining factor? This is, very unfortunately, where admin prejudice come into play. I am, in general, a strong supporter of admins, but I don't see this as a proper use of admin power -- but OK ,let's see how things develop now that admin Jenks24 has given one side of the debate additional time to respond. BMK (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm generally loathe to express an opinion on an ongoing RM because I feel it precludes me from closing it and there is a pretty large backlog at RM as it is. But in this case where I'm accused of being prejudiced I will say that I am a supporter of WP:THE, I have supported a lot of RMs with that rationale and if I was forced to vote in this particular RM it would definitely be in support. I also have absolutely no affiliation with this church or any of its members. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I find the non-close reasonable too. The point here seems to be that the debate showed (and still shows) a rather clear numerical preponderance of "oppose" votes, and he was saying that, on the basis of the arguments proposed so far, a close against the force of numbers would be proper. In such a situation, given the numerical force of good-faith opinion on the other side, it may be quite a reasonable idea that that side might still have stronger arguments that just haven't been stated properly yet, or in any case that the debate could benefit from some more input clarifying the consensus either way. Fut.Perf. 10:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought a lot about my decision, it was not spur of the moment and I did put a good deal of consideration into just closing it. But I elected not to, I felt that many of those in opposition had what I would describe as reasonable opinions in the 'real world', but weak ones on Wikipedia, possibly (it seemed to me) because they were not as experienced and Wikipedia's many titling policies and guidelines can be arcane to less experienced users. So the relist was essentially a warning to them: 'your arguments do not hold much water on Wikipedia and if you want the article to remain at its current title you will have to provide a much stronger argument in terms of Wikipedia policy/guideline'. Perhaps I didn't word it well, or perhaps BMK would have disagreed like this had I worded my thoughts perfectly. I felt that my decision was within reasonable admin discretion (though I will note that anyone can relist, not just admins) and I still feel like that after taking some more time to think about it. However, as I said on my talk page, I make mistakes like everyone else and if the consensus here is that I should not have relisted (or should not have relisted in that manner) then I will reverse my decision to the extent it is possible and will keep it in mind when closing/relisting future RMs. Having said my piece, I will continue to watch over this RM and wait for a consensus to develop unless directly asked a question because no one likes it when an admin constantly badgers people who have disagreed with their opinion when it is up for review. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Your re-listing was, in point of fact, a supervote on behalf of one side of the debate, which is a blatant misuse of the admin bit. I don't really care if others see it that way or not, I know what you've done, and I will know for the future that you sren't a honest straight shooter, that you use your bit in a dishonest and biased manner. No matter what happens here, whether your admin fdriends rally around you or not, 'I know the truth about what you did, and my memory is long. BMK (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Your threatening attitude "my memory is long" is not in keeping with a collaborative environment BMK; please desist. Pedro :  Chat  11:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Pedro, what do you want me to say, that I'll immediately forget a blatant abuse of administrative power? Not gonna happen, dude. BMK (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The funny thing, of course - by posting about this here on ANI where thousands will view it, you'll start to get more 3rd party input into the RM, which might just be the polar opposite of what was wanted the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like a perfectly sensible relist, to help determine consensus; I see nothing inherently wrong with asking for "better" arguments - but more importantly this appears to have been a good faith action. Good faith being singularly lacking in posts that intimidate people. I really don't think this is the kind of thing people get desysoped for BMK and your aggression there and above in this thread is utterly unwarranted. Pedro :  Chat  11:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hear hear. Unexpected, unwarranted, unfathomable, unredeemable, unhelpful, unflippingbelievable the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hardly the first time I've been wrong -- but, actually, in this case I'm not wrong. Admins ought not to be making decisions that prefer one side over the other, as Jenks24 did. I'd be much more interested in hearing the opinions of uninvolved non-admins here. (And make no mistake, when I become King of Wikipedia, this kind of admin override of normal cirxumstance will be punishable bu 100 lashes woth a wer noodle.) BMK (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here it is then: relisting a discussion to try and ensure that a decision is made based on the broadest unput from the widest number of people is the core concept of Wikipedia, and is never EVER a bad thing. Wikipedia has zero time limit, so extension is not at all hurting either the decision OR the project. The fact that much of the existing discussion had zero relevance to policy, but was more to a "I like it" perspective, the true, overall number of useful comments is quite small. Making a closure decision on that tiny sampling would have been tremendously inappropriate. Threatening with desysop for doing the right thing, taking aggressive tone for doing the right thing, bringing it to ANI for doing the right thing, and most importantly ascribing different motives to someone's actions for doing the right thing is so 180 degrees contrary to WP:AGF, but indeed the core principles of the project. In short, BMK, you're off your rocker on this one the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
DP/ES&L: you're really a good guy, and I like you (truly, I;m not trying to butter you up. that's an evauation based on your previous comments and actions that I'm aware of) but really, comeon, when an admin -- any admin -- says "This has to stay open so that one side can get more chance to respond to it" that's clearly a problem. WP admins need to be neutral in theses matters, but Jenks24 seems to have taken sides. If he didn't mean to, he'd best publicly express his neutrality, because "I'm lkeeping this open so that one side can make more responses" isn't exactly unbiased. BMK (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So, by your sole reasoning, there's no problem here whatsoever: if he had closed it opposite of what the current set of arguments was (instead of relisting), then we'd have a clear and obvious problem. As you've been told, the relist wording most certainly does NOT prevent people from all sides of the issue commenting - he also did not head over and start canvassing the other side to comment. You've made a paper mountain out of a molehill, and you really have some apologizing to do the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Mebbe so -- but I'll just note one more time that enks24 did not relist the discussion in order to get more imput from all sides, his stated reason was that he was re-listing it in order to get mote input from one side of the debate. So, if that seems reasonable to you, so be it, BMK (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Jenks24's relisting comment could have been worded better, but I read it as soliciting better quality, policy-based input, not simply more input, and both sides are free to comment. Also, please realize that nowhere did Jenks24 use their admin tools, so desysopping isn't really on the table here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
But in order to become King of Wikipedia you'd first have to get down from that glass dome and get rid of the spandex suit, don't you think? Fut.Perf. 11:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Spandex?? Gee, I'm 60 years old and totally out of shape, there's no way I can wear spandex anymore (as if I ever could). No, I'm up here with a nice bespoke suit, the lines of which are totally screwed up by the parachute I'll need when the Wiki-mob comes after me. BMK (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It's an allusion to WP:SPIDERMAN WilyD 12:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Spandex goes great with out-of-shape! It has plenty of give. I'm quite close to the perfect shape, so I know! On the substance: First, note that nothing at all precludes both sides from adding arguments, no matter what the stated reason for the extension is. As for that reason: I see two possibilities: Either the side in questions has many more good arguments not stated so far. In that case, we should definitely take them into account - we don't want to make a bad decision just because users are not perfectly aware of how to state their arguments in perfect wikiesque. Or they don't have those arguments. In that case, the extension won't make a difference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I'm sympathetic to BMK's observation that the relisting explanation specifically supports one side over the other. Unfortunately, the neutral statement of this concern was muddied by an over the top suggestion that this one action is so abusive it calls for a de-sysop. That is unwarranted, and may be preventing some from engaging in the original subject.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement could have been worded better, sure, but the effect won't be any different anyway, as folks on either side can continue to weigh in. Perhaps Jenks will decide to leave the close to another admin when it comes time again, but to be honest the perpetual backlog and lack of admins knowledgeable and interested in closing RMs is a much worse problem than any one relisting statement.--Cúchullain t/c 16:16, 8 July 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.

