Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

I am reposting this because it was archived before it was resolved. There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W. 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel is continuing to make disruptive edits on the Philadelphia Water Department page and is leaving messages at my talk page rather than discussing the article on its own talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uninvolved and disinterested party checking in. The issue appears to be content driven and may require either an expert to intervene or having a RFC devoted to individual articles. This entire spat brings to mind the directive found at the bottom of the page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The editor SMM201'0 seems to think that the removal of sourced Original Research and Synthesis of material is disruptive. I have asked the editor what the "Haliburton Rule" regarding Hydraulic Fracking has to do with the Philidelphia Water Department, but the editor has yet to respond how it is related. None of the sources he is using mention the PWD. There is some concern that HF may be responsible for some issues of water quality in Philadelphia, but that is no reason to proceed to lay out a lengthy argument against HF within the PWD article. It follows a clear WP:COAT and WP:SYNTH pattern. Present the arguement and then go off on an unrelated tangent that has no sourced connection to the PWD. The editor seems to have a strong feeling regarding HF and has been editing from what appears to be an activist approach in order to present HF in as negative of a light as possible violating several WP policies. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel deleted large sections of text and references again today. I would welcome administrator input. Arzel has wanted to discuss the article on my talk page rather than the article's talk page. I have answered on the article's talk page. Arzel is also being disruptive on the HF pages, see their talk pages as well.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request for comment regarding the PWD page. There is a larger pattern, however.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on other articles, but regarding Philadelphia Water Department, Smm201, your homework assignment is to read and understand Wikipedia:Coatrack. Hydraulic fracturing has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article; even the mention of a minor water quality issue is of questionable notability, but I have left it in for now as a compromise. A mild scolding to both sides for edit warring, and if you don't like what I've done, take it up with me here. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article on the Philadelphia Water Department. The water quality issue regarding iodine-131 is a big deal in Philadelphia. A lot of people are affected by the water quality. Because of the politics involved, the PADEP and EPA's reports are not always consistent. EPA recently took over the investigation. WP is one place people can read info from the EPA, PADEP, and other sources and come to their own conclusion. The problem now is that the article is now inaccurate. Even if you and Arzel didn't like what the page said, every fact was well documented. The EPA reported levels above the acceptable level several times from 2007 to 2011, and said that Philadelphia's levels were among the highest in the US. The Water Department report actually talks about the Safe Drinking Water Act and says the iodine-131 is coming from effluent from treatment plants. Thyroid cancer patient urine has been suggested as an explanation, but they are still trying to pin the source down. The article does not accurately state the uses of iodine-131. I can understand wanting to punish me for edit warring and asking for intervention...but you are also making the article inaccurate. But I asked for that I suppose. Again, thanks for taking the trouble. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inaccurate about the article as it stands now. It is properly sourced, and all statements (in the water quality section, I have not vetted other sections) are verifiable. I can not say the same for the previous version of the page, which was in gross violation of WP:SYNTH.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability was not an issue on this page. All statements had RS. The page seems to have gone from alleged synthesis to censorship. Not sure that's an improvement.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not completed your homework assignment. Do you actually understand what we mean when we say you are using improper synthesis of sources and using the article as a coatrack? Because you are undeniably violating these policies/guidelines. An article should cover a subject, not serve as a soapbox for independent conclusions critical of something only (extremely) tangentially related.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honest...I did my required reading. Really. A very early draft might have toed the line, but at this point it was statements and refs. I had cut down on the verbiage too to balance the focus. The PWD itself had posted information about these issues and discussed them on their web site, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the limits of what it did and didn't know about the origin of the iodine-131, and a warning about iodine-131 levels because they were periodically over the EPA limit. The PWD has been holding public meetings about it, and it is getting news coverage (see deleted refs). The Delaware River Commission has gotten involved. But...thanks again for taking the time to comment, even if we disagree.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We," eh? You two know each other? I was wondering why a neutral party would take such drastic action as deleting most of the content of a page, and call it a compromise. It didn't make sense.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I'm going to revert the deletion to allow others to more easily read what's there and comment. I'll also check again to make sure each statement is well sourced. Let's allow a consensus to emerge.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Runningonbrains, so I am not sure where you are comming to that assumption. However, it is clear that other agree with my view that you are violating Synth and continue to do so on that article. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smm201`0, RunningOnBrains^(talk) was using the royal we, referring to all Wikepedians. It's a common thing when referring people to our (in the collective sense) policies and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are unacceptable, and I have reverted your unilateral re-addition of material. I have never had prior interaction with Arzel of which I am immediately aware, and I called it a compromise because in my honest opinion the minor water quality issue does not deserve mention at all in this article.

The problem is not that your text is not sourced, as I have stated clearly above. Since you are not capable of seeing the flaws in your own writing on your own, allow me to point-by-point go through your material to point out all the flaws:

• In April 2011, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water.[6][7] Nothing wrong here; a statement of fact about the subject of the article.
• In response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings, the Philadelphia Water Department posted a notice that Iodine-131 had been found in the water supply.[8] Repetitive, probably unnecessary to the article.
• Iodine-131 is associated with the treatment of thyroid cancer,[9][10] nuclear energy, and is a popular radioactive tracer used to determine the location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing,[11][12] [13][14] [15] We have already hit a serious problem. Here you have taken a sourced statement of fact ("Iodine was found in the drinking water") and modified it with another sourced fact ("Iodine is used in hydraulic fracturing") to reach an implied conclusion ("The iodine found in the water was a result of hydraulic fracturing"), a statement which is not supported by any source. This is the definition, to the letter, of improper synthesis of sources.
• The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer. [16] Another blatant violation of WP:SYNTH; you have now attempted to imply that the iodine in the water in this specific circumstance may be dangerous, a fact which is not supported by any source.
• Initially the Philadelphia Water department attributed the presence of Iodine-131 to nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident (Fukushima Nuclear Incident). Iodine-131 was later found in the Wissahickon Creek, and at several sewage treatment plants along the creek near Philadelphia in late July 2011, after the fallout from the Japanese incident would have decayed.[9][10] Iodine-131 had been found in several Philadelphia drinking water samples before. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records showed that Philadelphia's iodine-131 levels were the highest in the last decade in the set of those measured at 59 locations across the United States.[10] All of this can be succinctly summed up in the way I have in the article: "Originally this was suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, but it was later determined to be due to patients undergoing iodine therapy for thyroid cancer.[8]"
• EPA records show readings above the acceptable limit of 3 pCi were recorded at Queens Lane Water Treatment Plant on three occasions and Belmont Water Treatment Plant on four occasions since October 2007. This is specifically contradicted by this source: "The EPA's drinking water standard is three picocuries per liter - but only over a long-term average [emphasis mine]. A single sample that was higher would not constitute an excess."
• Readings at Baxter Water Treatment Plant were lower.[4] Nothing specifically wrong with this sentence, but it becomes unnecessary with other offending material cut out.
• The EPA also found elevated levels of Iodine-131 in the water discharged from water treatment plants in nearby Ambler and Abington in April 2011.[17] These places are not Philadelphia, so I don't see how this is relevant.
• The EPA is concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water. In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants which are not designed to remove the natural or man-made radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. I suppose that the EPA is "concerned with radionuclide levels in drinking water" could be inferred from the letter cited below, and I suppose we could infer that they were concerned about Philadelphia's water specifically, but on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume.
• Some are concerned that this provides the opportunity for radioactive waste to enter public water supplies.[18] "Some" is a weasel word, and the source has nothing to do with Philadelphia; another example of a WP:SYNTH violation.
• In March 2011 the EPA asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) to require "community water systems (CWSs) near publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and centralized wastewater treatment (CWT) facilities receiving Marcellus Shale wastewater to conduct sampling immediately for radionuclides." They note that "in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels," but that "the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations." The EPA letter adds that "Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially."[19] Sourced, but why is this relevant? This is all from a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, not addressed to the Philadelphia Water Department, and certainly not in relation to the above-mentioned levels of iodine. WP:SYNTH rears its ugly head again.
• In 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Philadelphia Water Department were working together to test surface water (rivers and streams) and discharge from water treatment plants. By June 2011, the EPA had ruled out hospital sources and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as causes and were still trying to identify the source.[17] In July 2011 and March 2012 the Philadelphia Water Department attributed the elevated levels to thyroid cancer patients' urine because it was found in wastewater plant effluent.[10] Again, neatly summed up by the sentence I left in the article, avoiding unnecessarily verbose step-by-step language.
• The Philadelphia Water Department reports that Philadelphia's drinking water meets the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is unsourced, but true and verifiable, as it is covered in the source I mentioned above. You have neatly used this sentence to build up the false premise that you are still talking about the Philadelphia Water Department, as is immediately apparent in the next sentence...
• The EPA and the state authorities generally have the authority "to regulate discharge of produced waters from hydraulic operations" (EPA, 2011) under the Clean Water Act, which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.[20][21][22] Instantly back to facts unrelated to Philadelphia. You are attempting to synthesize the statement that the iodine found in Philadelphia's drinking water had anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, which, I reiterate, is not found in any reliable source.
• Although this waste is regulated, oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes are exempt from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing contains toxins such as total dissolved solids (TDS), metals, and radionuclides.[23][24] Straying even further from the topic at hand...
• Companies are not required to provide the names of chemicals in "proprietary" formulas, so the chemical lists provided on company web sites are incomplete and the substances are not monitored by EPA. [25][26] Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption ("Halliburton Loophole") under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by supporting The FRAC Act, but has so far refused.[27] The oil and gas industry contributes heavily to campaign funds.[28]5 The FRAC Act would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[29] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[30]As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[31][32] We are now in the complete opposite direction of an article describing Philadelphia Water Department. This is the most blatant violation of WP:COATRACK I have ever seen an author try to defend. There are exactly zero sources that relate any of this to Philadelphia, its water, or the specific incident this whole section started off with.
• On March 28, 2012, the Philadelphia Water Department reported that during the period between April 2011 and February 2012, iodine-131 levels were lower in the Queen's Lane (from graph, average about .5 pCi; highest about 1.5 pCi) and Belmont facilities (average about .4 pCi; maximum about 1.4 pCi). No iodine-131 was detected at the Baxter facility. You clearly do not understand what a box and whisker plot is, and so you have introduced statements that are not supported by the linked source.
• The report notes that wastewater plant effluent has been confirmed as one source of the iodine-131; other potential pathways have not been confirmed. The article on Philadelphia Water Department should not be detailing minute details of a single minor water contamination incident, likely one of many that have occurred over the years.
• The report also said that there have been periodic elevations of iodine-131 in the Wissahickon Creek that decrease over time and do not affect drinking water. "Do not affect drinking water", so again, why is this in the article?
• Iodine-131 has was also detected in the Schuylkill River during this period, especially when the river is low. The amounts found in the river and creek were not specified.[33] You have now included almost the entire text of the linked slide show, without good reason.
• No contaminant levels have been posted on the EPA web site since April 2011.[8] Okay, and neither have they been posted to the Harlem Globetrotters web site. Sorry if I seem a bit snarky, but at this point...I mean, come on. How can you not see how ridiculous it is to include these minute details, and pretend that they are in the article for any reason other than to prejudice the reader towards your point of view that there is something in the water from hydraulic fracturing.
• The Philadelphia Water Department plans to upgrade its water treatment facilities and water management systems to better deal with the waste water. The water department plans to raise funds for the project by increasing Philadelphia residents' water and sewer rates over the next four years.[6] Finally, the very last sentence actually has something relevant, but I don't see that a statement that water treatment is undergoing upgrades is notable enough for the Wikipedia article. No doubt every water department in every American city has upgraded their facilities at one time or another; you are using this sourced statement to stealthily imply that it is being done because of your above assertions of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing.

