Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885

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

Noticeboard archives


Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86[edit]

Initial statement by EllieTea[edit]

User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 have been causing problems pertaining to the article False accusation of rape. I began making edits to the article on April 26. I continued making edits until May 2; i.e. I made edits for one week. Afterward, User:Roscelese undid all the edits that I had made.[1] Her stated reason is as follows.[2]

EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved.

I twice requested that Roscelese supply evidence to support her accusation.[3][4] Here is one of those requests.

An efficient way to deal with this is to specify an edit I made that violated WP:OR and an edit that violated WP:VERIFY. Please specify the edits via direct links.  EllieTea (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese refused to specify any such edit. Another editor, User:Padenton, has also repeatedly requested that Roscelese specify the edits I had made that are problematic. Again, Roscelese declined to do so.

Additionally, Roscelese has accused me of being a Single-purpose account.[5] A review of my contributions shows otherwise. I joined Wikipedia in 2009. Until this year, I did not edit any articles related to rape. Most of my edits dealt with songs, movies, and actors.

I did not, though, edit often. This year, I became more involved with Wikipedia. I created my first, and so far only, article: Leila Araghian (an architect). Again, that is not related to rape.

The subject of Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is directly related to rape accusations, and I had seen the subject discussed in the media. In February, I looked the subject up on Wikipedia, and after reading the WP article, made an edit to the article, to include a short quote.[6]. Afterwards, I made three other very minor edits: adding some wikilinks, correcting grammar, etc.[7],[8], [9]

Two months later, I became interested in the topic, and so in mid April, I began making related edits to WP. I made several edits to Campus rape, beginning on April 19. A week later, I began making edits to False rape accusations. I also made a few more edits to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight); none of those edits changed any of the words in the text though: rather, they dealt with other issues, e.g. spelling, a reference, etc.

From the above, it is plain that Roscelese’s allegation that I am an SPA is false.

Before discussing my edits further, some background about the article is perhaps useful. A central question being debated on the subject is this: how common are false accusations of rape? There seem to be two main schools of thought. One school, often associated with activists, argues that the rate is about 2%. Another school, often supported by police, argues that the rate is far higher, e.g. 20–40%. There are also people who argue that we do not have adequate data to conclude much.

Both Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 have repeated claimed that I am trying to bias the article against the activist school. To assess those claims, the edits that I made on the last two days during the week of my editing (May 1–2) are reviewed below.

May 2, 11:58, Edit Summary: improve reference formatting

This edit made no changes to any words, just formatted a reference better.

May 2, 11:51, Edit Summary: Give another quote about the meaning of "unfounded"

This edit pertains to the FBI’s classification of some rape accusations as “unfounded”. The edit consisted of inserting one new paragraph. The paragraph explained that the rate of known false reports is much less than the rate of “unfounded” reports—yet some people have mistakenly used “unfounded” as a synonym for “false”. The paragraph is copied below (reference omitted).

Eugene Kanin (whose work is discussed below) remarks similarly: "unfounded rape is not usually the equivalent of false allegation, in spite of widespread usage to that effect … unfounded rape can and does mean many things, with false allegation being only one of them, and sometimes the least of them".

Thus, my edit provided support for the activist side of the debate.

May 1, 20:07, Edit Summary: correct authorship

The name of one author was missing from a source; the edit fixed that.

May 1, 14:52, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660248778 by EllieTea (talk) correction

  May 1, 13:59, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660247157 by Sonicyouth86 (talk) I have explained twice with link; you are violating policy

These two edits pertain to the inclusion of a reference. The reference is an opinion piece at, which is an opinion site within The Guardian newspaper. Before discussing this more, some history is relevant.

On April 27, I made an edit to Mattress Performance.[10] The edit did not change any words, but removed a reference. The reference was to an article in, which is all opinion pieces: for that reason, I believed that the reference violated WP:RS.

I was nervous about making the edit, because I am not an expert on WP policies. So, I also created a new section on the talk page to explain my edit in detail: Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Citing opinion pieces. The edit was never reverted, and there were no comments made on the new section. Thus, I had been right about removing the reference. I felt good about that.

Two days later, on April 29, I noticed that the article False accusation of rape also included a reference to an opinion piece in I therefore removed the reference, just as I had done with Mattress Performance. The Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion”.[11]

Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit. I re-reverted that; my Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP policy for facts”.[12] On May 1, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit again. I re-reverted that, at 13:59 (as linked above). I was aware that what we were doing might be construed as edit warring; I believed, however, that I was enforcing WP policy. I also created a new section on the article Talk page to discuss things.[13]

In the new section on the Talk page, Sonicyouth86 pointed out that the opinion piece was only being cited as a source for a statement by the author of the piece. I had foolishly not noticed that. I then restored the reference in the article (at 14:52, as linked above), and left a note about this on the Talk page.[14]

Everybody makes dumb mistakes sometimes. Sonicyouth86, though, had interpreted things in a different way, making the following claim on the Talk page: “I assume that EllieTea believes [that the reference should be removed] because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations is known to be true”.[15] The quote from me is from a discussion that we were having about a study that was done in Australia. In the study, 15% of the rape accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant: thus, only about 15% of the accusations are known to be true. (Only 2% of the accusations are known to be false, though; the remaining 83% did not have their veracity determined.) By quoting me out of context, Sonicyouth86 makes it appear as though I hold a POV that I do not hold (and in fact think is ridiculous; my real POV is that a study that only evaluates 17% of the accusations is of little value). Sonicyouth86 further accuses me of editing in bad faith.

The POV accusation that Sonicyouth86 had against me was also made earlier, on April 29.[16] Then, s/he added this: “It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it”. I responded by politely explaining the above issue with 15% (i.e. only 17% of the accusations in the study had their veracity determined).[17],[18]

None of my explanations had any observable effect. Indeed, on May 4, Sonicyouth86 told me this: “You have repeatedly stated your opinion that only a small portion of rape accusations are true but you need to read WP:NPOV and edit accordingly. Or better yet, you edit in some other topic area for a change.”[19]

May 1, 10:35, Edit Summary: correct Turvey reference

There was an error in the way a reference was specified; the edit fixed that.

May 1, 08:59, Edit Summary: add Philadelphia experience

This edit added a new paragraph to the article. The paragraph presented evidence that the police seriously over-report the number of false accusations. The paragraph is as follows (reference omitted).

In the year 2000, the Philadelphia Police Department reviewed about 2000 rape reports that had been classified as "noncrime" during 1995, 1996, and 1997. The review determined that there were actually only about 600 rape reports that were false or did not amount to crimes. The remainder of the rape reports included 705 true rapes, 532 other sex crimes, and 131 nonsexual offenses. The Police Department then agreed that henceforth women's groups would be permitted to review case files.

The edit obviously provides strong support for the activist side of the debate and against the police.

To summarize the foregoing, I made edits for seven days, with the edits for the last two of those days synopsized above. None of the edits during the last two days were against the activist side, and two edits were for the activist side, one strongly so. During those days, both User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 were active on the article and/or Talk page. Yet afterwards they claimed that I was pushing an anti-activist POV, and reverted all the edits that I had made during the prior seven days.

During the first five days, I made edits that supported both sides of the debate. Even then, though, the edits were reliably sourced and, I believe, fair. As an example of an edit that supports the anti-activist side, consider the Australian study cited above. Prior to my editing, the WP article described the study as follows (omitting the reference).

A study of 812 rape accusations made to police in Victoria Australia between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.

Most people reading that would assume that all but 2.1% of the accusations were not false—as such, the description was highly misleading. After my editing, the WP article describe the study as follows.

A study of 850 rape accusations made to police in Victoria, Australia, between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report. Another 15% of the accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant; the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study.

The new version is obviously more informative, and no longer misleading. It does indeed have weaker support for the activist side of the debate, but only because it is no longer misleading. Nonetheless, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit [20] and on the Talk page claimed that my edit was an attempt to impose a “serious POV” in the article.[21]

During the week that I was editing, I made two significant mistakes. One mistake was described above, about the removal of a reference to an opinion piece. The other was in quoting a statistic from an FBI report.

The FBI report states that 8% of rape accusations were classified as “unfounded”. The report further states that 52% of accusations were “cleared”. In editing the WP article, I assumed that “cleared” meant “final status has been determined”.[22] In fact, it means something else. (For example, if the FBI receives 108 accusations, 8 of which are classified as unfounded and 52 of which lead to criminal charges, then (roughly) that implies a cleared rate of 52%—the 8 are ignored.)

After I made the edit, Roscelese asked me to confirm the definition of “cleared”. I then googled the FBI web site, realized that I had made a mistake, and made a correction.[23]

Before asking me to confirm the definition of “cleared”, though, Roscelese suggested that I had made up the cleared rate.[24],[25] I then quoted the relevant paragraph from the FBI report, which states “Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared”.[26] Roscelese then apparently realized that the 52% figure was indeed real (and subsequently asked me to confirm the definition).

After Roscelese reverted all the edits that I had made, another editor, whom I do not know, became involved, User:Padenton. Padenton re-reverted the article to my last version, citing WP:REVERT. Then another editor, whom I also do not know, reverted what Padenton had done.[27] I then again reverted to my last version; here is the Edit Summary: “there is no consensus to do this, and no supporting evidence yet; discuss further on Talk”.[28] My edit was undone by Sonicyouth86.[29]

Padenton then left several comments on the Talk page, addressed to Roscelese and Sonicyouth86. Some extracts from those comments are below.