Removal of information from Michael Henderson[edit]

Removed per WP:DOB. While OTRS is helpful, we can AGF here. This action isn't controversial and getting a definitive identity is unnecessary. Removing material a living person finds personal without an exceptional reason for keeping it, where the removal would not violate WP:NPOV, is appropriate behavior and shouldn't be reverted.--v/r - TP 20:33, 8 July 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.

Hello! A person claiming to be Michael Henderson (Asubmariner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) has edited his article (Michael Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), removing his birth date and birth place ([8], [9], [10]). I've tried to explain on his talk page why this is not acceptable, but he has edited once after said explanation (third diff). What should be done? I've reverted his edits and don't want to edit war. He also nominated his photo for deletion on Commons; it was kept, but it seems he wants these deleted due to identity theft. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I warned the user and reverted his latest removal of the date. It is sourced, regardless of who he is, removing it without any attempt at consensus can be construed as bad faith. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:DOB the birthdate should be removed if he wants it removed, unless the date is widely published (I take that to mean by many sources, like for Barack Obama's birthdate). I don't think the sourcing in the Henderson article is enough for that. I'd take the date out. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I took out the month and day but left in the year. I'll notify him that I did that, and if he's satisfied then I hope we can leave it at that. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
...And I have reverted. If he wishes for it to be removed, WP:OTRS is there to help verify he is the subject, and provide a faster way to ensure there is not a debate over sourcing vs. privacy. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please take it out again. Per WP:AGF if he says he's the subject we should assume he's the subject unless he's doing something that could adversely affect the subject if he's faking. That's not the case in this situation. We don't need the full birthdate and we're just causing him distress. If you insist on leaving it in, I hope you'll at least put a polite note on his talkpage about making sure it's really him, without any templates (the amount of templates on that page makes me want to cry). 173.228.123.145 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. This has been really poorly handled so far. Fut.Perf. 08:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. This is hardly a subject trying to whitewash his or her article. It can stay out unless and until someone establishes it's well-known anyway. EEng (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I wasn't aware of WP:DOB that clearly applies here, also removed the warning I left, but left the IP user's comments intact :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 09:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) and without comment on how it affects policy, but it does seem to be very widely published, perhaps partially as disambiguation, since both his given name and surname are fairly common.—[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC) (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
But most of those web hits appear to be Wikpedia mirrors or other pages that re-use and re-shuffle data from the likes of Wikipedia. Few if any are independent reliable sources, let alone authorized ones. Fut.Perf. 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I'd also want recent authorized publications. The existing cite is from a 1998 edition of a book originally published in 1991 and there was nothing like the current Internet in that era. So we can't infer from the book that the guy was ever ok with having his birthdate on the internet. Or more pragmatically, if he asks OTRS to take out the birthdate, they will probably take it out, so we may as well skip the bureaucracy and take it out ourselves. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Request Can someone figure out if there is something like consensus by now to take out the DOB or leave it in, and make appropriate edits? Solarra, do you still want it in? Mdann, do you still think we need authentication? I don't see much encyclopedic value to keeping it, so I still support taking it out per the subject's apparent request. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I already removed it before I saw your last comments. I left a message at User talk:Mdann52 asking them to not restore it. There is no consensus here for the inclusion. I also asked User:Asubmariner to contact OTRS anyway to prove who they are. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:16, 8 July 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, Vandalism by Jumada[edit]

This user had added several towns on the Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map without any type of source. When I removed them following WP rules (content must be sourced), he started accusing me of vandalism, when I suppose that adding unsourced content is what could be considered vandalism (I have warned him about it). And his final serious wrongdoing has been deleting two sections I've added to the talk section about the attitude of him and another user, claiming that, quote: "removed unnecessary sections. Everything related to HCPUNXKID vandalism will be discussed under section HCPUNXKID". Of course, he aint made a cut & copy of the text of the sections I added (that could be acceptable), but simply deleted all the content, in a clear attempt to avoid other users to see my arguments, funny thing, when he claims that I dont have discussed issues on the talk page. It seems difficult to me to discuss with someone who deletes your writings, dont you think so?. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 17:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just scrolling through your talk page I can see a dozen other users with similar complaints regarding your edit wars and unwillingness to compromise. I am merely one out of many, and since I stood up to you and didnt give up after a week, you have taken it personal. I am glad you brought this here and I hope someone will look through your profile, your talk page, your history and contributions and examine the amount of confrontations and edit wars you are involved in across an array of articles here on wikipedia. You have been warned by wikipedia staff multiple times in the past, and also blocked for 48 hours for edit wars. Your talk page is full of your unpleasant history and I am sure this tells us a lot about you as a user. Jumada (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so instead trying to refute my accusations about your behaviour on the Iraqi insurgency map, you try to bring here my past blocks as an argument against me. WOW, so poor, and then its you who talk about "taking it personal". If WP worked like that, everyone wich had being blocked in the past would not have any option on a discussion against any other user without blocks, for example with new unexperienced users, even if they are veteran users with years of work on WP. It would be a mess. And beware, talking about that is a double-edge weapon, as reviewing your talk page shows that adding content to WP without any type of source or explanation is something very common to you, in blatant contradiction with one on the main rules of WP: Content must be backed by sources. I can only assume that's a recognition of your vandalism & POV-pushing by adding unsourced content and deleting other user edits on the talk page, otherwise you would have tried to refute my arguments, I repeat. Honestly, if you accept the advice, you should try to refute the arguments of other users instead of using ad-hominem attacks...--HCPUNXKID 16:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you haven't stopped your edit wars and unwillingness to talk or compromise since you opened your account, your history and talk page are full proof of this and so hence you're not like any other member who didn't know any better and stopped after being warned/blocked, instead its seems to get worse and now that you're aware of WP rules, you try to use them for your own advantage while overlooking all the other rules you break daily, the things you accuse me of are the same things you do. I will not talk to you about this any more seeing that people have tried to before and your counter argument has been the same for every conflict you start, it is as if you copy paste your argument for a dozen or so other users and now you're doing it with me. Please don't be angry with me that I exposed your past in this section, I know you came here to report me but the tables do turn and someone did say "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". As for me exposing your past blocks, well when a bank wants to give you a loan, they check your history before they do it because that tells them a lot about the person. I will leave this for someone who can justly look into this and examine the whole situation. regards Jumada (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── To both User:HCPUNXKID and Jumada... Please note that vandalism is a pretty narrowly-defined term on Wikipedia. It necessitates demonstrating willful damage to Wikipedia. It doesn't mean doing something that you think is incorrect, or even generally against policy. It means that someone is doing something as a joke, or out of a mean spirit, or any other motive that is not in the interest of Wikipedia. I don't see that either of you are guilty of that, so stop accusing each other of it. Accusing someone of vandalism without evidence is a personal attack and is itself something you can be blocked over. So knock it off, both of you.