Your entire textual rant, sourced or not, synth or not, was hung on the coatrack of the article under the false premise of describing the subject of the article (which, I remind you, is Philadelphia Water Department). This is different from a "criticism" or "controversy" section of an article; you are not criticizing the subject, you are criticizing hydraulic fracturing, and doing so without any sources that directly relate to the subject of the article.

Your assertion that the material needs to be on the page to develop consensus is absurd. All previous versions of every page are visible in the page history.

In conclusion, the material does not belong on the page, and you will be blocked for edit warring if you re-add it again.

Sincerely,

Summer Glau - RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - those are egrerious and, frankly, ridiculous violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Smm201`0, do not re-add these to the article, as they are in utter violation of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and values - as noted, you will be blocked if you do so. It's up you to make the case to have these included (of which there is no case, but you're welcome to discuss why you think there is), not for others to argue against them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. This water quality issue is ongoing in Philly, not a single event. I've tried to incorporate a lot of your feedback. Nobody can see the revisions I've made unless I post it somewhere, so at another editor's suggestion, I've put it on the talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out earlier, everyone can see your revisions simply by going to the History tab of the article. Posting it to the Talk page was unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they can't see revisions made in response to runningonbrains comments because they were done after the last time I reinserted the material. They have never been on the PWD page.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... wait, what? Are you talking about further changes, beyond the ones that were posted above? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to bring the content into compliance with Wikipedia policies in a way that allows me to get feedback from other editors, but don't worry, I didn't reinsert it in the article. I had not had a chance to edit in response to runningonbrains list of comments before it was deleted. Had it been left on the page, I could have revised it there.Smm201`0 (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the talk page there, even your revised text would make the article into a WP:SYNTH-infested WP:COATRACK. Please stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you didn't re-insert it. That was my point earlier about what you had previously inserted already being in the article history. That said, Bushranger is right, the points made above are clear: the majority of what you want added has no place in the article. It's not a matter of "bringing it into compliance," as it is non-compliant by its very nature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still respectfully disagree about the content being synthesis and coat rack because the PWD itself discusses the same topics at length on its own web site, though not with the RS that Wikipedia requires and I added. I agree that the original rendition was too verbose and wasn't well focused. But this kinda of discussion really belongs on a talk page and not here. I'm relative new at this and only came here for help with disruptive editing. Won't ask for help again. End of story.Smm201`0 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States government talks about a lot of things on their websites, but it doesn't make it valid for inclusion on Government of the United States. That said, perhaps an article on Iodine contamination of groundwater might be a worthy subject? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly suggested that in the PWD talk because there are several RS-compliant sources that discuss groundwater issues that Smm is trying to use in a coatrack manner in the PWD article. I am, however, afraid that such a page would develop into a synth sinkhole of anti-hydraulic-fracturing advocacy. Chillllls (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that article already exists here. Most of the information is repeated in that section and the Hydraulic Fracking article has become largely an anti-hyrdaulic farcking article. Arzel (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now with some time...Here are my responses to your criticisms:

• Iodine-131 is associated with the treatment of thyroid cancer,[9][10] nuclear energy, and is a popular radioactive tracer...Here you have taken a sourced statement of fact ("Iodine was found in the drinking water") and modified it with another sourced fact ("Iodine is used in hydraulic fracturing") to reach an implied conclusion ("The iodine found in the water was a result of hydraulic fracturing"), a statement which is not supported by any source. This is the definition, to the letter, of improper synthesis of sources.Nope. Just adding another use of iodine-131 to the list - you had no problem with the uses I listed - why object to HF?
• The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer. [16] Another blatant violation of WP:SYNTH; you have now attempted to imply that the iodine in the water in this specific circumstance may be dangerous, a fact which is not supported by any source. Nope. Just a sourced fact about a danger associated with iodine-131 exposure, commonly mentioned...but I took it out anyway just for you.
• Initially the Philadelphia Water department attributed the presence of Iodine-131 to nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident (Fukushima Nuclear Incident). Iodine-131 was later found in the Wissahickon Creek, and... All of this can be succinctly summed up in the way I have in the article: "Originally this was suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, but it was later determined to be due to patients undergoing iodine therapy for thyroid cancer.[8]" Nope. For starters, they are still trying to pinpoint the source of the iodine-131. The urine is one of several theories that have not been ruled out. This section communicates that there were repeated readings above the EPA acceptable level - not just a single blip.
• EPA records show readings above the acceptable limit of 3 pCi were recorded at Queens Lane Water Treatment Plant on three occasions and Belmont Water Treatment Plant on four occasions since October 2007. This is specifically contradicted by this source: "The EPA's drinking water standard is three picocuries per liter - but only over a long-term average [emphasis mine]. A single sample that was higher would not constitute an excess." It wasn't a single reading, and the 'quarterly' readings were above the acceptable limit set by EPA.
• Readings at Baxter Water Treatment Plant were lower.[4] Nothing specifically wrong with this sentence, but it becomes unnecessary with other offending material cut out. Included for even-handedness.
• The EPA also found elevated levels of Iodine-131 in the water discharged from water treatment plants in nearby Ambler and Abington in April 2011.[17] These places are not Philadelphia, so I don't see how this is relevant. They are in the same watershed ("nearby").
• The EPA is concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water. In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants which are not designed to remove the natural or man-made radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. I suppose that the EPA is "concerned with radionuclide levels in drinking water" could be inferred from the letter cited below, and I suppose we could infer that they were concerned about Philadelphia's water specifically, but on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume. Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania.
• Some are concerned that this provides the opportunity for radioactive waste to enter public water supplies.[18] "Some" is a weasel word, and the source has nothing to do with Philadelphia; another example of a WP:SYNTH violation. It was sourced as to who wrote that.
• In March 2011 the EPA asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) to require "community water systems (CWSs) near publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and centralized wastewater treatment (CWT) facilities receiving Marcellus Shale wastewater to conduct sampling immediately for radionuclides." They note that "in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels," but that "the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations." The EPA letter adds that "Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially."[19] Sourced, but why is this relevant? This is all from a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, not addressed to the Philadelphia Water Department, and certainly not in relation to the above-mentioned levels of iodine. WP:SYNTH rears its ugly head again. Radionuclides (of which iodine-131 is one) are a problem in all of PA, and Philadelphia in in PA.
• In 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Philadelphia Water Department were working together to test surface water (rivers and streams) and discharge from water treatment plants. By June 2011, the EPA had ruled out hospital sources and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as causes and were still trying to identify the source.[17] In July 2011 and March 2012 the Philadelphia Water Department attributed the elevated levels to thyroid cancer patients' urine because it was found in wastewater plant effluent.[10] Again, neatly summed up by the sentence I left in the article, avoiding unnecessarily verbose step-by-step language. Your summary was not accurate. One can't assume that it is coming from thyroid patient urine just because it is in wastewater. They may have that info soon, but don't have it yet (they have asked Merck for info to help them to identify the source of the iodine-131). One of them anyway.
• The EPA and the state authorities generally have the authority "to regulate discharge of produced waters from hydraulic operations" (EPA, 2011) under the Clean Water Act, which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.[20][21][22] Instantly back to facts unrelated to Philadelphia. You are attempting to synthesize the statement that the iodine found in Philadelphia's drinking water had anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, which, I reiterate, is not found in any reliable source. I condensed this part. Statement means it is impossible to know whether the iodine-131 comes from fracking because agencies can't test/regulate it. Rules apply to water quality regulation.
• Although this waste is regulated, oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes are exempt from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing contains toxins such as total dissolved solids (TDS), metals, and radionuclides.[23][24] Straying even further from the topic at hand... Condensed this later too, same point.
• Companies are not required to provide the names of chemicals in "proprietary" formulas, so the chemical lists provided on company web sites are incomplete and the substances are not monitored by EPA. [25][26] Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption ("Halliburton Loophole") under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by supporting The FRAC Act, but has so far refused.[27] The oil and gas industry contributes heavily to campaign funds.[28]5 The FRAC Act would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[29] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[30]As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[31][32] We are now in the complete opposite direction of an article describing Philadelphia Water Department. This is the most blatant violation of WP:COATRACK I have ever seen an author try to defend. There are exactly zero sources that relate any of this to Philadelphia, its water, or the specific incident this whole section started off with. All already condensed in revision. All reasons it is impossible to determine whether or not fracking is source of iodine-131 or other contaminants.
• On March 28, 2012, the Philadelphia Water Department reported that during the period between April 2011 and February 2012, iodine-131 levels were lower in the Queen's Lane (from graph, average about .5 pCi; highest about 1.5 pCi) and Belmont facilities (average about .4 pCi; maximum about 1.4 pCi). No iodine-131 was detected at the Baxter facility. You clearly do not understand what a box and whisker plot is, and so you have introduced statements that are not supported by the linked source. I do understand, and stated the info accurately, but was watching for the actual report, due out soon. Lines are range, dots inside are averages, dots outside would have been outliers.
• The report notes that wastewater plant effluent has been confirmed as one source of the iodine-131; other potential pathways have not been confirmed. The article on Philadelphia Water Department should not be detailing minute details of a single minor water contamination incident, likely one of many that have occurred over the years. Once again, it was several quarterly readings above EPA's acceptable limit, increasing in frequency according to EPA data source. Note the lack of certainty regarding the source of the iodine.
• The report also said that there have been periodic elevations of iodine-131 in the Wissahickon Creek that decrease over time and do not affect drinking water. "Do not affect drinking water", so again, why is this in the article? That creek flows into the Schuylkill River, which is the drinking water source. Not sure why it wouldn't affect quality, but the report said that, so I included it for evenhandedness.
• Iodine-131 has was also detected in the Schuylkill River during this period, especially when the river is low. The amounts found in the river and creek were not specified.[33] You have now included almost the entire text of the linked slide show, without good reason. I included all of the most recent information about this continuing issue that is not fully understood.
• No contaminant levels have been posted on the EPA web site since April 2011.[8] Okay, and neither have they been posted to the Harlem Globetrotters web site. Sorry if I seem a bit snarky, but at this point...I mean, come on. How can you not see how ridiculous it is to include these minute details, and pretend that they are in the article for any reason other than to prejudice the reader towards your point of view that there is something in the water from hydraulic fracturing. If I am going to be true to the data, I need to provide it as it is. When there's a final answer regarding the source(s), it will be easier to summarize. Also, the EPA hasn't posted their data yet, and PADEP and EPA are at odds.
• The Philadelphia Water Department plans to upgrade its water treatment facilities and water management systems to better deal with the waste water. The water department plans to raise funds for the project by increasing Philadelphia residents' water and sewer rates over the next four years.[6] Finally, the very last sentence actually has something relevant, but I don't see that a statement that water treatment is undergoing upgrades is notable enough for the Wikipedia article. No doubt every water department in every American city has upgraded their facilities at one time or another; you are using this sourced statement to stealthily imply that it is being done because of your above assertions of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing. No, because of it's chronic, serious water problems, regardless of their source. The equipment is also to deal with anticipated increase in radionuclides and other contaminants. See Forbes and other articles on city tap water for details.

That is my response. That is how I disagree. Why are you so afraid to discuss hydraulic fracturing, yet ok with nuclear and medical causes? Rhetorical question. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really starting to approach IDHT territory. Chillllls (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that it seems like this conversation has been going on forever, it hasn't been a week, and these were correction of facts. I wish I had caught them earlier because I think opinions were swayed by the litany. On the other hand, perhaps the real concern is that it violates WP:NNHF (no negative info about hydraulic fracturing in Wikipedia). Smm201`0 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Than what is this section about? I think your concern is that there be no positive information about hydraulic fracking on wp. I swear, environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, won't be happy until we in the USA are all living in caves using only the sun for warmth while countries like China truely damage the environment while not even realizing that our environment here is cleaner than it has been in generations. Those groups fail to understand the laws of diminishing returns. Focusing on relatively small and expensive objectives here only to push those activies elsewhere where the overall damage is greater than the local benefit. Arzel (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been concerned about the behaviour of Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · block user) for about a month now. He has been making comments that are consistently aggressive towards other editors. A sample of examples follow: [1], [2], [3] (edit summary), [4], [5], [6], [7] (edit summary), [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Other users have approached me as an admin with concerns about these and other comments. One of these comments in isolation would be easily forgivable. But the attacks and negative tone seem to be incessant.

I made an attempt to raise these concerns with the user here, and my edit was simply reverted with a put-down edit summary.

The user has twice been blocked in the past six months for disruptive editing, and it is starting to reach that stage again. Normally, I would have no hesitation to block the editor for the accumulated nature of the comments he has made, but since I have been the target of some of his attacks, I feel it is best dealt with here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have had a few run-ins with KW over the years, and I consistently found him to be disruptive, counter-productive, and often quite rude. He always seems to be the first one to accuse others of personally attacking him (often when they're not), while simultaneously dealing out personal attacks of his own. The diffs towards the end of the list in the above post are particularly concerning. Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that "Life is confusing when you have a brain." Any of those diffs on their own are not a blockable offense, but I agree that the demonstrated long-term pattern is problematic. At the very least, I would support issuing a final warning to KW, to let him know that future incivility will result in blocks of significant and increasing duration. —SW— ^chatter 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents For what it's worth, I brought this to Good OlFactory's attention and I have previously had run-ins with Kiefer before. I explicitly told him on two occasions that he needed to stop this belligerence or else I would have an admin intervene (if someone really needs diffs, I'm sure I can find them.) He then posted more positive notes on my and his talk pages--it's impossible to say if that was genuine good faith or just hoping that I would forget about him for awhile, but he has made it a point to be needlessly provocative and it really needs to stop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I've had a lot of troubles with this user over the past year or so, but recently we've been getting along (especially since we agreed to stop discussing our past). I have been a little worried about his recent behaviour - declaring only people who have tought statistics should edit an article, Telling an editor who has created around 85 chemistry articles that he "writes so little". The above disruptive editing mentioned by Good Ol'factory, which I also raised with KW, I hoped had passed. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be worth starting a RFC over? --Rschen7754 08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a blue link. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From that RfC's summary, [...] KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). Apparently, he has not changed his ways and can still be tactless and aggressive. If there are no objections, in a couple of hours I'll impose a week-long block due to the ongoing pattern of violations of WP:CIV. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been the previous recipient of some of KW's hostility, and although we've not had much interaction since, I do not think he has learned from the RFC despite his claims to have done so. He still treats editors he disagrees with (or, perhaps more correctly, editors who disagree with him) with contempt — perhaps to intimidate, I'm not sure. But I'm not convinced a block will do anything. It's probably time for civility parole, or failing that, bringing this to a higher court. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any point in a final warning after the RfC, earlier ANI discussions and his blocks. Maybe being blocked for a week will change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I wasn't aware of his previous RfC. Looks like he has already received plenty of warning. —SW— ^chat 13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, have had to speak to Kiefer in the recent past about his civility issues, and he responded to me with extreme anger (though he did eventually redact what I had asked him to redact). It doesn't look to me like the RfC on him made much of an impression on him, and I think Salvio is probably right that it's time to start actually holding him responsible for his behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KW never seems to miss an opportunity to needlessly insult or attempt to belittle someone - there is a little club of editors who conduct themselves in a similar fashion, all of whom are very unpleasant to deal with. Perhaps the most astonishing and concerning thing is that he and they genuinely believe that they are somehow superior to other editors, with little or nothing to support that view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I should note that after I called him out on casting nonsense, disruptive !votes ([13], [14]) in a CfD ([15]), KW responded by Wikilawyering over WP:POINT, claiming that I was misusing WP:DISRUPT, and also falsely accusing me of altering his comments ([16]), which (a) I did not do and (b) the striking of the bolded part of a !vote when a user has cast multiple !votes in a discussion is a standard admin task, especially when said !votes are cast disruptively and in bad faith. I agree that a block for disruptive and uncivil editing that goes contrary to the collaborative goals of the project would not be out of the question here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also have asked User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz to tone down his comments, both during a CfD discussion (which he blew off with what appears to be his typical rhetoric), and at his talk page, only to be told to "go away" (which he later redacted). Archived here. And after User:Good Olfactory dropped further concerns on my talk page, I suggested this AN post to get more eyes on this. This would seem to be consistent behaviour. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI choir sings in tune, with no caveats or concerns about the "alert" by Good Olfactory, who lists the following edit summary:

• "redact personal attack with hysterical vindictive invitation to nuke my contributions. What the fuck is wrong with this page?"