… the lack of civility and edit warring behavior the two of you have shown rather than these good faith edits and attempts to discuss
@Sonicyouth86: Then you need to provide information on what specific changes you have issue with, and engage in civil discussion over the changes so we can finish this.
I see many attempts of EllieTea's to discuss his/her changes on the talk page, and I see your refusal to discuss.

I believe that the article is much improved as a result of my edits. As far as I can tell, every difference between the last version that I edited and the version to which Roscelese/Sonicyouth86 reverted is an improvement. Neither Roscelese nor Sonicyouth86 have given any counterexamples.

I ask the Administrators to restore the article to the last version that I edited. I ask further that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 be sanctioned.

EllieTea (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Robert. I'm actually very interested in this subject but I could barely make a dent in that wall of text, EllieTea. This is like evidence presented in an arbitration case not a simple request for administrator attention. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of my statement is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Roscelese. The key point is that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 reverted a week and a half worth of edits (70 edits) refusing to explain the reverts and refusing to allow EllieTea to discuss. They were dismissive and uncivil to his/her multiple attempts to discuss, often ignoring them. When asked to explain the mass-revert, they refused to provide any additional information than the already addressed concerns throughout the rest of the talk page. As Roscelese is under arbcom restrictions requiring that she explain any content reversions on the talk page, and prohibited from making rollback-reverts without explanation, her actions in this should be handled at the arbitration enforcement request, unless there are other claims against her actions. ― Padenton|   22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the summation, Padenton. It sounds like some of this incident is being handled at AE. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible boomerang for EllieTea[edit]

  • With their first edit to the page, ET adds a self-published rant that compares Jim Crowe lynchings and “contemporary rape hysteria.”
  • Removes a reliable source that says that false rape accusations are relatively rare.
  • Removes a reliable source (statement by Keir Starmer on recent CPS research) which states that false rape accusations are rare.
  • Misrepresents FBI statistics, incorrectly claiming that 8% of 52% (15%) of accusation are false, when in fact the source says 8% out of 100% in a larger sample size.
  • Misrepresents sources by claiming that police classified 9 % (216 of 2284) as false reports, when in fact the police classified 8% as false reports (216 of 2643) (There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent p. 47)
  • Restores misrepresentation without consensus.
  • Adds link to an obscure court decision (ruling: women in jeans cannot be raped).
  • Adds information about retractions and withdrawals, conflating them with false allegations and implying that there’s no distinction between false accusations and accusations that were not prosecuted to withdrawn.
ET has received several notifications. They are aware that the page is subject to the men's rights article probation (false rape reports are the ultimate men's rights activist issue). Furthermore, they were told that their edits might fall within the scope of the ("any gender-related dispute or controversy") part of the GamerGate discretionary sanctions Unfortunately, the user did not adjust their behavior.
ET demonstrates a lack of understanding and/or care for statistics and WP:NOR as in the case when they came up their own FBI figures (8% of reports are false & 52% of reports result in arrest != 8% out of 52% are false). Furthermore, they show an inability or unwillingness to edit collaboratively and follow the BRD cycle. They edit to promote their stated (fringe) POV. This makes them very unsuited to edit in their chosen topic area (everything about rape). In general, ET is not here to build an encyclopaedia. --SonicY (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Sonic, I've taken the liberty of adding a subheading. This section is difficult to read. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@EllieTea: It's unfortunate that you still do not understand why it is disruptive to repeatedly restore your preferred edits without consensus and despite objection from experienced editors. Most worrisome of all is your (continued) defense of your misrepresentation of sources. Your comments do not counter my points, your comments contradict the sources. And I don't know what to call you, SPA or "sleeper account" or whatever. You have made 222 article edits, 134 of them this year, and 66 article talk edits, 65 of them this year. All article talk edits in 2015 had to do with rape. And almost 100 of the 134 article edits were about rape. The non rape-related edits (with the exception of edits re Araghian) were minor and insignificant. You might have edited other topics between 2009 and 2014. But in 2015, your (substantive) edits and your discussions are limited to the subject of rape. --SonicY (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rejoinder to reply by Sonicyouth86[edit]

Most of the issues raised in the first paragraph of Sonicyouth86's reply are addressed in my initial statement, and ignored by the reply. In particular, regarding being an SPA, this was addressed: I began editing WP in June 2009 and only became interested in rape accusations this year, mainly since mid April. And regarding the quote "only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true", this is discussed in detail in my initial statement: Sonicyouth86 misrepresents my position, again. The 13 examples in Sonicyouth86's reply are treated below.

1. My first edit to the article was indeed the one cited by Sonicyouth86: made on April 26. At that time, I knew very little about the subject of false accusations of rape. I googled the subject, and found, among other things, the book False Accusations of Rape (listed on amazon). This seems to be the only book that is entirely about the subject; moreover, the book had just been published. For that reason, it seemed reasonable to include the book in the WP article on the subject, under “Further reading”, which I then did. I did that, however, without looking at the book.
Afterwards, Roscelese removed the book from the article. I accepted that: I did not attempt to revert the removal, or discuss the removal on the Talk page, etc. Indeed, since I had not, and have not, seen the book, I cannot comment on the content. As a just-published book on the topic of the WP article, though, it initially seemed to me to be reasonable to include it.
Sonicyouth86 criticizes the book because it "compares Jim Crowe lynchings and “contemporary rape hysteria”". My suspicion is that this is an implicit reference to the book Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Brownmiller’s book has been very widely cited by people on the activist side of the debate about rape accusations. Brownmiller’s book compares rape to white mob lynchings. Hence, my suspicion is that False Accusations of Rape, when comparing false rape accusations to lynchings, is trying to draw a parallel with Brownmiller's book.
2. We had a discussion about this at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#DiCanio, on April 28. After I explained my reasons, no one replied. I therefore assumed that my reasons were accepted by other editors. Sonicyouth86 is now indicating that s/he does not accept those reasons—but is not giving any justification for doing so.
3. I do not see a policy violation here. I can, though, explain further if someone wants such.
4. This is discussed at length in my initial statement: about the mistaken removal of a reference. The reply of Sonicyouth86 ignores that discussion.
5. This is the same issue as the prior point.
6. This is the same issue as the prior point.
7. The issue of FBI statistics is discussed in detail in my initial statement. The reply of Sonicyouth86 ignores that discussion.
8. This is the same issue as the prior point.
9. There is a long discussion about this at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#British_Home_Office_study_(2005):_the_percentage_rate. My comments there counter the point of Sonicyouth86 in detail.
10. This pertains to the same issue as the prior point.
11. Sonicyouth86 criticizes my adding a link to “an obscure court decision”. The court is the Supreme Court of Italy. The decision of the Court was as stated by Sonicyouth86: women in jeans cannot be raped. In other words, if a woman is wearing jeans and she makes a rape accusation, the Court ruled that the accusation should be held to be false. This really was the case in Italy, as of 1999—the date of the decision.
I do not understand what my edit is being criticized for. It is obviously directly relevant for the WP article on false rape accusations, and of substantial significance. Moreover, it supports the request at to the top of the article to globalize the content.
(Perhaps I should add that I do have a POV on the Court’s decision: I think that the decision is absurd, and I stated so on the Talk page. That did not influence anything in the article though.)
Additionally, note that my edit supports the activist side of the debate about rape accusations.
12. This refers to the Australian study, discussed in my initial statement. Sonicyouth86 criticizes my edit for two reasons. First, because my edit “adds information about retractions and withdrawals”; that information, though, is relevant and important, as explained in my initial statement—an explanation that is ignored by Sonicyouth86's reply. Second, because my edit conflates retractions and withdrawals “with false allegations and implying that there’s no distinction between false accusations and accusations that were not prosecuted to withdrawn”; this is a falsehood, as comparison of the before and after versions of my edit demonstrates—and both versions are given in my initial statement.
13. I do not see a policy violation here. I can, though, explain further if someone wants such.

EllieTea (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


Two administrators have explained that the description I gave is too long for ANI. Additionally, Sonicyouth86 has made a fairly long reply, for which my rejoinder will also be long. Hence, I suspect that this issue should now be submitted to ArbCom. If that is not okay, please let me know.
EllieTea (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is doubtful that ArbCom will take the case without prior efforts at resolving it within the community. This (AN/I) is one method, Dispute Resolution is another. BMK (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned above, this case is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese. Liz Read! Talk! 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I intended to start an ANI discussion or request AE concerning EllieTea's editing. When I logged in today to do that, I saw this thread and Padenton's AE request against Roscelese. I am 100% convinced that EllieTea violated the terms of the men's rights article probation and probably also the terms of the "any gender-related dispute or controversy" provision of the GamerGate ArbCom decision. Just as a heads up, I'll probably request arbitration enforcement concerning EllieTea's editing unless their behavior is examined here or in the AE request against Roscelese. --SonicY (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@BMK, Thank you kindly for explaining. I will treat things further here.  EllieTea (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by User:Anupamsr[edit]

Actually by User:Cubancigar11 --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I am a very old editor who started editing English Wikipedia way back in 2003. Nowadays I am mostly dormant and I use a different account to lurk.

I am here to say that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 have a not only a history of engaging in edit wars by taking each-others help in avoiding WP:3RR, they have a personal agenda that they are using Wikipedia to espouse. Roscelese constantly removes well researched edits by other editors without any reason except personal attacks, and has continued to enjoy a certain support by this community apparently because 'she has been here for 9 years'. If so, that support must end now along with its abuse. Both Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 work in tandem in scaring new users and chasing them away to maintain control over unsourced opinions.