Jumada, specifically, you were removing another editor's talk page discussion which is a violation of WP:TPO. While the material you removed on the talk page might not have seemed particularly relevant to improving the article, it was not the sort of WP:NOTFORUM off-topic info that would necessitate removal. Especially when some of the material you removed was a complaint about your own behavior, that seems unduly self-serving and unfair to remove someone else criticizing you. And again, our policy says that you can't do that.

HCPUNXKID, the reason we maintain block logs is because a person's past behavior does matter. If you show a pattern of misbehavior, that can indicate an overall problem for an individual. If you're engaging in the same disruption that has led to a block in the past, not only is it acceptable to bring it up, it's helpful to bring it up. Over the past few years you have been blocked 4 times for either harassment or edit-warring, behavior you're again exhibiting.

To the both of you, again, stop this sniping of each other. Right now I'm tempted to block both of you for misbehavior. Instead, I'm asking you to stop this unhelpful escalation. This seems like a content dispute, and if you can focus on what you disagree about the template then maybe you can come up with some sort of progress at a place like the dispute resolution noticeboard. But I'll warn you, the next person who calls the other a vandal, or tries to otherwise attack someone personally, is going to get blocked. -- Atama 20:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Complainant is User:Commissioner Gordon evading a block. Choess (talk) 00:58, 9 July 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 encountered a truth that might be valuable to the neutral point of view of an article on this site, Wikipedia (yes-yo):

To get a bit more detailed, it is about a series of articles, all concerning one topic (but quite unfortunately, there seems to be a single person trying to prevent changes of the curren (POV) state of things.

But get yourself an impression, first hand,

It is about this circumstance:

Talk:Imperial_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition#Warning_by_Local_Fishermen

(Which gets a lot more interesting when you consider the allegations raised against other historical protagonists "being engaged" in that topic area, like R.F.Scott)

But the most interesting point will probably be whether some enemy with a fixation will just delete the issue raised (due to partiality)...

Nevertheless,

have a nice day and

keep up the good work!--37.230.7.70 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Not an incident. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't get it. There've been no non-automated edits to that article since the end of May. And no edits to the talk page (other than yours) since March. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It is still there! An information not glorifying a certain person has not been deleted by a certain admirer...Wow.--37.230.7.70 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 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.

Need help at Oathkeeper article[edit]

A recent topic here was an edit-war that had spanned weeks at the Oathkeeper article. It resulted in two editors (I was one of them) being blocked for the back and forth edit war.
At the heart of the problem was a seemingly intractable disagreement as to the use of primary sources as evaluative material and the appropriateness of blog (or dead) links as secondary sources. The other editor in the dispute is under the bizarre impression that she was given permission to make evaluative statements based upon primary sources, and can support said sourcing by using blog and fan and dead sources. There are other editors opposing her usage, but she is unwilling to listen to the consensus.
I totally realize this is a content issue, but I have exhausted the dispute resolution progression, and simply do not know how to proceed. We desperately need some experienced editors to drop by and help guide us in the usage of the aforementioned sources. It would be a tremendous help to the discussion, and prevent other sourcing issues from cropping up - an ounce of prevention, and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ROFL - I was expecting a political contest about the Oath Keepers, but this is a pay-TV episode. It's hard for me to work up much concern about the material you're cutting out, but my view is: I'm an inclusionist, and I don't think Wikipedia does or should ban primary sources. A modicum of care is needed with them, that's all. Unless you think the data is actually wrong there's no reason to cut it out even if it were unsourced, though some of that i.e. the list of chapters would best be transferred to explanatory text within the reference itself that names the main source. But no, I'm not getting involved editing this. :) Wnt (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your take on it, Wnt. My problem isn't with a piddling tv episode. Its the idea that primary sources shouldn't be used - even in a tv episode - to make evaluative connections. Imagine how, in other articles of considerably more importance, that could be grossly manipulated through primary sourcing evaluation. The reason we use secondary sourcing is to keep Wikipedia out of the Original research busness. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IP user claiming to be banned user Russavia repeatedly removing a CSD tag[edit]

An IP user (220.129.146.201 (talk · contribs)) claiming to be banned user Russavia (talk · contribs) has twice removed a CSD:AG5 nomination from Kendeffy Castle, an article which was created by another banned user. Diffs here and here. I'm requesting a block per WP:EVADE.- MrX 16:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

When an IP claims to be a sock, it's likely he's not. "Disruption" is a good catch-all when there's uncertainty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can have a CU check? (tJosve05a (c) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ha. Checkusers won't do anything with IP's due to "privacy" issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And the article is not speedy deletion material, as a 1782 building is pretty likely to be listed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP:EVADE and WP:CSD#G5.- MrX 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G5 is an option not a mandate. Deletion is at the discretion of the admin handling the request. --Versageek 01:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate early closure[edit]