Anybody who bothered to investigate the surrounding diffs knows that Elen of the Roads commented on that thread, as she commented (most actively!) on my RfC. I submit that Elen is well aware of WP policy and the black stains on my soul. Nonetheless, she did not consider that comment as block-worthy as Good Olfactory, who has with considerable restraint, he assures us, not blocked me himself.

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block, and failure to discuss any of these diffs? Why didn't anybody object to Good Olfactory's listing of this diff? Isn't that prime facie evidence of misfeasance by you all?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block... This thread has been going some 20ish hours (forever by ANI standards) and you have not been handed any civility block. How on earth is this a rush to judgement? Your regular misinterpretation of comments (either deliberatley or for some other reason - AGF says the latter) is one of the thing that most irritates and this is a prime example. Kiefer - I'm afraid I have to agree you seemed to have learnt nothing from the RFC linked above; a shame as I assumed you had. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro,

A "rush to judgment" is a cliche in US legal discussions, describing a failure to show due diligence in discussing a case. ANI is not a courtroom, of course, but some discussion is usually advised.

Please focus on the substance of my remarks. Where is there any discussion of any of the diffs cited? Where is there any caveat that in e.g. one diff, KW may have actually been helping protect the encyclopedia?

We all have off days. I have noted being irritated by my year's work on Peter Orno, which included my politely accepting comments about my lack of logic and misunderstanding of "author" and striving for consensus (resulting in a TLTR page), being left off the April Fools Day DYK, and so losing 10 thousand or more readers, commenting that "even Homer nods". Comparing Crisco1492 to Homer was not intended as a personal attack.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification on "rush to judgement". Luckily I'm not an American so didn't parse it as a reference. Indeed I seem to recall us disagreeing in the past, partly because you couldn't quite grasp my Bitish humour? On a multi-cultural site these things are tough, and I'm a regular offender in that respect too, I suspect. No matter. I would note that opening this sub-heading with "The ANI choir sings in tune" is hardly likely to win people over however. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro!

We almost always disagree, and you usually show up criticizing me, but I still like you because you are a good person. I don't like persons behaving well because of conformity or a wish to become administrators, etc. I do appreciate you because you are sincere---"Before all Temples th' upright heart..."--- both when you are good, in which case you are very good, and even when you are bad .... ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I "usually show up criticizing" then that's likely for a reason. I don't tend to go aound criticising for the good of my health :) Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly discussed the diffs in my initial post in this thread. I referred to specific comments in the diffs and how they violate policy: "Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that 'Life is confusing when you have a brain.'" For further recent discussion and evidence of KW's typical WP:IDHT response, see Talk:Design of experiments#Competence. I'd fully support a block, but KW appears to be set in his ways such that I doubt it would change his behavior for very long. It would certainly be sad to lose a prolific contributor, but being prolific/experienced/intelligent does not afford you special treatment here. —SW— ^converse 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Scottywong (formerly Snottywong),

  You are continuing to repeat falsehoods, confusing my labeling statements as "idiotic" with my labeling editors as "idiotic". There is one editor that I frequently insult in comment summaries, but nobody has ever complained about those.... In my youth, I would have labeled such falsehoods with an f-word, but I have matured with the help of my friends....

  A reader complaining that they were confused by an infobox did not have the patience to read a few sentences of the lede of John Rainwater, which explained things. Of course, an article about a mathematical in-joke may make some readers puzzled, until they read the lede.... (Mathematical scientists spend most of your lives being puzzled and frequently cursing our stupidity, and I obviously have trouble understanding why puzzlement is regarded as a problem.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this ANI thread, I count 11 editors who unanimously see a problem. In the Talk:Design of experiments#Competence thread, two editors are telling you that your comments are inappropriate. How many editors need to tell you the same thing before you will begin to even consider the possibility that maybe you're wrong? —SW— ^communicate 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that my opinion particularly matters, but this comment pretty much tips the balance for me. I'm with everyone above, some admin action seems to be needed here unfortunately. Kiefer apparently can't help himself, even here at ANI, so he probably needs to (metaphorically) go sit in a corner for a bit to consider his actions.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The degree to which you are cryptic when you try to label me as dishonest and/or inauthentic does not change the reality that you are attempting to insult me rather than discuss the real issue. This is the status quo for KW. —SW— ^talk 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what's wrong with this here. Using a vandal template to list someone is in poor taste, and the edit summary is an appropriate response. I don't work on the same articles that Kiefer does, I do think they could tone it down, I detect verbosity and hyperbole--but I don't see a reason to start throwing punitive terminology around. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going back to where I was. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The first nemesis in my tragic attempts to bring Peter Orno to the main page... kindly forgave my first Ornoery period. I appreciate his letting my latest Milton quote pass without complaint....

  When it was applied to me, twice, the vandal template did not have Elen's helpful note that "nuke" only removes very recent contributions, not all of the contributions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I should not have included that particular diff, as it seems to be a distraction for Kiefer from the main issue. Had I not included that one, there were several others I could have used in its place. The point is that there is a consistent problem with incivility and aggressiveness towards other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I have just blocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For whatever it's worth, I support the block. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And so do I. Even the most brilliant content creation doesn't excuse the attitude he displays. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Yes, I'll admit that KW is very confrontational at times. He's blunt, at times painfully so. I also think he is outright wrong on many occasions. If there were an ongoing dispute where he was being abusive to another editor in calling them names - then yes, I'd support a block as a preventative action. KW is (in my personal opinion) an arrogant person - and I can not stand arrogant people. I'll suffer fools gladly before I'll tolerate arrogance, but this block is just flat out wrong. "We don't like you because you don't conform to our standards" is what this block is saying - and that reeks of "punitive" which blocks are NOT supposed to be about. Sure, it would be very nice if we could all come together and build a kumbaya utopia - that would be great ... but that's not reality. KW, to be blunt - you can be a royal pain in the ass. But I'm sorry - that's simply not a blockable offense in my opinion. We are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia. Much of what I'm seeing lately is a whole bunch of political game playing. This is a global project, so there are going to be differences of opinion. What should be happening is everyone putting their cards on the table, offering their very best views backed by facts and documentation. What is happening is people falling into cliques of "you watch my back, and I'll watch yours". People don't agree? .. Fine - talk it out. Salvio, I have a huge amount of respect for you - but I think you're wrong here in blocking KW. Bush - I think the world of the work you do .. but sorry: content creation doesn't excuse the attitude ??? Wow - you really lost me on that one. "Content creation" is what this project is supposed to be about. A person's "attitude" has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Since when are we a judge and jury of a person's attitude? There is WAY too much "block him, ban her" bs going on within this project - and if it continues it will be a case of us destroying ourselves from within. This entire idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit was founded upon ... well ... the idea that "anyone" can edit. You don't like what KW puts forth? .. Then prove him wrong with facts. Sorry, I just can't get behind this whole thing. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not "we don't like you and you don't conform to our standards", it's "we appreciate your contributions but you refuse to conform to our policies". WP:CIVIL is a policy, not an option - if somebody cannot contibute in a civil manner, and when they, in fact, consistently seem to go out of their way to flaunt the civility policy, then all the content in the world doesn't change the fact that they are being disruptive to the project - and stopping current/avoiding future disruption is what blocks are all about. (as for "not liking what he puts forth" - 'putting forth' two deliberatly ridiculous, bad-faith, and disruptive !votes at a CfD ([17] [18]) because it's going against his wishes - when he's already registered his opposition ([19]) - and then Wikilawyering when called on it ([20] [21])...it's clearly not what the project is about and is not what it should be forced to tolerate because "he makes good content, therefore he gets a pass".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia Content creation is not the purpose--it's collaborative (quality) content creation. If one user is so belligerent and aggressive that other users don't want to add to the encyclopedia, then that's a bad thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this point; MickMacNee comes to mind as someone who was a content producer but was so brash he ended up getting banned by the Arbs... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. "Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?" --Rschen7754 05:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ched that Kiefer is arrogant and annoying (and I also don't think he should have been blocked), but that comment was actually genuinely amusing. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block, as initiator of this thread. For a user to suggest that someone can continue to act like a complete dick towards other users over and over again without repercussions "as long as he's doing good work" is an attitude that I won't get behind. WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars, not just a suggestion. It's not a punitive block, it looks to me like a last resort attempt to try to help the user "get the message" that his behaviour is not acceptable. He'll get another chance—a week is not forever, nor is it indefinite. Here's hoping the week off will do some good. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No active dispute. I find KW a pain, but Ched is correct, this wasn't the time. Block him unrepentant over fresh name calling, I'm fine with that. Block him after the fact, it gets arbitrary, and sets up for more arbitrary blocks, especially of the politically less-well-connected on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a statute of limitations on personal attacks and incivility? Ravenswing 09:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To quote arbcom, "the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors" (emphasis mine). T. Canens (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate support How many fricking times does one have to say "cut it out" and hear promises of "ok, I'll stop" before the community patience is exhausted? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose block per my comments above in the original section which appear to have been taken as being for a block. A block will not accomplish anything. It is punitive at this point. It has gotten to the point where sanctions should, imo, come from a larger cross-section of the community in the form of civility parole, or from ArbCom. Not from a small group of ANI users who would generally be opposed to Kiefer anyway. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The punitive/preventive mark is not a bright line when it comes to civility violations. Often, a long-term pattern of disruption must be demonstrated before a civility block is warranted, and this can blur the line between punitive and preventive measures. KW has received more than a few warnings (including his very own RfC/U). There is no excuse for his behavior, and the warnings have not provoked any change in his behavior. This is the next step. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 13:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block as necessary and preventative. We have an editor who is 100% aware that his behavior is disruptive, to the point where an RfC was closed acknowledging his awareness of this, but who remains unable or unwilling to stop the disruptive behavior. Since he can't/won't stop the behavior, it falls to the community to prevent the behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ongoing civility violations, including in this thread. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have encountered KW only at CFD, where his incivility is persistent and ubiquitous; this discussion includes plenty of evidence that his incivility extends elsewhere. He has had plenty of requests to desist, and plenty of warnings, but they seem to have had little effect, even in thius ANI discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seriously, what the hell? Is anyone else sick and tired of the syndrome that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA cease to apply to anyone who's hit a certain edit count? For behavior which would get one-month newbies indef blocked a hundred times over, people keep giving free passes to editors who are not merely serial offenders, but are not in the least ashamed to boast that they consider - at level best - Wikipedia's civility policies to be optional, and certainly not intended to apply to them. (And by the bye, while there are still apologists for KW's unconscionable behavior, have they given the slightest bit of thought to the many productive and civil editors who've washed their hands of Wikipedia because of such antics?) Ravenswing 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we supporting and opposing? The block's been done. Next step is while he's out for a week, think of what to do with him upon his return. More editing sanctions, perhaps... Rcsprinter (converse) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly standard practice at AN/I, as it's an area which is quick to block in a shoot first, ask questions later type way. Editors go on and discuss the behaviour past the end of the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I don't see that a 1 week block will make any difference. It's after the fact, slightly excessive and a blunt instrument which doesn't really stop anything. (It's also a fairly ineffective block, since I don't think it's curtailled Kiefer's editing particularly, he's been very prolific on his talk page!) Having said that, I can't see any other options, since this isn't the first time KW's editing has been inappropriate. As such, I'm left sitting on the fence, and would say I am neutral with regards to the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to start thinking about restricting talk page access for the remainder of the block, if his talk page will continue to be filled up with endless rants. The block is clearly not having the intended effect. If anything, it's accelerating KW's inevitable sprint to ban-town. —SW— ^confabulate 21:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of polemic content and personal attacks he's thrown up on his talk today, I think it's really getting to the point where it's clear he has no intention of using his talk page to request unblock, and is instead abusing his access to it to continue the behavior that earned him the block. At this point, we have two options: one, to keep him from digging his hole any deeper we remove talk page access, or two, the block is increased to correspond to his continued personal attacks. Both of those are likely to anger him even more and refresh the attacks on other fronts, but on balance I think pulling talk page access is a better option than either leaving him with access or increasing the block. It gives him the option to regroup, calm down, and come back in a week having created no new issues for himself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Blocks are not suppose to be punitive, they are supposed to be protective. What possible rationale is there for this one, other than the fact that K-Wolf didn't genuflect to the lynch mob??? Carrite (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale is that the user has a consistent history of flouting WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It is hoped that the block will lead to the user understanding and abiding by the policy - something that all attempts short of blocking, up to and including a RFC/U, have singularly failed to do - thereby protecting the wiki from future disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For what it's worth Jc37 (talk · contribs) has protected KW's talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a community ban of Hershebar (talk · contribs), or, for that matter, whoever the person is that keeps reappearing, claiming that Stephanie Adams is notable enough for her own article, adding non-notable information about her, and abusively using sockpuppets. This IP's contributions are a pretty good sample of the articles that are being hit.