Recently, when I initiated a discussion about why a change was reverted, I got this[30] response from Roscelese's 6-th sense. On asking what her actual problem is and how it is my personal opinion to copy-edit an unsourced statement, she reverted again with another personal attack[31]. Btw, you can read the source and see for yourself that it has got nothing to do with what was being so forcefully re-instated).

Upon further questioning about the what is the problem and how the proposed change is 'disruptive', a yet another unrelated personal attack came [32]. And suddenly out of nowhere, Sonicyouth86 started participating in instigating a revert war[33] fully ignoring the talk page. I ignored the prima facie WP:CABAL behavior and added more citations and further tried to improve the article, another user reverted it by calling the exact quote FROM the journal itself as WP:WEASEL.[34]

What I want to show here is how new users are being threatened and bullied away by Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 from editing an article because it doesn't suit a long term user's pov. Nothing matters - addition of sourced material, willingness to copy-edit, tolerating personal abuse as well as trying level best to adhere to Wikipedia rules - because these 2 users don't even try to engage in the discussion. It is my way, or a ban from my friendly administrator.

As I said, I am mostly a lurker, and I will continue to improve Wikipedia where such psychopathic behavior is minimal. But Wikipedia needs to grow a strict action must be taken to stop this kind of bullying where they are called single purpose account, this is not your personal webpage and whatever mumbo-jumbo they can come up with. This behavior will not stop if these kind of users think they can get away from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubancigar11 (talkcontribs)

You tried changing "Feminists call for equality before the law regardless of gender" to "Feminists claim to support equality before the law regardless of gender" and then "Feminism claim to support equality before the law regardless of gender, with the explicit mandate which foreground the implications of the law for women and women's lives." with these charming edit summaries:
  • "Added source and expanded section. Removed personal opinion of serial abusers. Go to talk page, this is not your friend's personal blog and everyone else is not your slave forced to promote to promote your opinions.)"
  • " Ooh it is so much fun to quote the journals of encyclopedia. Little people won't understand the meaning of authoritative. I guess the professors and authors of book are also having only personal opinions.)"
--NeilN talk to me 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You just open the source and find me where in it does it say 'feminists call for equality', as I have mentioned many times before and even above. By still claiming there is some kind of vandalism, you are only showing your laziness and lack of interest in actual topic that is being edited. If you actually read the source, it vehemently talks about feminist's class for inequality and end of masculinity. But I didn't want to create a discussion about feminism so I modified the totally incorrect statement into a more neutral one, so in case anyone has a particular interest in introducing that thought, such as yourself, he or she can find a source and add it. Instead you came and blindly reverted to a wrong version, without making an iota of effort in correcting or even discussing it. And by the way, when someone repeatedly says that 'wikipedia is not your personal blog' it is an apt reply to say 'it is not your friend's blog either'.--talk 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is Roscelese's latest antics: [35] Revert removing genuine citations in favor of what a junior judge said when she was young, while claiming that I am a sockpuppet :D, while ignoring the talk page altogether[36]. Can we let a deranged person have such autonomy?--talk 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Yet another proof, a check for sockpuppetry :D [37]--talk 20:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC) NeilN threatens to block me for showing the abusive behavior: [38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamsr (talkcontribs)

  1. Please use one account per topic.
  2. Calling another editor "deranged" is not acceptable.
  3. I did not call your edits vandalism. I said they were close to gibberish and synthesis. I stand by that.
--NeilN talk to me 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Anupamsr blocked 1 week for personal attacks here and abusing multiple accounts, only acknowledging them after the fact. Sockpuppet account Cubancigar11 (talk · contribs) indef blocked as an illegitimate sockpuppet account. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please guide us on acceptable use of personal webpages for BLP information[edit]

The Nassim Nicholas Taleb article historically has included many, many citations to Prof Taleb's personal webpage.

I came on to the article recently, doing a bold edit, finding sources for several, removing some as redundant, and when necessary, placing [citation needed] for other cases, because I believed, based on reading:

that it was not the aim of wikipedia, as an encyclopedic venue, to reproduce personal biographical claims from an individual's self-published webpage, in an article about themselves.

Specifically, in Talk, coincident with the edits, I described them in this way:

Extended content

The work I did, therefore, was to move the article away from (1) the appearance of being a repository of the authors ideas based only on self-published sources, and from being (2) a mess of citations that while largely sound, appear[ing] in many cases in URL-only form (see remaining uncorrected cases, nos. 9-11, 39, 43, 65-66, etc.), and other cases very redundantly appearing (e.g., see what is now the Stephanie Baker-Said 2008 citation, no. 12).

To start, I removed a citation to the title subject's Facebook page as an inline citation (as it is not an acceptable WP citation, and it already appeared in in the external links).

Then, in some cases the text gave only a self-published citation, but it could be traced to an actual published article, online or otherwise. In these cases Taleb's website was left as a second online source of the information, the actual publisher's site being the first. These cases are clear if searching "fooledbyrandomness" and finding two URLs appearing in the citation.

In other cases, the citation of Taleb's personal web page appeared as one of several attached to a bit of text. In this case the citation was simply deleted as redundant (with the 1, 2, 3 other proper citations still appearing).

In still other cases, the citations were to quotations from Black Swan, and in this case, I added the citation to the book, and indicated the need for a page number, with the [page needed] tag.

Finally, in the remaining cases, there was no way to trace the web page material to an independent source, and in these cases the personal webpage citation was deleted, and the sentence was marked wither with [This quote needs a citation] or [citation needed]. I encourage other concerned editors to look at the diff for before/after my work today, and to add citations from standard WP-approved types of independent published sources to remove these tags. Please do not simply re-introduce the nonindependent references, and please, under no circumstances remove the inline citation tags, because they mark areas I and others can return to, to work.

Note, in no case was offending, unsourced text removed; this will come later, if it remains unsourced for a long period.

Otherwise, I did other cleanup work, including: (1) removing many redundant citations (to his books, to Hélyette Geman), (2) created the Influences section so that information appearing only in the infobox, with and without sources, could appear elaborated in the text itself, and (3) moved all infobox and some lede citations to the appropriate points where the same material appeared in the main text (so to cleanup the box and lede).

I move this discussion here because various editors have been weighing in, with opinion divided as to how to interpret the policies. Moreover, in some cases reversions being done not only reintroduce the Taleb personal web page citations, but also undo significant copyediting and citation completions/cleanups.

I ask administrators to address us, @LoveMonkey:, @SPECIFICO:, @Limit-theorem:, @JanSuchy:, @Bgwhite:, @Jamool66:, @YechezkelZilber:, @LoveMonkey:, to make clear under what circumstances we should allow the appearance of the title subject's self-published materials.

Note, I have no issue with any specific edit of any of these editors.The question at hand, is if Taleb's personal webpage, [39], should be used as a recurring source at his WP article. Thank you for your attention to the matter.

Finally, (1) please forgive the "shouting" in the Edit history. I was trying get rapidly arriving editors to differentiate between contentious issues (as is being raised here), and other corrections that should not have been contentious (including the removal of redundant citations and the completing of incomplete citations).

And, (2) please move this to a more appropriate Noticeboard, if I have, in my naiveté, posted this in a sub-optimal discussion.

Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor my job is to improve a page, by adding info. A source by an author on his own ideas is a source but it may be insufficient. It is not to be treated as irrelevant (when it comes to exposition of material) but to be added upon. So a reponsible policy is to find additional citations, and possible replacements, which requires some effort. Removing contents such as statements about one's own religion is not responsible editing. The problem is that edits by LeProf7272 appear to be erratic, to say the least, not counting his rants and shouting in all-caps. For instance, removing something that has a dead link (rather than adding "dead link" for someone else to add a citation would be more responsible. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Le Prof went into a road rage on my page mistaking me for another editor.
An apology was issued when I understood I that you had done some, but not most of the knee-jerk reversions of sound copyediting. If you have issues with that matter, please feel free to take it up with me directly. The ANI issue i about how the policies apply to use of an individual's personal web page, including his self-published CV, being used as a source to support BLP biographical information at his article. This is what the ANI needs to address for us. You believe it fine, @SPECIFICO: and I do not. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Further, looking at Taleb's pages, much of the stuff is itself referenced by him and linked and his FB account is verified so his citations about his ideas are not invalid, though other sources would be more authoritative on other material. And bio material like resume is OK to take from CV as public figures are under severe scrutiny and the smallest lie is detected and used against them. Common sense. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This is indeed the crux of the matter. Can we use self-published CV and related material, absent supporting material, in a BLP article context? I proposed removal of all unsupported references to the [40] (personal Taleb) web page. LT and others reverted these replacements of with [citation needed]. How should we proceed? Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Finally Le Prof Leprof 7272 seems to be edit warring and went beyond the 3RR (4 RR if I am not mistaken). Limit-theorem (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I protest this misrepresentation. The article has multiple matters going on. I have asked that these be separated, and all seem to use their reversion ability freely, and so throw baby out with bath water. The ANI is being addressed about the self-published citation issue. This matter is being confounded with other edits that have nothing to do with the ANI matter. My earlier edits moved incomplete citations in the lede to the main body, and completed those citations. Reverting these, as Limit-theorem has done, puts a deadlink source back into the lede—in this interim, while we wait for the ANI to speak—and I object to leaving the article in bad shape, and to confounding the ANI issue with unrelated issues. I will do no more edits, but I wish Limit-Theorem would appropriately parse the issues, separating the ANI issue from the correction of bad citations that had appeared throughout. His insisting on the reversion of the lede and PhD section edits as an ANI issue, is both incorrect (it involves no "" citations), and puts incomplete, redundant citations into the lede (the ones in body are complete and all that is needed). Please, compare the citations between lede and main body carefully, LT!
And once again, all of this is immaterial to the ANI matter, of self-published source use, and I will not touch any of this again. No good deed goes unpunished here, it seems. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Note, to obfuscate matters, Limit-theorem has again reverted the non-ANI edits, and is making further edits to remove the deadlink, and so make it appear as if I have no case. When a discussion is taking place, and the opponent's arguments are undercut by modifying the article to make his issues disappear, there is no hope for unmuddled discussion, or fair outcomes. This is utterly base, and I wash my hands of the matter. Limit-Theorem can have his article, and reference it with whatever self-pblished material he wishes. I remove myself from this matter. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear all. Please note that authors/academics are allowed to post on their website gated material, articles and papers (I am an academic and am allowed to so do). So references to scientific articles that are gated can come via an author's website, though one needs to be careful to avoid self-reference beyond what is necessary and obviously useable. Removing all deadlinked (actually gated) references would be irresponsible. Limit-theorem (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The "gated material" comment is simply not germane to the bulk of the issues at this article. (I am aware of only one edit to which this description might pertain.) The bulk of the issue has to do with unpublished biographical material at Taleb's personal web pages (CV and unpublished essay material) that is making its way into his WP article. Other cases involve draft or other versions of Taleb writings whose connections to actual published material is not as simple as "gating".
And as a fellow academic, I stand by my contention that the stated WP policies bulleted above are violated by citing self-published material in ones WP article. That such is done at other places in WP, or by academics does not make it consistent with the policies cited. Otherwise, because of LT's tactics of obfuscating matters by continuing to edit the article, in particular to remove issues I have called attention to, I can no longer interact with him (can no longer AGF), and I recuse myself. I support the suggestion of @SPECIFICO:, stated at the end of the discussion here, [41], to move this discussion to BLPN, but lack the experience to make this move. Cheers, thanks all for attention, bonne chance with resolute, issue-marginalizing Prof LT. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like there are several different issues being conflated here. Peer reviewed journal articles can be used as appropriate, and are not self published. The citation should be to the journal.