I am asking assistance for my opponent in AGF :-). I am involved in TfD:Distinguish. Today it was closed early by User:Ktr101 (self-declared non-admin) -- now my opponent. From my procedural follow up at their usertalk [11], I got the impression that the closer did not oversee the whole process (while, as XfD's go, this one was getting hot). My question here is that maybe the damage could be limited by finding an early revert-option. But I am not familiar with what it could look like. Any suggestions for Ktr101? -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I also !voted in the TfD (opposite direction of DePiep); honestly it seemed pretty overwhelming against deletion. But you did raise some good points that I was hoping to respond to later. I wouldn't object to it being reopened. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Since Ktr101 specifically said on his talk page that re-opening it would be OK with him, I've done so. I note that, as usual, De Piep was unnecessarily snotty in his comments on Ktr101's talk page, but I suppose it would be poor form to refuse to do a reasonable thing just because it was demanded in an unreasonable way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not going to contest Floquenbeam's actions here, DePiep, it is a really bad to bring someone to AN/I just because you disagree with their closure of a discussion which was closed even though there was overwhelming consensus against you. Also, if by "hot", you mean the badgering of users you disagree with even though there was an almost overwhelming consensus against you, then I guess it was pretty "hot". I told you that you could revert me, so there was no reason to bring this to a higher group of people when I told you that I wasn't going to contest any of you actions there as long as it was within reason. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I've seen many other afds be snow closed for far fewer votes than that many, and all by different editors as well. If we're going to be deciding on whether it should've been reopened, I guess it could stay for the minimum time mandated by TfD, but honestly, if it's that unanimous in consensus, it should just be snow closed. Tutelary (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Going to ANI is not a criminal prosecution (although some may see it that way). And no way I am going to undo a closure. I'm glad that implicitly Floquenbeam agrees. I expect that the arguments are read and weighed instead of !votecounted, resulting in an argumentation. Otherwise, this can frustrate this TfD and any future XfD (why spend time on arguing?). If that frustration shows in my writing - so be it. It is a response to the brute treatment of the TfD discussion, and an effort to improve the quality of closures. As usual. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The minute you called someone an "opponent", you showed that you lost touch with the community nature of the project. We don't have opponents...we're supposed to have confreres in the battle to produce an encyclopedia the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Someone who has a opposing opinion I can call an opponent ("in this" you might add). I used it here to make clear asap that I had such an opposing opinion with the editor, nothing to hide. Opposing opinions can appear in the community. And then you introduce the word "battle" for the wiki process? -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
While "opposing" and "opponent" have the same root, use of the latter has a strong connotation of an adversarial process, as well as making the other editor (rather than the opinion) the focus of the dispute. Wikipedia works by a collaborative process. That's why the term is seen as troubling. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That subtlety I was not aware of, thanks for pointing that out. I only know that in formal debates "my opponent" is regularly used to address the person with an opposing opinion. And maybe even, in this situation, the 'adversial' adjective could be applicable. Still unresolved is how or why User:EatsShootsAndLeaves tried to explain me something in this by introducing the "battle" wording. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In the U.S. Senate, which has been called "the world's most exclusive debating society", Senators when speechifying have the tendency to refer to their opponent as "My learned colleague" and other phrases along that line. BMK (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, YOU are the one who "introduced the battle wording". Just reminding you not to do that the panda ₯’ 23:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And that would have been inappropriate as well. SNOW is not supposed to be a way for dissent to be rapidly shut down by a mass of squirming bodies being shoved in front of any debate. Nobody can honestly suggest that the current overwhelming head-count lead is due to anything other than people overreacting to seeing a TfD tag at the top of random articles they're watching. I was honestly debating whether to noinclude it for precisely that reason, but I foolishly thought it better to brave what I'd hoped would be a little knee-jerking for the sake of a robust discussion. Instead, while I was asleep the well was not so much poisoned as stuffed entirely full of gerbils. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Misbehavior at the Ari Teman AfD[edit]

A flock of apparent SPA socks have been making disruptive edits on both the Ari Teman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article and its AfD. There have been instances of personal attacks, legal threats, and creating an illusion of support with !votes and article edits from multiple sources.

Named accounts

These are the five named accounts. While they're all pretty obvious socks, only NYClay770 has any abusive edits. NYClay770 edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman to !vote for "keep" in addition to his "keep" arguments as several anons diff. Then actually tried to !vote a second time with the same account diff. There also seems to be some WP:OWNership issues diff.


These four were all used for separate "keep" arguments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman, to attack other users diff diff diff diff etc, to make WP:LEGALTHREATS diff diff etc, and to delete a template from a deletion sorting page diff. They're all from a provider in the Seychelles, and I suspect they're an WP:OPENPROXY.


This one, like the ones below, is from Verizon Broadband IP in Manhattan. Possibly a WP:Straw puppet?


The rest of these are the series of IP addresses with similar editing styles to those listed above, that have edited the Ari Teman and associated articles. The first IP is the one that wound up in the edit war that attracted my attention to the article. Their edits all aim to the purpose of promoting the subject diff, removing the WP:PROD with an attack in the edit summary diff, removing maintenance tags diff diff, and deleting any negative material -- even when properly sourced diff diff. Most of them source to Verizon FiOS/Broadband IPs in Manhattan, NYC. One's a mobile edit on a Sprint IP, and one's from a ComCast IP in New Jersey (visiting a friend, perhaps?)

From the similar editing style and tone of writing across all these accounts, I believe they're all the same person. To my judgement, this all adds up to a user with a conflict of interest and ownership issues.