See this for at least some of the socks. The latest one was NEMESISGOTCHA (talk · contribs), who only left what was evidently an abusive message at User:Fasttimes68's talk page (edit has been hidden). Because of the returning flow of puppets and apparently lack of intent to discontinue disruption, I am proposing an indefinite community ban. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this only so the thread will not be archived, to allow others' input. Calabe1992 22:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Time to go. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Whip out the weapons, wax the motherfucker and deposit him directly into /dev/null! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LIJUAL (talk · contribs) is the latest. SPI has been opened. Calabe1992 14:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to put an end to this recurring issue of User:Fasttimes68 deleting references to Adams and the resulting edit wars with sock puppets, I have been in contact with Adams. Adams has had a fair amount of media attention lately due to winning a lawsuit against the New York City police department. I think that there is more than enough material on Adams to write an article that passes WP:GNG. That should put an end to the games associated with this entry. If someone will put a copy of the deleted article in my userspace, I will work on it there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article passes GNG, then by all means, put it back in. Put back then vanity links to the other lists as well. Did you explain to Ms. Adams that she will not OWN the article, and as such that information that she finds objectionable might be included in the article? Of course any such information must be subject to BLP guidelines and be well sourced. Since she is clearly not WP:COMPETENT to edit (and indefinitely blocked at this point) will you be acting as a buffer between her and the rest of the community? Has she agreed to stop the incessant socking and account abuse? What about the other articles which she has been abusing? Basically if you are going to adopt a puppy, you should be responsible for cleaning up when she shits on the carpet. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no assurances of any kind, only that I would attempt to rewrite the article. I did warn her that it was quite likely that someone would nominate it for deletion again. Your comments alleging that Adams is controlling the sockpuppets would seem to be personal attacks and violations of our BLP policies. I suggest you strike them. It is past time for you to be topic banned from this subject and you would be well advised to give this article a very wide berth. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I was going under the assumption that Ms. Adams was controlling the socks because you seemed to confirm that on your talk page. If I am mistaken that Adams is not related to the confirmed sock User:Hellotoyoumyfriend then of course I will strike my comments, but I strongly suggest you strike her personal information from your talk page. If you ARE confirming that Adams is related to the sock(s), did you have permission from her to post her personal information? Otherwise you might have inadvertently outed Ms. Adams. Your suggestion that I should be topic banned is based upon what? Tendentious edits? Failure to honor consensus? Socking? Drowning kittens? Exactly what are you saying I did that is topic ban worthy? Since you intend to work on this article and have admitted communicating to the subject I ask that you declare your relationship to the subject so as to clear up any possible COI. Fasttimes68 (talk)

[edit clash] A topic ban? Fasttimes68 has made a lot of edits relevant to Adams, and clearly annoys the indefinitely blocked and hydra-headed editor who Fasttimes68 has rashly but not unreasonably identified as Adams. (If one, very energetic editor is not Adams, then this editor is, or pretends to be, so close as to raise eyebrows. Please see this, this, the edit summary of this, and more.) Fasttimes68 is at times abrasive, and has rubbed some people the wrong way. I haven't looked for warnings to Fasttimes68 from level-headed (non-special-purpose) editors, but would not be surprised to see them. I do however note that Fasttimes68 has received a grand total of one block. As we can see here, this block occurred years ago and was related to the article on Nancy Pelosi, who is surely unrelated to Adams. While not claiming that every relevant edit by Fasttimes68 has been for the best, I'm sure that Fasttimes68 has been a net plus hereabouts, and I would strongly oppose any proposed topic ban unless shown damning evidence of which I am now unaware. -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who handled this before; resurrecting the article is probably a bad move, liable to end in (another) disaster. DC; this is not the first time the article has been rewritten and resurrected. We eventually redirected it simply to make life easier, with community agreement, as she is only marginally notable. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Sorted, for now. Doc talk 07:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 74.163.16.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Patrolling Admin please take a look at this edit, as my alarm bells just went a-klaxon-ringing again~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I forgot my password.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I had notified the user that he's being disgusted discussed here. He's been on here for part of a day (under that IP) and has already started making personal attacks at me for no particular reason. His style does seem vaguely familiar, but I can't say from where. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not helping.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. But if you did, by telling us who you used to edit as, it could help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is not necessary. 74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't own up to your previous account, it raises suspicions that you're evading a block, and things could get ugly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was years since I had that account.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to 'fess up. It will be good for your sole. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what's his fish got to do with anything? Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gizmo the Cat?,my family moved around alot so I had a hard life,I haven't seen this account in years.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmo the Cat? (talk · contribs) Interesting, an account with one notification and no edits, some 6 years ago. That could account for your not remembering the password. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Noticed how adept he is able to use WP markups and templates even though his account clearly shows he's a newbie? FWIW, I would like to AGF but I find it very hard to take his word for it. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I red everything about this place from Meta to Commos,I looked on youtube,I ask questions on Wikianswers and Yahoo answers.74.163.16.52 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article was deleted.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you're talking about, it's not your article. Once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article, get it? --MuZemike 01:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question for 74.163.16.52: If you are here to contribute constructively then can you please explain why you are seen to be trolling in the "Trayvon Martin Poll" section below, as well as in this and this edit~? We're all ears. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are,Didn't I undo my own edit,huh,also that isn't trolling,I heard a problem went to check it out,what now.74.163.16.52 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed and done my time.74.163.16.52 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For perspective, please see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to what Favonian said, this user is currently de facto community banned by User:AniMate (in light of his months of disruptive editing, evasion, multiple blocks & range-blocks that have proved futile), and as such may be indef' blocked on sight. It was decided (on advice from User:MuZeMike not to take him to WP:LTA, per WP:DFTT. Salvidrim! 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [22], [23] and [24] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[25] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [26], [27], [28] and [29].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [30].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[31] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [32]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[33] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [34]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[35], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[36] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[37], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[38], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[39], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[40], and falsely attributing comments to me[41]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[42][43], after indicating something was only his opinion[44][45], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[46][47], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[48].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [49],[50]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [51] and "windbaggery" [52]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[53]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

• It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
  
• It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).
  