If the author republishes it on their website, a link to this copy can normally be included as courtesy link. The exceptions would be if the copy isn't the same as that which is published. Or it's feared that the are copyright concerns as. Generally an author is allow to have such a copy so we normally accept such copies particularly when on a university website. However if there is sufficient doubt, it's possible it may need to be removed as secondary infrigement per WP:copyvio.

The inclusion or rejection or the presence or absence of such a courtesy link in no way affects the validity of the citation which is ultimately to the originally published article, not the courtesy link. If people are rejecting such courtesy links, examples should be given. If however Leprof is correct and these courtesy links are not an issue under discussion, then it's an unnecessary distraction to bring them up.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil Einne for the thoughtful response. Replies: [a] No issue with peer-reviewed journals, concur that citation should be to journal; [b] do not disagree regarding the appearance of a courtesy link, but invoke the exception you state as applicable here (that in some cases, what appeared at the personal Taleb web page was not the published pdf, but a draft version), [c] to be clear, courtesy links are not the issue, it is such things as using his self-published CV appearing at his personal web page as the source of biographical information throughout the article. Here are the esamples, still in the article:
  • [42] (to support family history, in lieu of standard formal records/publications)
  • [43] (to support family history, in lieu of standard formal records/publications)
  • [44] (left in in my edit, a courtesy link alongside primary, to Bloomberg Markets journal, per se)
  • [45] (left in in my edit, a courtesy link alongside primary, to Business Week magazine, per se)
  • [46] (to justify all of his finance employment positions, no other source given)
[further cases where personal web page references to articles as courtesy links are being ignored, as point has been made sufficiently with two above]
  • [47] (to justify all of a long string of his academic employment positions, no other source given)
  • [48] (that he jointly teaches regular courses with Paul Wilmott in London)
There may be more, but this is enough of a sampling to make clear that the issue is not courtesy appearances, of which I edited in support. The issue is biographical information that is sourced only to his personal webpage, and therefore seeks to make the article an extension of that web page, rather than an encyclopedic article with reliable and (independent) verifiable information. As it stands, for significant portions of the article, User:Limit-theorem having reverted my replacements of these cases with [citation needed], the article is again in a "just trust me" state—we are being asked to simply trust the title subject to self-state, through his personal web-page, his employment, his personal family history, etc. That is, we have allowed this to become autobiographical, in these significant aspects. I would note that in no other article of a living person that I have edited, have I had this contentious issue, trying to ensure that people are not presenting their autobiographical aspirations as their encyclopedic article content. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins unethically taking care of each other.[edit]

I am closing this because it is not a reasonable complaint. There was no conspiracy among all admins to ignore you, I can confidently say that as nobody contacted me about it. What is more it would be far simpler to just decline your unblock request rather than engineer some sort of intricate plan of silence. The accusations here are simply not plausible. Chillum 01:33, 13 May 2015 (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.

Okay, so as you know, I was blocked for 36 hours. About 8 minutes after I was blocked, I posted a very understanding, and worthy unblock request. The only problem? NO ADMIN RESPONDED TO IT. Instead of an admin looking at my unblock request and trying to go over the merits of it, apparently every admin thought they had something better to do and I had to wait the whole 36 hours before editing again. Funny thing is, the user who reported me for this supposed "edit-warring" that I engaged in, Huon, is an admin. Now, either every patrolling admin has had their head up their ass for the past 36 hours; or, admins decided to close ranks and ignore my unblock request. Admins take care of each other, right? Just like cops. This is unacceptable. I'm unblocked, and I'm happy about that, but I'm not happy that Huon decided to get his little corrupt admin friends to completely ignore my unblock request, just so that they could take care of one of their own. Unacceptable, period. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I guess that's one theory...? Unblock request work isn't the most fun or rewarding task in this volunteer project, you know. Couldn't it also just be that not many people were working on it at the time? I'm an Admin, but I wasn't over here, stroking my beard and letting out evils laughs in my lair as you were blocked. I was reverting vandalism, completely unaware of the unblock log at the time, or doing non-Wikipedia related things. That could be the case for a lot of the admin population... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
uhhh, posting a message like that is not likely to get you unblocked any time soon. I'd suggest , and I'm only suggesting, that you wait out your block for at least today, and strike the above, please. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
KoshVorlon: as unsavoury as the phrasing of the message above might be, your response here does rather illustrate BeastBoy3395's point about messages not being read… —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment I'm reluctant to comment on this rant, but I guess it's somewhat understandable that the user is frustrated. As User:Sergecross73 said, this is a volunteer thing and people could be busy. After several years here, I still haven't discovered this alleged unethical admin conspiracy. The only reason I'm commenting is that despite the ranting tone, the user does highlight a problem I've also noticed. More and more admin tasks go unaddressed, and this is a change. It could be a user not being unblocked (in this case I don't think there was a reason to unblock, but that's beside the point) as no admin looks into it, but it could equally well be a vandal avoiding a block cause no user looks into it. During the past months, I have the feeling that all reports take longer than before, and more reports go untreated than before. It could be obvious vandals allowed to carry on for hours as there's a huge backlog for dealing with vandalism, it could be obvious edit warriors not being treated at all. I also have the feeling more and more ANI reports are archived without closure one way or the other. Once again, this a voluntary task the admins do and nobody has the right to demand of any individual admin to do more. At the same time, there is no denying that if there's a collective slow-down of admin tasks and even more and more admin tasks not being done, it signals a wider problem. That could be relevant to discuss, not the rant about unethic admins. Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I definitely think that's true. There are more backlogs all over the place. I've had what I thought were legitimate reports disappear into the aether several times. Many active admins retired or got desysoped in the past year, and few people are stepping forward at RfA to take their place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There is just too few admins to go around. I waited two months for the close of a simple RfC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The shortage of admins is the fault of the admins. If they were truly concerned about it, they would do something about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There may be some truth in that, it's possible they should be a bit more concerned about it as all these backlogs we all note are detrimental to the whole project. Nevertheless, not being overly concerned about backlogs is very far from an unethical CABAL of rouge admins.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Failing to get the job done would not seem to be an ethical issue, no. (Rouge admins. Do we have any beige or bleu admins?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You know it's not that simple though. There's plenty, for instance, who would like to change RFA process, it's just that no one can ever get a consensus on how/what to change. It's easy to point fingers and blame "the collective", but very hard to propose a solution that would gain a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I know I took a break for a few months last fall and one of the first things I noticed was that there were fewer admins putting AN/I on their regular beat than there were when I started in 2013. There used to probably be 15-20 admins that I would see regularly weigh in at AN/I and now it is much fewer who check in every day or every few days. Some of those admins retired or were desysopped. I think that there are some areas of admin work where your actions are more likely to create animosity against you and why face angry editors when you can handle backlogs of page protections, username complaints or vandalism or other less divisive areas of work? This is all WP:OR, just an observation I've noticed. I just think with fewer admins to handle the workload, it's likely that things will fall through the cracks and those who shoulder the burden are in danger of burning out. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (comment from an uninvolved editor) Oh... Hrmmm... I didn't know Huon, who I knew was an admin, had joined Drmies' CABAL. Well, Huon, I hope you're enjoying being a ROUGE... ;){{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
BeastBoy3395, I believe you were supposed to notify me if you launch an AN/I thread about me; please keep that in mind the next time you use this page. I reported you for routinely misrepresenting what the sources you provide say, not for edit warring. I see the edit warring you sincerely apologized for in that very worthy unblock request becomes supposed "edit-warring" as soon as the block has run out. I'm rather active in unblock requests (though for obvious reasons I didn't answer yours), and at times I come upon a request I don't feel comfortable accepting but still don't want to decline - if other admins share that sentiment, such a request can stay unanswered for quite some time even though admins have actively looked into it. Huon (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright, but I did ping you. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
So a "brand new" user arrived less than a week ago, made enough edits to trigger autoconfirmed status and then piled into edit-warring on a toxic article until he was blocked - and people didn't unblock him. I can't imagine why. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sir, I know what you're implying, and it's not the least bit true. And if people didn't unblock me because they suspected me of being a sockpuppet, that's still unethical, as I wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry, and there's no evidence to show I'm a sockpuppeteer. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No, but he's saying that, even if someone had reviewed it, your odds of getting unblocked were not great. An overwhelmingly vast majority of the unblock requests regarding edit warring or misrepresented sources are denied, especially with such a touchy subject and such short block span. Just an observation. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And I think the short length of the block probably had something to do with admins not weighing in on whether or not to unblock the editor. If the block had been for a week or month, it's more likely that there would have been SOME response although whether that would be to unblock or deny the request, I don't know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 12 May 2015 (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.