I didn't bring this to WP:SPI because with the behavioral issues and open proxy, it seems more complicated than that. I don't enjoy making dramaboard reports, too much commotion for my taste, but I've grown weary of the repeated attacks and deceptions of this user. I think some rangeblocks may be in order. Ashanda (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, there's been misbehavior on both sides of this. ArtTenak, on the delete side, has been blocked, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any credibility to the claim that one or more editors have in fact been sued in connection with this article? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


  • I have removed the polemical subsection heading NYClay770 added the preceding comment under, and moved it to the bottom of the thread. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And the attacks diff and legal threats diff continue. Ashanda (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) Yep that's a legal threat. Not a credible one, but definitely a legal threat. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


And another attack diff. And another diff, where he gives away the sockpuppetry -- he didn't make the sexist accusation from that account. Ashanda (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am seriously tempted to IAR, close this AFD early, delete and salt the title for six months. Never mind the personal attacks and pointless keeps from SPAs, the chilling effect from that claim about a defamation suit being served to a Wikipedia editor is the kind of bullshit (pardon my French) that we've already seen at Yank Barry. We as a community need to be a lot more aggressive against that sort of thing. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't even think that would be an IAR action. The article subject has now made a credible threat of legal action and has asked that his article be deleted. On the basis of the subpoena issue and BLP, I would suggest we take swift action, as User:FreeRangeFrog suggests (tho I was of the "keep" camp). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The subject's request for deletion at least weighs heavily in favor of deleting even on a no consensus outcome. Since it's been relisted once already we can probably close at any time. I don't think anyone could reasonably say there's a rough consensus to keep. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've struck through my keep to facilitate that, hopefully. There's been appalling behaviour on both sides but this needs to end soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) That is most definitely a legal threat, I responded to it directly and warned the user on their talk page. I have no way of verifying if that is in fact the article's subject, but I think WP:DOLT applies here due to the veiled legal threats made on the article. As there is no way to verify the credibility of the threats as there was with Yank Barry not quite sure if this should be SALTed or protected. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I actually wrote a close and considered closing it myself now, but I know that it will go to DRV no matter what, will be another pissing contest there, and not sure that is how I want to spend my next week. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a glutton for punishment, I suppose. Closed. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If an admin could respond to this legal threat it would be appreciated. WP:NLT clearly applies here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done Since he claims to have pending action, I politely blocked him for the duration, and explained our policy on pending legal actions. I think we are done here. If the socks show back up (doubtful except to recreate) they can go to WP:SPI. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mysticseaport[edit]

Can an administrator please look at the contributions of User:Mysticseaport — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Newspaper (talkcontribs) 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked before I saw this report.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Kww: I'm guessing you clicked the button too quickly, but it'd probably be useful if you re-block with a reason in the block log. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of article Yank Barry[edit]

Note; I am not here to judge the merits of the legal dispute or the dispute on the article. All I'm here to bring a discussion about is the protection type which is currently used on the article. On June 25th, 2014 User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry fully protected the article until August 29, 2014 and used this as the reference to do it in their edit summary; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank_Barry. Note that the discussion did not mention full protection the event of legal dispute, and only did the end of it actually link to an administrative noticeboard, which unfortunately I can't find the archives to at this moment. I went to the protecting administrator's talk page and they declined to unprotect the article, citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants. Then, I went to WP:UNPROTECT where I proposed that the protection be removed. It was declined, and was instructed to go to WP:ANI, so here I am. Yank Barry has been mentioned on multiple admin noticeboards as the subject has brought Wikipedia users to court for defamation, and is currently an ongoing legal proceedings.