For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [54],[55],[56],[57]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [58]
Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [59] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam makes various out-of-context claims above about my past edits he's selected, most of which he accused me of back in 2010 based on his fixated efforts of trawling through my edit history for various edits from years before that, to which I've previously responded here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.

AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.

Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".

AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam claims above that the reason he doesn't properly address editor disputes at User Talk is because of a guideline stating, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do." However, AuthorityTam's constant belittling and attacking motives of editors with whom he does not get along absolutely constitutes interaction, and not in any way that can be seen as conciliatory. If AuthorityTam were to actually apply that guideline, he would stick to content, and rely on the merits of content-related arguments at article Talk pages, and he would follow correct avenues of dispute resolution if there are problems with editors. If he feels so unsure that his views can be supported on their own merits without making attacks on other editors' motives, then he should review the quality of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.

The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - AuthorityTam is now also canvassing for support at an article Talk page. I see this has already been linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption?? There's nothing to assume (or presume). AuthorityTam linked to this ANI from an article Talk page, with a false claim that other editors are trying to have him banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Fazilfazil, AuthorityTam has extremely weak defences to my accusations. He has provided a very lame and unconvincing excuse for repeatedly using the "aka LTSally" phrase; he does escalate arguments by constantly referring back to events from years earlier (often twisting comments and misrepresenting editors to inflame the situation); his level of invective, bile and taunting are proof that he makes little effort to collaborate harmoniously with other editors. I do not expect other editors to always agree with me, and I have disagreed with you in the past. Yet we remain civil and respectful. AuthorityTam treats editing here as a sport and craves conflict. That is the conduct I want him to stop. BlackCab (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through all this again, it's obvious that AuthorityTam sees nothing wrong with his antagonistic and hostile behaviour, is completely unrepentant and very clearly intends to continue in the same vein. He refuses to put the past behind him and views historic offences as justification for more combative and inflammatory conduct. All this in a community that demands cooperation and collaboration to work properly. His ongoing comments and his responses in this thread strongly suggest personality and behavioral issues: where others try to identify issues and resolve them, he flails out with "you did it too!" accusations, refuses to engage with other editors and simply escalates problems. The initial trigger for this ANI notice was his strange "aka LTSally" tactic and despite the observations of others that it serves no purpose -- and my direct appeal to him to cease -- he has decided to continue to do it. The lack of admin involvement in this complaint is disappointing and AuthorityTam will almost certainly read this as a green light for more of his ugly and infantile behaviour. Where to from here? BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Though I am somewhat uninvolved in this discussion and haven't read the particular comment thatBlackCab has found to be offensive, I did run across the ANI and after reading most of it, I thought I would interject a comment as a personal observation. I apologize in advance, as at least two editors will likely find my comments to be somewhat offensive and objectionable, but in consideration of the setting, I will make them here only. I would have to completely agree 100% with AuthorityTam's observation that " For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia" as looking back at the edit history and actions of editors Jeffro77 and BlackCab they have demonstrated a Pattern of working as a tandem force in not only attempting to add negative POV spin to Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, but also in being disruptive towards other editors good faith, well sourced edits, which they seem to consider not negative enough to suit their personal tastes. Examining their edit histories, I have noted a pattern of both editors bringing ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses, accusing them of numerous offenses [60][61][[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. I could go on and on but it would be tiresome to look for all the instances where these two editors have worked in tandem to discredit and harass editors who they deemed pro Jehovah's Witness, either with reports to ANI or through reverting good faith edits with nonsensical excuses such as "too much detail" or "belongs on a different article page and not this one"(paraphrase) These two editors have shown a "historical pattern" of being both disruptive and also uncivil. Personally I think they are more than just a tandem working in conjunction(WP:Meatpuppet), I personally have a suspicion they may be the same editor(WP:Sock), but have no solid evidence to demonstrate this. I also have a suspicion they may be using several other user id's to give a false impression of consensus and to aid in the harassment of others on a continuous basis, but again an lacking in evidence to truly present such as an accusation, thus I have only my own suspicion to rely upon. As a very new editor I was even reported by these two editors, falsely I might add, for sockpuppetry the very day I established an account[73], because a friend of mine signed up for an account and used my computer to complete an AFD nomination I had started as a IP address. I explained to them the situation[74], but they reported me as a sockpuppet regardless, because their intent is to be insidious to editors they perceive to have a pro Jehovah's Witness stance. Personally I think these two editors should be at a minimum barred from editing the same page, talk or article, within a 31 day time frame. I further, think that consideration should be given to barring them from editing Jehovah's Witness related pages altogether, and quite possibly barring them from editing pages associated with religion in general is not out of the realm of being reasonable as they have demonstrated a historical pattern of uncivil behavior, as well as disruptive edit warring and WP:tendentious editing on these particular type of pages. Willietell (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. If Willietell would like to examine each of the ANI complaints listed (of which I think I have only ever made one) he will find the complaints were about clear cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry and generally strongly supported by other editors. The JW pages have certainly attracted a range of very oddball editors over the years. His comments are ignorant in the extreme. He is very welcome to examine any edit of mine in the past year and report me for either uncivil or disruptive behaviour if he sees it. He is also very welcome to request an investigation into his allegation against me of sockpuppetry. His suggestion that Jeffro and I are the same person is fanciful. It's disappointing to see him offering unquestioning support to an editor who is so clearly working in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of collaboration. Evidently whether one is "for" or "against" the JWs determines whether one is a cooperative and productive editor or not, and whether one's appeal for improved behavior has any validity. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willietell is not "somewhat uninvolved" at all. It is unsurprising that Willietell has also come to attack my motives, and he is really not a stellar witness in support of AuthorityTam. It is also entirely unsurprising that Willietell would support a pro-JW editor and oppose editors who do not support every positive statement about the religion. He began editing in December 2011 under anonymous IPs, making claims that the entire Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article is "POV spin" and that it should be deleted, and later made false claims that it is "an attack page", and then made a false allegation of a copyright violation, showing he's not above lying to suit his ends. He claims that any statement about JWs he doesn't like to be "POV spin" (he uses this stock phrase incessantly, particularly when he has no real other argument against something) though the many responses at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted to his initial barrage of claims were shown to be completely unsupportable by a wide range of editors. Willietell claims above that I have reported editors on the basis of them being in favour of JWs (though this is particularly irrelevant, as I didn't report AuthorityTam). This claim is entirely false, and examination of each of those cases will show that user conduct was the problem in every instance. Willietell also conveniently ignores cases I have raised against editors making negative false claims about JWs and other issues. I don't have time to trawl for an exhaustive list as does Willietell, but for example see [75].

I had to stop to laugh out loud when I read that Willietell is actually claiming BlackCab and I are the same person. I really don't know how I would manage edit conflicts with myself while logged on as a different user (let alone change residence). I can type pretty quickly, but not that quickly. Please, please do a CheckUser, then Willietell can publicly apologise. It's quite clear that Willietell's many strange (and conveniently vague) suspicions that I (and/or BlackCab) am a sockpuppet of "several other user id's" is a fairly desperate attempt to discredit me—this allegation really sounds like "tin foil hat" stuff, and I look forward to hearing from the other editors whom Willietell believes to be me. If/when Willietell proposes any actual username(s) or any actual evidence, again, do a CheckUser, and then Willietell can apologise. Willietell's own case of being reported for sockpuppetry was entirely reasonable—after he could not complete an AfD of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as an IP editor he 'threatened', "Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?", and then shortly after, Spudpicker_01 was created to complete the AfD, in support of the new editor, Willietell. A sockpuppetry case was lodged, and confirmed. It was entirely reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry. Religious subjects often become heated, and I acknowledge that I have at times been as uncivil as other editors involved in such disputes. However, this is not a "historical pattern", and Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors.