About my edits and User: Joseph2302 on the issue of tagging my articles for deletion severally.[edit]

NAC: OP blocked for 72 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2015 (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.

My username is Hilumeoka2000. My full name in Hilary Umeoka. I am a freelancer working and earning a living as a full time online writer at, and

Here's my public link on -

Here's my public link on -

I noticed several clients on both freelance platforms post jobs for wikipedia article creation. Everyone including companies want to be on wikipedia to gain traffic and reputation. Initially, I ignore such jobs since I don't know how to create wikipedia articles.

I opened my wikipedia account some years back. However, I developed interest in writing wikipedia jobs since March 2015. I decided to learn how to write wikipedia articles. I took my time to go through all the editorial guidelines. I really enjoy learning a lot and also contributing to the best repository in the world.

I made inquiries about paid edits on wikipedia and I discovered this page Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). After going through the page and other resources, I discovered that freelancers are free to get paid for writing wikipedia articles provided the articles follow wiki rules.

My first attempt to create a page on a man "Joshua Letcher" failed. This was mainly because the man was not notable. There are also no media references to use for him. I learnt a lot from that. I read more about wiki editing and grew in knowledge.

I started getting more jobs from clients to create articles and get paid for same at the end. I follow the rules. I don't promote nor advertise about article subjects. I make sure I use available media resources.

I created the following wiki articles for sometime now

I also have others in the pipeline.

Now, between 12th and 13th May 2015, I started seeing huge interest by some editors about the pages I already created.

User: Joseph2302 is the person that keeps attacking the pages. He notified me asking if I was a paid editor. Here's the discussion link [[49]]

I opened up to him and told him that I work as a freelancer and I get paid to write articles. But, I follow due process when writing articles.

Joseph2302 ignored my please and went ahead to nominate all my articles for speedy deletion. He cited "Undisclosed paid editing" as his major reason.

User: Safiel reverted some of the deletion tags and told him that, the issue of "undisclosed paid editing" is not a reason since it has not been approved on wikipedia

Joseph2302 reverted back all the pages to "speedy deletion" once more persisting on his former claim of "undisclosed paid editing"

Other editors also came to the rescue. Why other editors revert the article to normalcy, Joseph2302 still refused. It now dawned on me that, he simply attacking my edits for some personal reasons.

Now, Joseph2302 has also nominated the same articles for AFD (Article for deletion)

I discovered there are vested interest among most of the editors that comment on the AFD page. They seem to have issue with the subjects of the articles created.

Please, I want an admin to look into these issues and the wiki pages. I made sure my articles pass neutrality policy. I also make sure they are properly referenced with secondary sources.

I believe many editors take a stand on issues of AFD just to punish the article creator. This has been my case so far. That's why I table my case to the admins.

Finally, if paid edits are not allowed, I would like to know and probably stop bidding for Wikipedia jobs on platforms. But from what I read, the policy on paid editing failed. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

First, please calm down. Your ad hominem arguments against the deletions of articles you created is earning the ire of fellow Wikipedians and is making the problem get worse. First of all, paid editing is generally frowned on in Wikipedia because many Wikipedians assume an instant, well-disliked bias when someone is paid to edit an article for a company, because they have the mindset of that paid editors create Wikipedia pages to advertise not-notable organizations, and are prone to violations of WP:NPOV. Second of all, panicking like that will invite Wikipedians to discredit you whole, instead why don't you address what people identify as the actual issues with the article? Joseph and DCG cite Wikipedia policies to show what is wrong with the content; it's not to turn you into mush, but to show that this is not very good content for articles. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Paid editing is not not allowed without prior disclosure. You are not "following due process", since an important part of the COI guidelines is to go through WP:AFC for the actual creation of the article, and you did not disclose your conflict of interest until you were forced to. You seem to think you're doing us a favor (or at least that's how your argument here comes through). That is certainly not the case, unless you suddenly start creating articles about lizard species in Madagascar, but I guess that's not where the big bucks are. With that said, sadly there is no deletion rationale that based on undisclosed paid editing, and it seems Joseph2302 got a little carried away in his understandable (at least by me) anger. But that concerns me less than what you've been doing. There are quite a few people who operate under COI around here and do it correctly, so it can be done. But you apparently are not interested enough in doing so. I would support a site ban for you at this point, and the summary deletion or at least incubation of all the articles you created, but I know that's not going to happen, so I'd recommend you just go away. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Hilumeoka2000: The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use (which is our Terms of Use, since we've never adopted another one), says<

Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

-a statement on your user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.

We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.

Have you complied with these terms, as well as with our English Wikipedia-specific policy on editing with a conflict of interest? If so, you must. This is not a matter for debate, it's part of the contract you agree to by editing here.
None of the article you listed, if deleted, will be any great loss to the encyclopedia, which we can never expect to include every business in the world. However, allowing paid editors such as yourself free reign will do great damage to the encyclopedia, and tend to bring it into disrepute as a neutral source of information. I would suggest that if you do not comply with the requirements listed above, you be blocked from editing, but I know that the admin corps is split on the issue, so that probably won't happen. The best we can do is have on-the-ball editors such as Joseph2302 monitoring your output and nominating those articles which fail to pass our notability requirments or are overly promotional. BMK (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them for 72 hours. Aside from opening this thread they went to each AfD and posted this message accusing Joseph2302 of nominating the articles for deletion because he was trying to harass them. I've left them a message telling them not to do this sort of thing, to follow policy, and to pay very close attention to what you are all saying in this ANI thread. I've also let them know that if they continue on the way they are, they're running the risk of this becoming a permanent block. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:59, 13 May 2015 (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.
Really? This is a bad block. Hilumeoka2000 did disclose, on their talk page that they are indeed a paid editor, so they met terms of service, yes their message on AFD was inappropriate, but not rising to the level of a block, the AFD's on the basis that they're an undeclared paid editor , are nonsense, she declared it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
His user page does not include the crucial word "paid". He says only that he is "a wikipedia writer and editor. He specializing on writing wiki articles that are neutral and also follow the wiki rules", but most users would say that. That is not a sufficient declaration to comply with the Terms of Use, which require disclosure of "your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." He only disclosed that he was paid yesterday on his talk page, in response to a direct question. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I consider it a good block. Even if one regards that as disclosure, and I agree with JohnCD that it was inadequate as such, he was not blocked for being an undisclosed paid editor. This block, as I understand it, was for disruptive editing at AfDs. We should await the conclusion of the AfDs, but if the articles are deleted and he attempts to write similar ones, there would be a possible indefinite block for persistently inserting promotionalism after adequate warnings. We can and do block promotional editors regardless of motivation. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

WP:DNFT--regentspark (comment) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (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.

regentspark (comment) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bolonenk has directed personal attacks towards me without any reason. See my talk page. El Bayon (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No one seems to take notice. Thank you admins for your inattention. El Bayon (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with El Bayon. This is an obvious case that admins should handle quickly. Yesterday, there was a long discussion triggered by the increasing problems caused by lack of admin activity [50]. The complaint was an irrelevant rant, but it also showed how we're come to a situation where admin tasks are no longer carried out and backlogs are building up everywhere. This threatens the whole project as it allows disruptions to multiply unchecked. An obvious case such as this one by El Bayon should be addressed right away. Sure, admins are volunteers and we all respect that, but if Wikipedia is to continue and not descend into one giant WP:SOAPBOX, something must be done.Jeppiz (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Gave them a warning, will block them indef if they continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2015 (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.

Sneaky paid editing going on[edit]

Since the entire article is copied from various commercial yoga websites, I have deleted it as G12 (copyright infringement), although G11 would not have been unreasonable either. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2015 (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 was some suspicious !voting going on in that AfD with several apparent WP:SPAs voting for keep (for me the article looks like an obvious delete although I would understand if a neutral editor looks at the references and honestly thinks that they prove the company's notability; my reasoning is explained in the AfD).

At least one of the keep voters actually provides his/her paid services as a writer on an off-wiki website -- it only took me a bit of googling to find this info but I will not give the specifics right now in case it counts as WP:Outing. Based on this I believe that Wikipedia is being edited by more than one such "freelancers" and that Blooming Lotus Yoga has recruited them. And/or folks affiliated with BLY are editing here but none of them has disclosed it. (Before the AfD, at least one editor had attempted inserting links to the BLY website, like here.)