My main qualms with the current protection is that there was seemingly no policy justification for it and that it creates a bad precedent. Chase me ladies used WP:LEGAL as the policy justification for on the article. There is no protection policy outlined on WP:LEGAL. I objected to the protection type and a few other editors have as well. The reason why it creates a bad precedent is that people will see the Yank Barry article and may just use legal proceedings to ensure that the article is locked. Full protection locks out everyone, including the valid contributors who were trying to ensure the article adhered to WP:BLP, WP:V and other content policies. As well, as outlined at WP:GOLDLOCK, fully protection is only warranted in degrees of content disputes and in case of 'history only review'. This article does not outline nor meet that criteria. I propose that the article be unprotected/reduced to semi protection due to the lack of justification in policy for the protection type and the bad precedant that it creates. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps pending changes would be more suitable. If we can review anything before its put up thats potentially libelous etc might be a way forward. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the benefits of PP on this article, or in general. Speaking to WP:LEGAL there is little benefit, indeed WRONGVERSION constraints could make the protecting admin liable. However this specific article is pretty much only edited by consensus, so I don't see much harm either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
Per "citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants", I doubt, from a position of ignorance, whether it is possible to sue someone for acts not yet committed, though of course additional defendants can be named, and indeed this is presumably the reason for the "Does 1-50" in the original application to the court. I would imagine the court would look dimly upon a plaintiff who had not taken the trouble to establish at least the user names of the defendants, but then I am not the court. All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
Yeah, I added that back in due to the fact that I wanted to be fair to Chase me ladies and make sure that their side was accurate and told. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While there are no policy-based justifications for protecting an article under these types of circumstances, I consider this a case of IAR and common sense. On the other hand as far as I know, the supposed legal actions are based solely on the conduct and comments of individual editors in the talk page, not the article content, and the edit war, such as it were, was between several Yank Barry-friendly accounts and some of the regulars there. There are also precedents to this type of admin action - Donald Arthur for example was stubbed and fully protected for weeks while Wikimedia Legal duked it out with the subject's lawyers and eventually bounced it back to us. So let's call this a bit of justified cautiousness, set up pending changes just in case and move on. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the primary distance with that case is that there was an OTRS ticket which I can speculate was a specific legal threat, and that the blanking and the stubbing was done by an WP:OFFICE action, which override consensus. If the WMF foundation sees it fit that the article be fully protected in the notion of the legal dispute, I will respect that, but not when an administrator sees it fit on their own thoughts and reasoning. I do support semi protection/pending changes as a solution. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't an Office action, it was an admin realizing the severity of the problem and responding to a temporary semi-protection request from me. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My concern is that a non-pseudonymous editor might be added to the suit for what we would consider to be a benign edit. I consider page protection to be a reasonable tradeoff between inconvenience and benefit, but setting up pending changes would accomplish the same thing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I consider the possibility of editors being unknowingly dragged into this ongoing lawsuit real and dangerous, not hypothetical and unlikely. I endorse protection per WP:IAR. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BLP states: "As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article." This is like allowing the subject to choose who gets to write the article by taking legal action whether it goes to court or not. A straight across the board lock seems appropriate here for now. I endorse protection as well per the Foundation's Resolution:Biographies of living people which states: "Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems". When a subject is taking legal action against editors of their page, this may well be the best mechanism for this instance.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am against pending changes as an option in this case. There is already a clear chilling effect and as a reviewer I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Other's might be willing, but doesn't that just add potential issues such as a reviewer passing through content that then also becomes a legal matter and now we have two editors involved and not just the one?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The real problem here is that the WMF has not said anything after the lawsuit was filed. They should have said something, as to whether they would protect the named editors or the Does, or would not protect them. Shame on them. They can cure the shame by saying either that they will defend the editors, or that they will leave the editors on their own. In the mean time, Shame on them. They should have responded quickly, rather than consulting for ever. That is my opinion. WMF: Can you say something to the sued editors, or do you really just plan to leave them hanging? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Robert, if the WMF has had any communication with the defendants (I don't know if they have), I'd expect it to be private. I wouldn't get worked up about this without actual knowledge. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I generally despise full page protection as many of the best content people are not administrators and protection is often used as a tool in edit wars to lock down a favored version over an alternative version. In this case, however, with a pending lawsuit which lists "John Does #1 to 50," I think full protection can be rationalized as a protective measure to prevent passersby from actually becoming embroiled in an ugly legal situation. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not opposed to protecting the page to reduce the risk of people getting themselves involved in a potential legal case without realising. That said, it seems to me very have an interesting situation. I believe, and it seems to be supported by some of the comments above that the legal case currently is only supposed to involve talk page comments. While I don't see any reason talk page comments will be pursued but not article edits (if anything the opposite), is it possible we may actually be increasing the risk of editors becoming defendents by pushing them to the talk page rather than editing the article directly? (I presume we're not planning to protect the talk page.) Also while I'm generally a strong supporter of PC, I have to agree it seems a bad choice here since we risk just increasing the people who may involve themselves. While perhaps there would be a small number of editors willing to accept that possible consequences and monitor the PC, I don't see a way to prevent others just thinking it's a normal situation. In fact, is it more likely an editnotice will be missed by reviewers? Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You raise an interesting point, but I think the distinction is a bit of a red herring: the suit concerns not talk page comments, but defamation. It's pretty meaningless where it is alleged to have happened, whether on the article, talk page, or even here on ANI: the risk of getting swept up in the suit, all else being equal, is equivalent. But all else is not equal: someone forced to go to the talk page is going to see, writ large, that something is going on and that they ought to act accordingly. Yes, that will chill commentary. Forgive me for being paternalistic, but I think in this situation, a brief period of chilling isn't too harmful if it means keeping our valuable editors from being SLAPPed around. But all said, I think the points raised by this incident at least make clear that we're just not sure how to approach these situations. What should we do during the pendency of a potential SLAPP? There are policy arguments favoring multiple approaches. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • To be clear, my concern wasn't much to do with chilling commentary (except that I'm not convinced we're willing to go so far as to fully protect the talk page). Rather I'm not sure we have any particular reason to think people are less likely to write the allegedly defamatory stuff on talk pages? If anything it seems they may be more likely to do so since they'll feel freerer on the talk page. Experience editors may recognise that full protection is rare, and try to work out what is going on. But one would hope experienced editors will also read an edit notice and perhaps hidden commentary. I'm less convinced inexperienced editors are going to realise there much be something going on. And while I'm not sure how likely it is inexperienced editors will read an edit notice, I'm also not sure how likely it is they will notice existing discussion on the talk page about the legal case. If anything it may be easier for them to miss, since they'll just click "add section" write some crap and be done. (I mean how many times have you seen an editor post something which is discussed one or two threads above? Heck some editors still manage to post to the top of the talk page.) In other words, the more I think about it, the more I'm unconvinced protecting the article is actually going to achieve what we are hoping it will achieve and in fact could actually do the reverse. The only chance it may is if enough people just don't bother because they can't edit or are aware of the situation but don't take it seriously but do when they see full protection because they believe it must mean there is something serious. P.S. Let's remember that there is potentially a risk outside the article on it's talk page too and so people may need to be careful with their commentary. I've purposely avoided saying anything about the merits of the case for that reason (like possible SLAPP issues). Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose protection, propose semi-pro and an edit notice instead an edit notice notifying editors of the pending litigation, paired with semi protection to block brand, new editors, seems adequate without the more drastic action of the full protection. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • While I prefer full protection for this because of the concerns mentioned above, I'm not as in favor of an editnotice. Call it WP:DENY-like reasoning (though I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling that rationale with my approval of protection). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • But if you're interested in protecting editors, does it really make sense to choose the option which may put them at more harm based on some weird principle which you admit you aren't really consistently applying? Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As one of the people named in the lawsuit, I can say that 1) it's a mess, and 2) it's being dealt with. I'd suggest maintaining the protection for a while longer, pending further developments. As of right now, nobody has a request for an article edit on the talk page, and there's not much controversy. So there's no urgency to do anything. John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose protection, propose semi-protection and an edit notice instead Word for word agree with User:VQuakr.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The "edit notice" concept is worrisome. What will it say? "You may be sued if you edit or comment on this article?" That's more intimidating than full protection. There are major policy implications to such a notice. It might well encourage other suits against editors. John Nagle (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This, absolutely. I knew there was a reason I had a visceral revulsion to the idea of the editnotice. It's not so much a WP:DENY issue as a WP:BEANS issue. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that the edit notice contain an attention grabbing (stop sign with exclamation point?) icon, and say something similar to, "Please note that per the Terms of Use, you take responsibility for your edits. Be aware that as noted in this article, in the past editors who have edited this page have been subjected to legal action. More information can be found [[<link to archived discussion about lawsuit>|here]]." WP:DENY is an essay about vandalism, and is being given undue consideration in this context. My take on this is pretty simple - we do not need to big brother the article by fully protecting it - if WMF legal thinks it should be locked, they can do it via office action. Otherwise, nothing in the protection policy supports this protection. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what that has to do with either John or my points to which you're replying. I already said the issue is more a WP:BEANS one. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: yeah, weird; the second to last part of my reply above does not really follow. I must have misread your post. Of course WP:BEANS is just an essay, too. The example it gives is not to write, don't click on this link or you will crash Wikipedia - pretty different than please don't sue the editors. I do not really see how it applies, or how an edit notice could in any way increase the probability of legal action. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a great big banner saying to other article subjects "Hey, this guy sued and got a big ol' fancy banner on his article to scare away people who said things he didn't like. Why not you?" That's where the beans come in. In my mind, protection is a bit different because it doesn't make absolutely clear why the article's protected to anyone who happens to click "edit". —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I support the protection as a means of reducing both the potential for drama as well as the potential for there to be further publicity generated as a result of edits made to the article while the lawsuit is pending.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose protection, pending changes, banners, etc. When there's no reason for protection (and no valid reason has been given) an article should not be protected. The end date is inexplicable -- if anyone thinks the lawsuit will be over in August, he doesn't know the American legal system! If the true intent is to keep protecting this version forever, or until the lawsuit is resolved (whichever comes first), then that is something that should be left to an official OFFICE action. I can excuse an admin applying brief protection until they had a chance to hear about it but that time is over. I think it's important for people to read the suit for themselves; so far as I can tell it is not based on what people added to the article, but only talk page comments and what they did not put into the article (see "false light"). In the absence of official legal guidance, Wikipedia should just go by its normal procedures. Either those are defective and leave editors exposed to lawsuits for legitimate editing, in which case we need to flex our political muscle and push for liability reform overall, or else they are not and there is nothing unusual to worry about. Wnt (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose Protection I second everything User:VQuakr has argued. While I am not opposed to an edit notice or banners, I do agree and second everything User:Wnt just stated. I believe the full protection may have good intentions, but it is not the proper way to handle the situation. Taking action that is not backed by Wikipedia policy is a slippery slope. What if the intent of the lawsuit IS to protect the current version? I doubt it is, but what if? As stated above, the lawsuit quotes are from the talk page, there is no need to fully protect the article. Finally, I am not for an edit notice or banner on the article page itself, but perhaps on the talk page. I DO believe editors have a right to know why the article is fully protected and I don't think a link to Slashdot is sufficient. It's as basic as an editor having the ability to weigh in on this discussion here. If they don't know why it's fully protected it would be difficult to form an opinion to support or oppose the full protection.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm wondering if any other Wikipedia article has ever received full-protection because of possible or pending legal action...is "Yank Barry" the only one? Or how about this...since the subject has taken legal action in a California court and editing on the article itself and edit-requests have been somewhat chilled by WP:LEGALTHREAT, it would seem to me that the content could be considered sufficiently legally dangerous, even though under full-protection, to administrators who now edit the article and to editors who just post requests on the talk-page (since the talk page is the target of the lawsuit and anyone who has posted on that talk page could be one of the unnamed "Does 1-50") that the article as well as its associated talk-page should both be removed completely from public view, the name/subject receive create-protection and that readers, instead of seeing the expected content when they bring up the article and its talk page, would instead see a template that states something along the lines of "During the time that this article and its talk page are the subject of filed legal papers, they have both been removed from public view to protect editors from possible legal action". Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That might make sense, but that is the sort of thing left to an office action. Ordinary editors and even ordinary admins shouldn't have to decide whether a legal threat is "serious enough" and it's time to censor the encyclopedia. Censorship should be limited strictly to those times when the best legal advice the foundation has actually tells them that they risk the site by not doing it. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I oppose such a drastic step unless the Office decides to take it. I don't think we should be doing more to potentially give Yank Barry press exposure. Let him pay for publicity. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I oppose censorship pretty much universally. There are exceptions. I'm not in favor of EVERYTHING the ACLU defends, but for the most part I don't think information should be taken away. I don't believe this situation warrants drastic measures. I believe the full protection is a bit extreme. I'm not sure how many lawsuits of this kind there have been, no one has answered my precedent question, but it seems, to me, to be fairly notable. It's in the article, poorly worded, but it's in there and I believe it should be.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't saying the information would be taken away, I was saying that WMF Legal/"the office"/etc might decide, in order to protect the project, that the content of the article and its talk page should both be removed from public view pending any the outcome of this lawsuit. The temporary stubbing (as happened on another BLP) and then full-protection while legal efforts are ongoing would seem to serve somewhat the same purpose. Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
As for previous lawsuits, Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation is helpful, although that article is out of date. There's been a recent lawsuit against an editor of the Greek version of Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation issued a statement.[12]. Nobody, as far as I can find, has ever collected damages from a Wikipedia editor. John Nagle (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article does not appear to be the issue for Mr. Barry and his lawyers, while the opinions expressed on the talk-page and the talk-page itself are. I'm just saying that if editors are posting requests on the talk-page isn't it possible that they are opening themselves up to possible legal ramifications? The "office" and/or WMF Legal should decide if anything else other than basically freezing the article while offering a tincture of time is the best remedy for the situation. Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by user RaulEEsparza[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely as an impersonator