Willietell's (false) attacks on BlackCab and myself do not in any way nullify AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour, about which Willietell has decided to remain silent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the many links Willietell provides what he claims are "ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses", only two were raised by me (of the remainder, seven were raised by neither me nor BlackCab; three of the four matters raised by BlackCab were sockpuppet queries upheld by admins, and the fourth was to report unambiguous vandalism). The first was uncontroversially given admin support[76]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[77] Notably, Willietell's further inattention to facts is shown by his inclusion of an arbitration case against User:Alastair Haines (which I did not initiate), against whom I had argued at length in favour of JWs in regard to their definition as a Christian group (see from about halfway through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_49, Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_50, and about one third through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_51).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier when I stated that the links were to show the tandem relationship between the two editors in question and not to show whether the other party was in the right or wrong, I will repost my statement that Jeffro77 pretends to have missed:

"The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 8:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Willietell (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, lets clear up one thing, you filed the sockpuppet claim after I told everyone on the talk page what had happened, so you knew in advance of filing the sockpuppet claim what had happened, got me blocked for about 2 or 3 days and complained during that time that I wasn't detailing my objections to the beliefs page, even while you knew I was blocked for a false sockpuppetry claim. Still you repeatedly bring this subject up when addressing any disagreement with me to attempt to taint the perception with which I am held by anyone considering the argument at hand. Secondly, I don't really care how many user ID's you use, you can have a dozen for all I care, and pretend that each and every one is another Sybil. You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student...I simply really don't care. What I object to is the constant goading and smear tactics employed to create a hostile environment for fellow editors, this I find objectionable, the other stuff is simply childishly funny. I have finally read the long diatribe on the talk page, and there is no way in an unbiased persons eyes that the two of you, namelyJeffro77 AND BlackCab CAN BE VIEWED AS FAULTLESS IN THE EXCHANGE THAT BROUGHT US ALL TO THIS PAGE. As you stated, I have only been active on Wikipedia since some time in late November or early December, I can't remember the exact date, yet I personally have endured sustained and repeated attempts by both editors to drive me away from Wikipedia as is shown here[78] inBlackCab's insistence that maybe it would be better if I just leave Wikipedia altogether and also here[79] with more insistence that I just don't work well within Wikipedia, even as I am continuously hounded from page to page having edit after edit reverted by one of the two editors based upon one flimsy excuse after another. I have personally experienced the points that AuthorityTam describes. I am therefore not just "taking his side" without knowing what is going on, I am speaking because I have observed firsthand what he has had to endure for an even longer period than I. Willietell (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite baffled by your bizarre suggestions about editing from other accounts. Your ranting claim that "You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student" suggests you imagine specific user accounts (though I have no idea who), and if so, it's unclear why you seem reluctant to name them so a CheckUser can be performed and summarily show you to be dishonest. Your continued dishonesty about the supposed ANI links above, your paranoid claims about me (and/or BlackCab) acting as other editors, your false claims of copyright violation in attempt to have an article you don't like deleted do not tend toward veracity, and are directly counter to claims of honesty made in your unblock request. I was alerted to the likely sockpuppetry by another editor (not BlackCab)[80] regarding User:Spudpicker_01, and the sockpuppetry case against Spudpicker_01 was lodged 12 December 2011[81] (before the Williewell account had been created on 13 December). After I subsequently explained at the SPI that "The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet). The anonymous editor has now created an account as Willietell"[82], the closing admin decided to block you. It's also amusing that you've gone from being "somewhat uninvolved" to "have personally experienced".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Somewhat uninvolved" because I had no involvement in the issue that brought us to this ANI, namely the diatribe on the main Jehovah's Witnesses talk page, my having a personal experience with the complaining editors is a separate issue, but I'm sure you already know that. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willietell, you're claiming that two editors, who you believe to be one person, are operating in 'tandem', while also claiming to be several other editors, each with different fictitious strengths and weaknesses. Since I've been on Wikipedia longer than BlackCab, you are actually accusing me of this. So, I don't care if you care. If you are making these allegations, you are expected to prove it or retract your lies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willietell, experienced editors can sometimes become frustrated by new editors who spring up and attempt to make drastic changes, as you've done. You tried repeatedly to have an exhaustively sourced article deleted, ignored repeated and earnest requests from a range of editors to explain your specific objections to the page and now regard as harassment the reversion of your often poorly conceived edits. I have tried to be patient with you, and I'm sorry if sometimes my patience wears thin. Jeffro has also been courteous towards you, but you test everyone's patience with these quite bizarre suggestions of dishonesty and deviousness, particularly when you refuse to back them up with any evidence. You are also driving me nuts with this empty "POV spin" phrase every time you don't get your way. I again implore you to report me for any incivility or disruption. Report me if you seriously think I am a sockpuppet of Jeffro, whom I have never met, and with whom I once had one brief email exchange. If you do not, then stop this stupid behaviour. We are here to discuss the belligerent and inflammatory behavior of AuthorityTam, though apparently it's not something of any great interest to the admins. My suspicion is that this thread will soon go stale, be removed and we'll be back at square one. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing up that I tried to have the page [Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] deleted, which I did initially as a very new IP editor to Wikipedia because I felt that the page was so full of biased material that it would be nearly impossible to fix[83]. I changed my mind after several editors demanded that I present a breakdown of what I thought was biased, I did present several points that I thought, and still think need improvement and was in discussions with editors to make such improvements[84], when an editor posted a link to a page that I concluded was the source material for almost all the content on the page[85]. Due to this conclusion, I posted a tag stating that I thought the page was a copyright violation, only to have several editors assure me that it wasn't. I was skeptical, but nonetheless, relented and decided that with effort the page could be corrected in such a way as to make this irrelevant in the long term and began working to fix the page in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies, which I am currently attempting to do. I have not attempted to have the page deleted recently nor do I intend to attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. To continue to bring these issues up along with the false sockpuppet claim is simply a form of character assassination and needs to end. Additionally, since Jeffro77 went to the trouble of requesting a sockpuppet investigation (which was declined on the reason that check user is not used to prove innocence)[86], I will assume good faith and take the two editors word for it that they are not the same editor and no longer speculate on this page or any other whether they are the same editor. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who first discussed the sockpuppet case against you at this discussion, and you who accused me of sockpuppetry here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A cursory look through Willitel's talk page shows that s/he is far from uninvolved with JW issues. It appears as though that which disagrees with their POV is "POV spin," and it may be the case that they have confused WP for a No Spin Zone as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to be uninvolved in JW issues. I only stated that I was uninvolved in the current issue of the long diatribe and back and forth argument that happened in the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page that was the straw for bring us to this ANI. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be repeated, I'd like something to come out of it. I would like to propose:

• A topic ban for JW articles to AuthorityTam,
• An interaction ban between AuthorityTam and BlackCab (and maybe topic ban for him too, depending on responses from people more knowledgeable),
• Possible sanctions of some sort against Willietell (which, while he engages in some tendentious editing and such (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), I have not seen him break any rules egregiously yet in my personal interaction. I will not propose these personally, as I do not feel what would fit (the WP:IDHT behavior continues across a selection of articles, from Genesis creation narrative to the topic of this discussion).

I'm going to run a few options up the flagpole and see who salutes. Feel free to propose modified sanctions or comment to dismiss or oppose all sanctions. I apologize in advance if these are draconian, but I oft get aggravated with the same old shit being brought to AN/I over and over again with no end in sight, but just turning in to a bitch-fest or vent with no proposed solutions to the problems. I have not interacted with BlackCab enough to know if he should get a topic ban too, but I have no doubt that interaction between the two editors is poisonous from comments here alone. (AuthorityTam has seemed fair when I've dealt with him, but from the diffs and a perusal of edit history, there is a problem.)