Looking at the previous edits (and talk page warnings) of the SPAs, I find this all very suspicious. But I'm not entirely sure how to actually approach this kind of thing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 CheckUser note: The accounts appear to be  Unrelated from a technical standpoint. I've left the users a message about meatpuppetry and paiding editing. Mike VTalk 17:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Can I ask which user you checked? I thought User:ShriKailasha and User:SriKailasha were the same person for obvious reasons (and Sri became inactive before Shri appeared so I'm not implying anything) but I didn't mean to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry specifically. I think all of the keep!voters in the AfD are suspicious though, considering their contributions, and if they're unrelated then it's just more likely that they've been canvassed off-wiki. (I didn't notify all of them.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I checked SarahKrauch, ShriKailasha, SoulFlames, and Legendarybroly. I can't compare ShriKailasha to SriKailasha because SriKailasha's technical data is no longer available. However, it seems to be more an issue of an abandoned account due to a lost password rather than sockpuppetry. It's possible there is some canvassing/meatpuppetry, but that's not always so easy to prove. As for the AfD, that's why we always say that it's a discussion, not a vote. The closing administrator should take the merits of all the comments into consideration when deciding the outcome. If the discussion shows more merit for delete, that will be the outcome regardless of how many support keeping the article. (And vice versa for keeping the article.) Mike VTalk 18:17, 13 May 2015 (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.


Complaint withdrawn by OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2015 (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.

At 10:30 (BST) yesterday (12 May) I edited the article Martin Seeley in the usual course of my routine edits on Church of England bishops. User:Anglicanus reverted my edits to that page and we have been discussing at their talk page. However Anglicanus has been extremely difficult and, at times, rude (though I have not been perfect myself) and, despite my reasoned and sourced arguments, has reverted again. This is not the only example of abrupt and unilateral editing on their part and I do not believe that it is conducive for the good of the 'pedia that an established editor persists in behaving in such a way.

I cannot accept that bullying is acceptable behaviour in editing.

DBD 13:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick glance suggests that this is primarily a content dispute, perhaps even a copy editing dispute that has gotten a bit testy. Has anyone requested a second opinion from an experienced editor? Has an RfC been posted? Has a request for review been posted on any of the relevant wiki-projects? My advice is to pursue one or more of these options before going any further. ANI is an option for serious problems and offenses, but I am not seeing that here. On a side note please remember to notify all parties named in a complaint of an ANI discussion. I have posted the relevant notification on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you not have had the discussion in the article's talk page, where people can see it as a record of a disagreement about the content of that page, and where interested parties could easily find it to participate? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. I suggest copying the relevant discussion onto the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. We'll try some of those things then. Withdrawn. DBD 14:05, 13 May 2015 (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.

Unacceptable tone of addressing, by LightandDark2000[edit]

LightandDark2000 made a mildly blunt but still civil comment whose primary topic was the content of an infobox. No foul, play on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 13 May 2015 (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 have to file a complaint about editor LightandDark2000, for speaking on a commanding tone to other editors, in this edit summary, 3 May. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I live in America, and here, this tone is perfectly acceptable when speaking to peers, or people of the same age range. I don't know where you come from, but I don't think that you should be reporting my behavior on the basis of potential culture-specific mannerism. Also, I don't see how it is explicitly insulting or offensive, and neither was that my intent. Moreover, if you really want to go deeper into this, I have seen (and faced) much worse edit summary comments from other users, especially inexperienced users, vandal accounts, and IP editors, so please don't single me out on the basis of this one occurrence. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Goddness me. Compared to many edit summaries I've read, including those directed at me, that one seems a very worthy example of reserve and politeness. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system[edit]

User:Phill24th has been engaged in page ownership issues in regards to the 2015 Kumanovo shootings. He has attacked editors who have made good faith edits on the page by giving them warnings in an attempt to scare them away, most notably here User talk: in regards to [[51]].XavierGreen (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

XavierGreen When you open a section on this page, you must notify the other editor that you have done so on their talk page. You will also need to provide diffs of the problems you are discussing. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret I did place a notification on his talk page here [52]. And i did post the diffs above. The warning user:Phill24th gave to the editor was here [53], the good faith edit he gave the warning for was here [54].XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo's edit warring, WP:HOUNDING and WP:OWN-behavior[edit]

Peter Isotalo has completely appropriated the article Sweden in a clear WP:OWN violation. For years, the stable version of the article said Sweden was consolidated in the Middle ages. In February this year Peter Isotalo unilaterally imposed the year 1523 instead [55], and has kept reverting back to his own version ever since [56], [57], [58], [59]. Even though Peter Isotalo is alone in pushing his version and several other users (at least four) have expressed their opposition, Peter Isotalo insists Wikipedia does not operate by consensus [60] which may be true insofar that a consensus cannot overturn sources, but Peter Isotalo has never offered a single source in all his edit warring. Furthering displaying how obvious a case of WP:OWN this is, Peter Isotalo insists that what goes into the infobox "needs to be stringently monitored" [61]. As Peter Isotalo changed the established version and has since kept reverting to his own version, apparently he has appointed himself as the guardian who should do the stringent monitoring. Last but not least, in a rather obvious case of WP:HOUND, Peter Isotalo responded to my edits at Sweden by heading to List of languages by number of native speakers, an article he had never edited once before but where I'm active and had edited earlier today, to oppose my work there [62], [63].WP:HOUND does not come any clearer than this, and it is a typical example of the battlefield mentality of this user. All of this, the edit warring, the strong WP:OWN and the obvious WP:HOUNDING shows that Peter Isotalo is not here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This ANI was brought here a full 2.5 hours after the dispute over Sweden arose. Not the most constructive use of this forum, I'd say.
Peter Isotalo 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Completely untrue, and you know it. The dispute at Sweden goes back to February, as the diffs above show. I haven't been involved in the dispute before, but you certainly have. And as I already explained on your talk, it is the combination of your WP:OWN with your aggressive WP:HOUNDING that led me to bring this to ANI, as it's one of the clearest cases of battleground mentality I've seen in years.Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I have consistently removed claims at Sweden in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and no sources have been forthcoming. You've simply referred to other users to reinstate those unreferenced claims.
And I have been involved in articles relating to both languages and Sweden for years, so it's not particularly odd that I commented on problems raised by others at talk:list of languages by number of native speakers. I noticed this by checking your recent contributions. Last I checked, this didn't qualify as WP:HOUNDING.
Peter Isotalo 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you honestly suggesting that it's pure coincidence that in all your years at Wikipedia, you never once went to List of languages by number of native speakers but after I challenged your edit on Sweden, you headed straight to the latest article I had edited to oppose me? Yes, that's most definitely WP:HOUNDING and your denying of it is profoundly dishonest. My apologies, it was late and I misread the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Where did Peter suggest that? Here he seems to suggest it isn't a coincidence, rather that he's been active in the general subject area for a few years, and noticed one particular issue by checking out your contributions (I presume due to concerns over your editing brought up by the dispute). Checking out a persons contribution in response to concerns you see over their editing or just because you're interested after encountering that person and are wondering more about them, is perfectly normal and accepted. Commenting solely on the issue at hand, when you happen to see something in those contributions that you feel you can help in, or where you have concerns over the direction of discussion is also perfectly normal and accepted. The question of when it becomes hounding is a very complicated one, but I think it's rare that a single instance will cross in to the hounding threshold. More importantly, as I said at the beginning, your response is fairly confusing as it doesn't seem to relate to what Peter actually said here. If there is somewhere else where Peter suggested it was "pure coincidence", can you link to that? If you were solely responding to Peter's comment here I'll be blunt I'm tempted to check out your contributions myself as it sounds like you have a problem understanding peoples comments, and to make spurious accusations due to that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, and I was. Not that it's an excuse, but it was late and I read Peter's comment to quickly. He says he noticed it by checking out my contribution, so my comment about him claiming it was a coincidence was inaccurate and I have struck it. My apologies for that mistake. As for the policy, perhaps I've misunderstood WP:HOUNDING. The way I understood it is that we should avoid following users with whom we have a conflict to articles they are editing to spread the conflict. Of course I could go to several articles Peter has edited to start opposing him there and he could go to even more articles I've edited to oppose me, but I really don't think that that would be helpful for the community. As for the rest of my original post, the strong WP:OWN remains. Since I posted those diffs, I added sources to several claims Peter had tagged [64], and his response was the usual as it has been to anyone editing the infobox on Sweden since Febrary, reverting me [65] to remove all the sources to insert his {cn} even though every source was WP:RS and in each showed that the dates are correct. Once again, every user except Peter Isotalo is in favor of the consensus version and this reverting of anyone disagreeing has been going on for three months against any user who does not agree with Peter's (unsourced) decision that Sweden did not exist prior to 1523.Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I should add that the edit warring against consensus and strong WP:OWN is not limited to Sweden. At Melee, Peter Isotalo is doing exactly the same thing, endless edit warring to impose templates despite being alone in his view [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. All of that edit warring is just in the last week, showing that the problematic behavior at Sweden is part of a general pattern.Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I was informed of this conversation by Jeppiz presumably because Jeppiz wishes me to explain the context of the disagreement over Melee. Melee is an article I recently visited for the first time in years because articles I am composing on the Waterloo campaign use the term, and I wanted to see if the content supports the link. So now for some recent editing history of the article involving User:Peter Isotalo:

  • There was a proposed move Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 to move "Melee" → "Melee (warfare)" and "Melee" (disambiguation)" → "Melee". The decision was "No consensus that other uses challenge this one". User:Peter Isotalo was in favour of the move stating I see no indication whatsoever that the modern meaning of "melee" has a specific military meaning. This article is devoid of sources and a merger to close quarters battle has been suggested. In my view, it smacks of original research. ...". there was an exchange in which it was pointed out anonymously that "The term has certainly been used in military scholarship" eg "The Battle of Hastings: Math, Myth and Melee". to which User:Peter Isotalo replied "It's also an attestation that 'math' and 'myth' have been used. That doesn't make them relevant encyclopedic topics."
  • User:Peter Isotalo put the article Melee up for deletion on 6 April 2015 which starts with "As pointed out in the recently closed move request, this shows no signs of being a valid encyclopedic topic." This was closed with 'The result was no consensus. Rather than "keep", because some of the "keep" opinions are really rather superficial and not much more than votes.' User:Peter Isotalo wrote in that AfD "Btw, I'm strongly opposed to a general merger of any and all warfare topics that happen to contain the word "melee". It's going to amount to a clear example of WP:COATRACK".
  • Having made similar arguments in two different forum (the RM and the AfD) and not gained a consensus User:Peter Isotalo has set about the article with a vengeance. User:Peter Isotalo has been removing any information that is not source because AFAICT User:Peter Isotalo still has the opinion that Melee is not a valid military term so nothing in the article can be verified against it (I admire the logic, but disagree as I think it is a perfectly valid military term). This means that for example a paragraph on cavalry tactics has been removed with the comment "removed unsourced statement" not "removed as unverifiable". That in itself is not an indication of sort of problems that Jeppiz refers, but I think that the removal of of this sentence on a well sourced paragraph (with a link to the source), and the simultaneous addition of two templates, is an indication the having gained no consensus for views expressed in to other forum User:Peter Isotalo intends to try to overturn those view by reducing melee to just a dictionary definition, (presumably to then request another delete) Ignoring the consensus expressed in those two recent forum against such a change. This I think is behaviour, coupled to the insistences on adding and readding different templates to the to of the melee article without a consensus to do so, has moved from reasonable (as it was in the two forums) into tendentious editing. As I have not been involved in editing any other article that User:Peter Isotalo edits in recent years, I will leave it to others if this to decide if this indicates an inappropriate pattern of behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks PBS, I had noticed as well that Peter Isotalo first was very active in reducing the article and then started adding templates, but knowing nothing of Melee, I preferred another user to expand on it, and I'm glad you did. For the record, this behavior is also emerging at Sweden now. After a number of users have expressed their opposition to the version Peter Isotalo has kept reverting to for months, he has started adding a large number of template [71], [72], even removing sources to keep the tags [73]. Just like at Melee, to echo PBS's words, this look more like vengeance, and the same goes for following me to List of languages by number of native speakers to start adding templates there as well, at an article he had never once edited until I "crossed" him. Taken together with what PBS says about Peter's behavior at Melee, this seems very much to be a battleground behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As User:Thomas.W concludes, Peter Isotalo's tactic seems to be quite simply exhaust people by refusing to WP:HEAR until they tire and he "wins" [74]. And in absence of any action, Peter just continues to revert everybody, against the clear consensus [75]. Jeppiz (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to say about this issue? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:JoeMCMXLVII and DRN[edit]

NAC: DRN thread has been failed due to editors commenting on content and not contributors. Discussion of article can continue on article talk page in a civil manner, or a Request for Comments can be used. If incivility continues, this noticeboard is the last stop, but this thread about DRN is closed because the DRN thread itself is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2015 (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.

JoeMCMXLVII Started a thread at The dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) and was asked to step back from the disgussion by me after receiving a warning and in accordance with Wikipedia:Mediation#Control of mediation. ( However, he has refused to obey this as can be seen in the following diffs: I would like to request he be banned, blocked, or sanctioned in accordance with the mediation policy linked to above. Rider ranger47 Talk 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) , volunteer mediator

Do you plan to do any more mediating in the actual discussion itself or have you abandoned it now? Do we need another mediator? In all honesty your tone was unnecessarily confrontational and unhelpful anyway, in my opinion. (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Rider ranger47, but I did clearly express deference to your request and I did subsequently avoid reference to any person as distinct from reference to content, as you requested. I thought that Wikipedia was a place where we could all express opinions of fact without editorial supression. If I got that wrong then I apologise to you again. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@JoeMCMXLVII: I told you what the policy is, and it is linked to at the to of the DRN page. And you are still editing the page in violation of the policy. @109.145.67: How have I been unhelpful? This is my first mediaton request and I have mediated it to the best of my ability without the help of the co-cordanitor who is not responding to my messages. Rider ranger47 Talk 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I also believe this is a personal attack/civility policy violation. Rider ranger47 Talk 00:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You've been unhelpful because you've done little or nothing to facilitate the discusssion. Your approach has been confrontational and partisan. As soon as you percieved that someone had defied you you abandoned the discusssion, allowing it to continue unmediated in your absence. There are better ways to handle people and achieve results than giving them ultimatums then running off and reporting them. Who behaves like this in real life? A bit of diplomacy is what's needed surely. (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
────I do have a life you know. And I would like to express concern that you are actually JoeMCMXLVII editing while logged out. Rider ranger47 Talk 00:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd advise you not to make unfounded false accusations. That would be unbecoming of a volunteer mediator. (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Suggesting that is me is beyond any doubt your personal bias. I suggest in the strongest permissible terms that you find something else to do other than attempt to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yes, and denying Wikipedia editors the right to edit the dispute page is defensive to an extreme. I had a great deal of respect for the little girls in my infants' school but, it needs to be said, they didn't behave as badly as you. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2015 (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.

reverted edits[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP was blocked by User:FreeRangeFrog per WP:Block evasion. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 00:00, 14 May 2015 (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.

Having been an account holder for many years, having created many unique articles here. I no longer feel that the system here warrants anything else other than disruptive behaviour when dealing with moron editors who cannot be bothered to read properly the historic material they are happily and blidly destroying. I have all the time in the world , have an unlimited supply of IP addresses so you will never block me from editing......Go away and let me deal with the editor I an ib dispute with or you and your colleagues will have a full time edit war on here....don't try and humour me , been there done that ...don't try and think you have the answer , been there done that.

I Have left a message on the talk page of the moron destroying a historical article (1971) unique to Wikipedia people like him have good intentions but no brain capable of free thought. Do not vontinue to hassle me or we will go to war big time ...I have all the time in the wotld you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Threats won't get you far. Dustin (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
What Dustin V. S. said. Threat all you want; you will be blocked. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:57, 13 May 2015 (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.

The talk pages of User:RJR3333's sockpuppets[edit]

The various socks of RJR3333 appear to have been dealt with (see: this SPI case archive). (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (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.

RJR3333 (talk · contribs) keeps using the talk pages of his WP:Sockpuppets to plead his case about why he should be accepted back into the Wikipedia community. As seen at the PaulBustion88 (talk · contribs) talk page, RJR3333 has been explicitly told that he is unlikely to be accepted back into the Wikipedia community, but he continues to post about why Wikipedia should give him another chance. Not only does he repeatedly mention me at his talk pages, indirectly or directly, mischaracterizing me or what I stated, he acts like I have no right to comment at these talk pages, and that it is WP:Harassment when I do, even when I am defending myself against his mischaracterizions. He also recently had an outburst, and called me a kike (I'm not Jewish or religious, but that is beside the point). After that, he repeatedly reverted me at the PaulBustion88 talk page, calling me a kike in capitalization. Intermittently, he sent me harassing emails (not the first time). Bsadowski1 took away his talk page access, which is what I wanted, and Malik Shabazz removed his capitalized "kike" insults. RJR3333 then moved on to the FDR (talk · contribs) talk page, mentioning me once again and acting like I have no right to comment there; see here. Why should RJR3333 be allowed to continue to post at these talk pages in the way that does, whether it's to ramble on about what a good editor he can be, comment on me or other editors, or make and withdraw an unblock request? Why shouldn't I be allowed to comment at these talk pages? Flyer22 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And, yes, as seen here and here, I am the main person catching his WP:Sockpuppets, but I don't see that as a reason to stay away from posting to his talk pages, especially when commenting on his disruption and/or defending myself. It's not like I never give him breathing room to talk to other Wikipedians. I gave him plenty of breathing room at the PaulBustion88 talk page to engage others and get their takes about the possibility of him being accepted back into the Wikipedia community. And as for this latest vow from him to not edit Wikipedia for six months so that he can get the WP:Standard offer, he always makes that vow; again, see the PaulBustion88 talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for anyone who's interested, he seems to be taking his fight to simple Wiktionary too (see I know there's no jurisdiction here over that, but it's something people might like to watch, and if anyone knows how to alert admins over there it might be useful. Mr Potto (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(At my talk page there he says he doesn't want to fight, so I've suggested he stops mentioning other editors - Mr Potto (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC) )
Update: He is still rambling on his talk page, including going on about me in inaccurate ways, but Tiptoety gave him some advice about the WP:Standard offer. Do I think that he should be given the WP:Standard offer? Of course not. Like I stated, he has repeatedly blown that offer, and he continues to edit disruptively, including by getting indefinitely blocked at other wikis. I don't see him ever being a productive Wikipedian or other productive wiki editor. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact, if I or someone else catches one more of his WP:Sockpuppets, I am going to propose a WP:Ban on him; I might do that before then. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Case solved: RJR3333 gets to mention me as much as he wants/be as disruptive as he wants at his talk page without any interference from me. Yes, I will be proposing that WP:Ban eventually, and I have no doubt that it will be successful. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I struck through part of my "03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)" post because of this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I just looked through the history of this case and the talk pages of some of the sock accounts, Flyer22. He is remarkably consistent in his block appeals, the ones from 2011 and 2012 read like ones he made this year, saying that he learned his lesson, if you look at his recent edits, they are good and that he will never sock or vandalize again. And they the cycle just repeats itself. He still believes he is eligible for the Standard Offer even though he has violated every promise he has ever made. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Liz, that's why I was upset when Tiptoety suggested that I was antagonizing RJR3333. Yes, I understand that RJR3333 can be annoyed/upset by me commenting on his talk page, but think of how annoyed/upset I am by having to repeatedly deal with his disruption, inaccurate descriptions of me and/or my actions, and derogatory comments/emails. And, like I noted above, "I gave him plenty of breathing room at the PaulBustion88 talk page to engage others and get their takes about the possibility of him being accepted back into the Wikipedia community." Yes, someone could state that I am bringing this on myself by interfering with RJR3333 (you know, victim blaming), but RJR3333 continues to edit topics where I will recognize him. It's not like I am actively seeking him out. Furthermore, someone should always interfere with his disruption. Should I just sit back and let him have at it when I spot him messing up articles? This person has been indefinitely blocked at other wikis; he went to those wikis trying to prove that he can edit productively here. And yet we want to give him another shot at the WP:Standard offer? Not me. And for more detail on what I have been through with this editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Interaction ban between Flyer22 and me. As seen in that first archived discussion, I was not as good then at identifying WP:Sockpuppets as I am now; I was good at it then, but I am significantly better at it now.
On a side note: It sounds like you wouldn't want to give RJR3333 another chance. If so, I'm surprised, since you seem to always want to give disruptive editors another chance. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I do believe in second chances. For everyone. But at this point, it's sixty chances. His promises to never vandalize or sock again in 2012 are word-for-word the same as in 2015.
Also, the endless attempts at loooong explanations about how pedophilia isn't really pedophilia is a telltale sign that someone is working overtime to justify a point of view they believe others view as unacceptable. Over the past few months, I spent some time reading old talk pages of editors on this wiki and other projects who were offering these same explanations and, you know what? These editors all eventually ended up being blocked, too. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, he does distinguish between pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse in ways similar to how I and others who are well-versed in those topics do (such as at Talk:Pedophilia; current state of that talk page here), but he is not well-versed in those topics, and he often goes about editing them (or speaking of them) wrongly. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (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.