Rauleesparza (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing the page Raul Esparza in order to start drama on Tumblr. I would like any help I can get here. 2601:8:A880:A6:B15B:7BED:345F:B6EF (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • What's to stop you from using WP:AIV? If they vandalize again (they're currently only at two incidents) then report them there. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 19:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I posted here because it wasn't simply vandalism, there was harassment involved as well. The more recent edit had a personal attack left to a certain Tumblr user. 2601:8:A880:A6:B15B:7BED:345F:B6EF (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't bother doing that; I have semi-protected the page for a week and will add it to my watch-list for a while. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked that user indefinitely as an impersonator. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Doc James obstructing improvements[edit]

Content dispute. Discussion ongoing at talk, ANI's job here is done. Feel free to take somewhere like WP:DRN if the issues continue. However, that discussion should take into account the points raised here. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:06, 9 July 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.

In the past few months I have made it my pet project to update articles about autism to reflect more current research and maintain a neutral point of view. User:Jmh649 has been obstructing these changes through persistent edit reversion, even after a style-related consensus was reached on Talk:Autism and the changes were specifically in accordance with said consensus. This reversion is one example. He offered the excuse that I've also made other minor corrections (I figured if it's broke, fix it.) Surely there is a reasonable limit to requests for comment; we don't need to halt progress for every minor change in wording. I believe User:Jmh649 is being intentionally disruptive and preventing articles from being improved. Muffinator (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note. So what is the issue with Muffinators's edits? If you look at this one [13] he has changed "200 children without autism." to "200 allistic children". I had no idea what an allistic child was. I do know what a child without autism is.
  • Here is another one [14] "normal individuals" changed to "neurotypical individuals".
  • Muffinators wishes appears to wish to use the vocabulary of the autistic community rather than standard commonly used English. This I oppose.
  • Now with respect to Muffinator's specific dif [15] there is no references added. Thus unclear how this is updating to "more current research" Additionally the term autistic spectrum disorder is not the same as autism thus not sure why the change.
  • Now Muffinator did get weak consensus to change "person with autism" to "autistic person" but this is not what they have done in the first 7 changes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Muffinators wishes to use the vocabulary of the autistic community rather than standard commonly used English." This blanket statement is not at all true. Assuming good faith means not ascribing motivations. The above example was the only time I added the word allistic to an article, which I only did because I couldn't think of a better way to re-word it at the time. As stated on Wikipedia_talk:MED, I'm open to any alternate suggestion, as I do not own the article.
  • This is the first time it's been stated that the problem was lack of references. Muffinator (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it would be helpful if Muffinator could give a link to the style consensus discussion mentioned. It's not on the currently active article talkpage, but there are 14 archive pages and I didn't try to look at them all. I used the archive search box on the term "allistic" and found just one occurrence, here, where it was used only in passing. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The style consensus mentioned is in Talk:Autism under the heading "Autistic person" versus "person with autism". I apologize for the formatting here as I do not know how to link directly to the heading. Muffinator (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a content dispute to me. ANI isn't really the right place for this. It sounds like discussion is going on. If there's need for outside intervention, it can be found through the dispute resolution processes. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at "Talk:Autism" was about "person with autism" vs "autistic person". That discussion is totally irrelevant to this one. (The analogous implication is that "persons without autism" would prefer to be known as "non-autistic persons". Of course there is no evidence for that.)

From WT:WikiProject Medicine:-

If you know a more appropriate alternative to "allistic", please add it, because "without autism" doesn't make any sense and we have already determined consensus on person-first language.

— Muffinator

That's entirely wrong. "without autism" makes complete sense. Also, the consensus was to use identity-first language for autistic persons, not person-first language.

"Normal" is not a diagnosis and is frankly presumptuous. There is no reliable source to say those individuals were normal.

— Muffinator

Our articles should include similar text to that used by the sources.

For this edit, the source states "200 children without autism", not "200 allistic children".

For this edit, the source describes "individuals with high-functioning autism", not "[unqualified] autistic adults and autistic children".

For this edit, a source describes "children with ASD [autism spectrum disorders]", not "autistic children". Given the previous consensus about identity first, it would have been reasonable to change this to "autism-spectrum children". If the edit would subsequently be reverted, then it should be discussed on the talk page, with a link to the previous discussion & consensus.

A person on the autism spectrum is autistic. That's why it's called the autism spectrum.

— Muffinator

No, that's wrong. The opening paragraph of our "Autism" article states "[Autism] is one of three recognized disorders in the autism spectrum (ASDs), the other two being Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified (commonly abbreviated as PDD-NOS), which is diagnosed when the full set of criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met." Reference. Indeed the "autism spectrum" is so named because it includes more than just autism.

Summary: Muffinator is pursuing his/her own agenda of re-defining "autism spectrum" as "autism" and "normal" as "allistic", contrary to the sources and in the absence of consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... many people technically identified as PDD-NOS and Aspie (whose only DSM-IV difference to the "Autistic disorder" criteria is that speech happened on time when they were a baby) identify as autistic, and per the DSM-5 at least, people identified as either of those should fit in the new unified "autism" diagnosis, which folded both of the other ones into itself (as in they don't exist separately in DSM5). Further, though this may be relevant within an article that discusses sociological and cultural aspects of autism (though I feel it's difficult for that article to portray either perspective without undue weight and should be split, but eh, very little to do with the price of tea in China right now) or other social model topics for instance, it's true that it's not entirely appropriate to use "autistic" for the spectrum when talking about the spectrum within an article that discusses medical aspects unless most sources in that vein do so. It's nonspecific (or too specific?) and confusing. Shoot, this ended up being more comment on the content disputed than the editor's behavior. Dang it. Oh well. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

With this edit [17] Muffinator has changed all of the section titles in his/her talk page to 'trolling' which 1) they are not and 2) show a lack of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Acting out on my own talk page is irrelevant to this discussion. Muffinator (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I read it. Edits that I made on my own talk page (which I already reverted, by the way) are not relevant to a discussion of edits I made to article pages. Muffinator (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
They can be put under scruntiny nonetheless if they violate policy. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
And calling perfectly civil comments 'trolling' certainly violates AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As much as I think this thread could be closed, I'm -> this <- close to suggesting a 6-month topic ban for User:Muffinator. This single-minded behaviour that is damaging the article, and is in fact insulting those on the Spectrum, and it might just be time to temporarily provide restraint from such behaviour the panda ₯’ 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No matter Muffinator's other issues, we should absolutely not be using "normal" to describe non-autistic persons. Not only is it a POV value judgment, it's factually inaccurate: non-autistic persons can have all kinds of neurological, psychiatric, etc. conditions and still not be autistic. The difference is between autistic and non-autistic, not between autistic and "normal". --NellieBly (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The whole concept of a spectrum is that it encompasses all wavelengths. In the ASD context, that analogy would include a tree sloth toward the longwave end and a hyperactive chipmunk toward the short. Saying "non-autistic" simply makes no sense: we all live somewhere on that spectrum. "Normal" just means one is somewhere in the range of the bell curve occupied by 68.2% of the population, equispaced around the mean. See normal distribution. It isn't a POV or a value judgement. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That seems at odds with what our autism and autism spectrum articles assert, which is that a person who falls under the autism spectrum is a person diagnosed with either the autism disorder itself, or Asperger sydrome, or a pervasive developmental disorder. The "spectrum" does not include every human being within its definition, and it certainly shouldn't include tree sloths, chipmunks, bumblebees, or paper shredders. It seems pretty extreme, or WP:FRINGE to suggest it should. -- Atama 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Speaking as a parent of a child with autism, the term to define someone who does not have autism is neurotypical, not normal. I generally don't favour referring to someone as an autistic person (although I know other parents who do) because it is not particularly nice to define some one by their disabilities. Do we refer to someone with cancer as cancerous person? Of course not.--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
            • "Neurotypical" seems more accurate than "normal". In my particular case, I could probably be described as "neurotypical" but nobody who actually knew me would ever call me "normal". (I don't think normal people are allowed to be admins on Wikipedia.) -- Atama 21:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
              • The word "normal" means "typical" or "common".[18] If you're going to invent a term called "neuronormal", the antonym has to be "neuroabnormal", and then you're right back where you started. Also, check the term "allism" on Google and it's clear it does not mean "without autism". ←