IJBall, will you clarify why you stated, "The various socks of RJR3333 appear to have been dealt with (see: this SPI case archive)."? I'm fine with this thread having been closed, but it is about RJR3333's disruption on his WP:Sockpuppet talk pages. I wasn't reporting more of his WP:Socks. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, when I checked it looked like none of the socks had recent activity on their Talk pages (but it's possible I missed one...); and I think one or more might have had Talk page access revoked. I closed on that basis. But, like I said – it's possible I missed one... --IJBall (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
IJBall, thanks for explaining. The FDR account still has talk page access, as is clear from my "03:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)" post above; it's just that Tiptoety essentially told him not to use that talk page to rant anymore. Either way, as noted above, I will eventually seek that RJR3333 is banned from Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
His repeated claims that he can edit Wikipedia productively should not be taken seriously by anyone. Tiptoety being willing to give him another chance is something that I chalk up to Tiptoety not having been through even half of what I have been through with him. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

BeastBoy3395 misrepresenting sources[edit]

The user in question has been indef blocked by Bishonen as a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (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.

BeastBoy3395 has a habit of misrepresenting sources. The most egregious example is this edit to Political positions of Ronald Reagan; the source cited for the first sentence actually says, "Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights." The New York Times article BeastBoy3395 adds does contain the Reagan quote, but it also says: "A grass-roots lobbying and legislative campaign had forced Mr. Reagan and Attorney General William French Smith to abandon their plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation." - thus it cannot serve to show that Reagan had started supporting the legislation. That's not a one-off; here he claimed "multiple sources show love jihad is real, and that people have been convicted of it" when the source he presents says no such thing; when I pointed that out, he cited the Guardian to support the same claim when the Guardian does not say so but in fact pretty much says the opposite. That's not acceptable. At best he's wasting the time of other editors who have to debunk his spurious claims, at worst he's directly attacking the veracity of Wikipedia. This may serve as an indication of his motivation. I'm obviously too deeply involved to take administrative action myself, but I do not think someone who routinely misrepresents sources has a place on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose administrative action: I don't believe that I am, in fact, misrepresenting sources. Reagan did indeed support the extension of the VRA in 1982 after a massive lobbying campaign, and it was a federal law to provide blacks with civil rights; thus, Reagan supported a federal initiative to provide blacks with civil rights, which means that I was right when I put "Reagan initially did not support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, but changed his mind later on". Therefore, Huon is wrong on this. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Trout Huon It's very clear that you decided to search through Beastboy's contribs in search of something (in an article you've never edited) to shaft him over, due to your previous disagreement with him in the rape jihad and love jihad articles. You've demonstrated this by immediately going to ANI, instead of trying to discuss it with him on his talk page or the articles talk page. If this ANI thread were truly about Beastboy's edits "attacking the veracity of Wikipdia" you would have at least bothered to revert his edits to the Ronald Reagan article, which as it currently stands still has all the misrepresentation of sources you claim Beastboy added. (To clarify this isnt necessarily an endorsement of Beastboy's actions I just find what Huon has done very dodgy) Bosstopher (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Bosstopher, do you seriously expect me to "discuss it with him on his talk page" if he misrepresents another sources on the same article talk page a second time after I pointed it out the first time? How often should I, in your opinion, "discuss with him" that the sources he presents routinely are not reliable and/or do not say what he claims they say? Indeed I checked his contributions after I fould them inappropriate in one article; after he misrepresented sources in a second place I was anything but impressed, when he did so in a third place I came here. You're right, however, I forgot to clean up the Reagan article; will do so now. Huon (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I've undone your reverts to my edit; it wasn't helpful. Also, Reagan clearly did later on in his career support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, which was shown by his signing the 1982 federal extension of the Voting Rights Act. I also removed this sentence "His opposition was based on the view that certain provisions of both acts violated the US Constitution and in the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intruded upon the civil rights of business and property owners.[35]", as the source doesn't support it. The source says absolutely nothing about Reagan thinking the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like BeastBoy3395 has done about a dozen reverts Rape jihad in the last 24 hours, someone might want to explain 3RR to him. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • With thanks to Gouncbeatduke's remark, the Beastboy is now blocked for edit warring on Rape jihad; they are clearly editing against consensus, and I'm putting that nicely. Now, if they return to their previous behavior, we can discuss an indefinite block. Huon, is that alright? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • He was also edit-warring at the Love jihad page yesterday, and I didn't realize he was even more busy at another page. Another editor was considerate enough to open a talk page discussion but he exhibited a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - Kautilya3 (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And before he was blocked, he reinstituted the claim that Reagan changed his mind on civil rights legislation based on one source that says Reagan "never supported" it and on another that says he was "forced [...] to abandon [his] plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation". WP:SYN had been pointed out to him, so ignorance is not an excuse. Huon (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Huon, because Beastboy was given a block for edit warring, not misrepresenting sources, I expect you want this case to continue its discussion of his edits? Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I expect the more serious behavioural issues, ie routinely misrepresenting what sources say in favor of BeastBoy3395 thinks we should report, will re-surface as soon as the block runs out. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable, and I see no indication that BeastBoy3395 even acknowledges there is a problem. So yes, I still think more permanent measures are required, but we can return here the next time BeastBoy3395 claims a source says something it doesn't. Huon (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, this resurfaced... Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Ugh. That reinforce the thoughts of anyone who feels that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. Agreed, MarnetteD. Note that originally, BeastBoy's caption for the now-removed antisemitic caricature at the top of his talkpage was "Jewish bankers caused the 2008 crisis. The mainstream, Jew-owned press doesn't want to admit it, but it's true."[76] The only reason it didn't show up on his page was that he missed using the "thumb" code. We give people too much rope sometimes. Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC).
Many thanks Bishonen MarnetteD|Talk 18:45, 13 May 2015 (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.

Trigger happy Admin[edit]

I'm closing this one – blocks were issued in error, unblocks were issued with apologoes, and we were all taught the lessons that block logs can't have entries removed, nor is rev-delete the appropriate course of action for a mistaken block. Lessons learned. Time to move on... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (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 do not believe this, BD2412 blocked me for reverting this edit as vandalism. I was very proud of my clean block record for the last 6.5 years. IMO this was a bad block, maybe this Admin behavior needs to be reviewed. Does anyone see this as a "Good Admin action" ? Damnit I'm pissed. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I have on more than one occasion seen a vandal revert a good edit as "WP:NOTBROKEN" or the like, as a form of sneaky vandalism, and jumped the gun in blocking before assessing your edit history to determine if this was the case. Clearly, I need to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. bd2412 T 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It was a very poor block in a number of ways, and given bd2412's apology, is there a way to remove it from Mlpearc's block log? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I would endorse removing it from the block log. A 'crat can do that. bd2412 T 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well there you go then, just don't take it to heart Mlpearc =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah! I wasn't aware that bureaucrats had that ability, hence my suggestion below. BMK (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be more concerned that the unblocking edit summary doesn't acknowledge in any way that it was a mistaken block. If I was to look at that block log at the moment without any knowledge, I'd assume that Mlpearc was vandalising but then agreed not to do it any more. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't fault you, last I checked you were a human with flaws like everyone else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't one way to flag the prob