(AuthorityTam's contempt has consistently been directed at editors whom he believes to be former members of JWs. AuthorityTam employs circumlocutory regarding his claims that he 'does not wish to self-identify at Wikipedia as a JW' and has never denied that he is a member. The manner of his edits not only in support of JWs but also unsupportive of other groups such as other Bible Student movement groups, along with various other edits, make it appear very likely that he is a member of the religion, which in itself is immaterial, but seems to be a contributing factor to his attitude of contempt toward other editors whom he believes to be former members of the religion.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest alternate sanctions if these are unacceptable - something to keep this from coming back to AN/I over and over.
We propose AuthorityTam be blocked from editing JW-related articles for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nothing to date has impressed upon AuthorityTam that he can't continue this type of interaction with other users. I support comments from other users that he often includes valuable information to JW articles and provides pro-JW balance. Despite his allegation at the talk page, I have not asked for him to be banned. (Another editor has falsely suggested I am trying to knock off pro-JW editors one by one, which is also utter rubbish). But I think a temporary block may be useful to help modify his conduct. BlackCab (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Authority/Tam is an important editor to the project and his use or continued use of the reference to TSally does not in any way harm editor BlackCab, even if it seems distasteful to him. Additionally, to bring up an editors previous edit history seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia, and AuthorityTam is certainly not alone in doing so. I personally think this ANI resulted from an overreaction by a couple of editors who seem to judge their own action through rose colored glasses and filed the ANI without first considering WP:boomerang. It seems to me that AuthorityTam has reacted as many people would after having spent many years being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI. I think that sanctions enacted against him would be tantamount to a punish the victim mentality. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the "aka LTSally" phrase "distasteful"; it is a pejorative term that implies deviousness or subterfuge on my part. He has used it now for two years without letup. I have asked him to stop, and three other editors have agreed it is unnecessary. His continued use of it, even in this very ANI complaint,[87] is further evidence of his determination to goad, and his lack of willingness to cooperate. We all over-react sometimes. But AuthorityTam has a deeply embedded pattern of taunting. He is disruptive. He refuses to put the past behind him. He is unrepentant. He doesn't know when to stop. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate problems with Willietell's behaviour, as have already been commented on above, and his claim about "being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI" is dishonest, because only one editor filed the ANI. I learned of the ANI because AuthorityTam's Talk page is on my Watch List (all pages I edit are automatically added to my Watch List).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional Support - It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise. If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I do not find anything disruptive from AuthorityTam. His pro-JW defensive edits and comments might be not fitting to the JW-defaming taste of user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77. However he have contributed a lot in removing ex-witness bias from the article and have played a leading historical role in raising JWs article to GA status. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that comment is inappropriate and out of line with Wikipedia policy as I read it: a "pro-JW bias" which doesn't fit the "JW-defaming bias" of everyone else are reasons for blocks all around if true. I have to pull a modification of a line of Avraham's: Thou hast been accused by editors four; go forth now and battle no more; for if on yon lame wars many doth proceed to yammer; ye great Adminnes will break out ye olde bannehammer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digging out through the edit history of user:BlackCab and Jeffro77 I could'nt find anywhere they are helping to increase the fame of JW's. These two editors are from Australia, one of them explicitly written an essay regarding his reasons to renounce the JWs faith. Further in most cases I find these two are taking sides almost together and tend to be a watchdog for JW supportive edits as user:Willietell brought-out. On the other hand through the edit history of user:AuthorityTam I could'nt find anything that is trying to defame JWs and he is not as active as the other two editors. Further I personally know few-self claimed ex-witnesses and they always have a tendency to defame their former faith and not so happy as well. May be because they feel so pissed off that they were not able to do anything for years to collapse the growth of religion. So generalizing self advertising ex-witnesses I thought the phrases I used were appropriate. If it is inappropriate I apologize because I am very busy person with no much time to read all Wiki policies and guidelines. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I do not like the JW religion, but I do not come to Wikipedia to defame it. I simply present accurate information from reliable sources. Every WP article on a subject of controversy will attract editors who are supporters and opposers. Fazilfazil is welcome to his assessment of ex-JWs (which happens to mirror the statements of the religion), but he is wrong. I simply want people to have facts so they can make an informed choice. The fact that Jeffro77 and I agree on many things doesn't mean we are "taking sides." This discussion (as with many discussions at JW talk pages) sadly degenerates to team-like face-offs where the details of the complaint are forgotten in an effort to simply protect a team member. Let's stick with the specific complaint about AuthorityTam's specific conduct. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fazilfazil's irrelevant ad hominem regarding former JWs (and Australians??) has very little to do with AuthorityTam's persistent inappropriate conduct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - AuthoityTam has made significant contributions to JW-related articles, and is an important piece to keep the article balanced. I don't concider his behavior significant worse than some of the other users. The fact it appairs only two users have serious objections with his behavior, makes it easier to oppose for topic-ban, though I do think it could be justified to give him some kind of warning regarding the use of "aka LTSally". I think several users could need a topic break, the article won't disappair within a few weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose: Having observed and intermittently participated at the JW talkpgae for some five years now I must state that I believe that the article's current state is a result of a balanced stalemate between editors with complementary viewpoints. Furthermore I don't think that AuthorityTam's conduct is more egregious than that of BlackCab - I would perhaps support a topic ban for both, but not for either one of them alone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hello Maunus! And what evidence would you cite in support of a topic ban on me? I have provided specific complaints about AuthorityTam's behaviour, including a refusal to acknowledge my direct request to him to cease this infantile "aka LTSally" tactic that suggests duplicity on my part, and his ongoing pattern of goading and taunting. I'd be interested in seeing what specific edits of mine from, say, the past year suggest a failure to collaborate or a tendency to disrupt that would warrant me being blocked from editing JW pages. I have always insisted on reliable, verifiable sources and I have always sought outside comment when discussions meet a stalemate. I have provided diffs for examples of that above. AuthorityTam has had the opportunity to defend himself against my grievances, so do me the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself against your accusations. BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blackcab - I don't know why you'd be surprised to see me. I am not the one making any accusations here, and so am under no requirement to present evidence. I acknowledge that you are generally civil (if often curt and abrasive) and respect policy guiding content creation. In my experience so does AuthorityTam - he just doesn't consistently have someone to back him up in arguments, which I can only imagine leads to some measure of added frustration. The double topic ban I think would be to the benefit of both you (since it would let you both focus on less stressful stuff), and for the article (since topic banning only one of you would likely lead to gradual degradation of the article). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that I 'consistently back up BlackCab' is false. The suggestion that AuthorityTam does not have editors supporting him is also false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We propose an indefinite interaction ban between AuthorityTam/BlackCab. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm not so sure that would work. There are times when we do need to discuss edits. And given the lengthy (and potentially infinitely-lasting) tit-for-tat discussion here I think any such interaction ban should also include at least one other editor. Quarantining me, alone, from any discussions with AuthorityTam would not be helpful or fair. But someone may like to explain the practicalities of such a proposal. Bottom line is the need for a change in AuthorityTam's behaviour, just as I have learned to do. BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I suggest that the three editors Jeffro77, BlackCab and AuthorityTam be restricted from reverting one another's recent edits(30 days) without first taking the matter to discussion in talk in a civil attempt to reach consensus before making any change. This would allow for cooler heads to prevail and keep tempers from flaring so much. This could be put in place for a time period that will allow the editors to learn to "play nice". Willietell (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am "nice". I do discuss. I am civil. I do seek external comment when discussions reach a deadlock,[88][89] and I accept the consensus at those noticeboards. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have not really been frequent recent issues of edit warring. Most of the problems related to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages. I am not claiming that this is all AuthorityTam's fault. I have previously advised BlackCab about some things that 'trigger' AuthorityTam's tirades, and also acknowledged that I've also been uncivil at times when things get heated. The main problem is that AuthorityTam just doesn't stop, particularly with comments about editors that have absolutely nothing to do with article Talk, and frequently rehashes past irrelevant disputes. (There is the 'two to tango' aspect, however, although I don't like having to rebut AuthorityTam's misleading claims about me at article Talk pages, nor will I allow him to malign me undefended.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - This would help to cool down the issue. Because I believe if you cannot work along with a person just stop interacting would help for while --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorityTam has not acknowledged that any of his behaviour is inappropriate, but has actually described his current behaviour of frequently attacking other editors' motives as 'avoiding interaction'. Because of this distorted perception of what constitutes 'interaction', it's not clear that he would understand what an 'interaction block' would require.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We propose that Willietell be blocked from editing articles related to Christianity for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I may live to regret this, but at this stage there are probably better ways to deal with Willietell. There are significant issues involved with his editing. He finds it very difficult to accept consensus, and does not listen to other editors. The thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted and the resulting thread immediately below it strongly demonstrate the difficulties of dealing with him. That thread produced a good range of uninvolved editors who all tried to help Willietell, without great result. See User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1#Your recent edits. He has responded to these effort, and outside intervention, by threatening admins[90] or complaining of COI[91]. He has seen agreement among other editors as evidence of sockpuppetry[92] and hostility[93] and constantly describes any statement that differs from his unique view of the world as "POV spin".[94] Willietell is a deeply irritating editor and borderline disruptive because of his recycling of previously settled debates (because they didn't produce the result he wanted). He accuses me and others of hostility, despite earnest efforts to walk him through the issues involved. There are issues of maturity here, but hopefully he is on a learning curve. I think a block here may be counter-productive because it may fuel his paranoia. Hopefully at some stage the weight of opposition to his views may persuade him there are alternative viewpoints that sometimes have greater validity than his. BlackCab (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose As you yourself point out, my edits on the page Genesis creation narrative were no more egregious than any other editor on that page, including yourself[95]]. While, at first I had little understanding of how things worked on Wikipedia, I have made attempts to learn how to do things properly and have not repeated the early missteps I made as a new editor. My opinion that material which does not fall within the guidelines of WP:NPOV represents POV spin is "my opinion" and as such can be expressed in a civil manner and should not be cause for character assassination, whether you personally like the term or not. I have performed no action nor exhibited any behavior which would in any way justify such a proposed "Topic Ban". I would like to thank BlackCab for notifying me of the existence of this proposed topic ban, since the proposing editor failed to do so. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally here[96] is the diff on that page, showing the edit in question was not only a minor one, but justified, as the current page content shows[97] . Willietell (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Willietell has asserted some quite bizarre suspicions about the motives and actions of other editors without any evidence, and has also asserted a fairly narrow world view in various articles related to religion. However, he does claim to have learned from his problematic behaviour. My main concerns largely relate to matters discussed at the essay, Wikipedia:Competency is required, and I would like to think that Willietell can continue to develop skills that may make him a better contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Each new editor have his own way of approaching discussions and they will adapt. Some may be vigorous and some may be calm. Nevertheless it contributes to the whole improvement and to reach consensus. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I am running out of daylight, I will have to continue with this ANI tomorrow, and I have some sanctions of myself to propose. Willietell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, purely on technical grounds. Either someone is blocked from all editing, or he's able to edit everything that's not protected; you can't block someone from editing pages that have a certain topic, such as Christianity. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can, we do it all the time. It's called a WP:TOPICBAN. SÆdon^talk 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this due to a philosophical opposition to topic bans? (In which case it wouldn't be a technical issue.) Kansan (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[non admin comment] In the words of the Bard of Ayrshire “Oh what some power the gift he give us, to see ourselves as others see us!” ... I admit to being totally uninformed here, I've only had my eye caught by one relatively well conducted and resolved edit fuffle in JW-article space about the church's excommunication practices, plus there was a cooperative attitude shown by participants (AuthTam and Jeffro) from both sides in getting Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion pulled back into generic WP:Christianity space. Seeing as that can be acheived, why not just drop this before something like the "vile nutcase" comment WP:BOOMERANGs into all 4 being invited to spend a month contributing to the non-JW bits of Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will bend to the editors suggestion and withhold requesting sanctions against Jeffro77 and BlackCab to allow time to see if the editor who filed the ANI (since I have been corrected and Jeffro77 didn't file it, but discovered it in some manner) heeds your advice and withdraws it. If he chooses to do so then this will be a moot point. However if he persists, then I will propose a Topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors based upon their hostile behavior towards editors who disagree with their POV as well as barring both editors from editing the same article or talk page within a 31 day period the lessen the tagteam effect of their overly co-operative tandem edits, which a perusal of each editors contributions will demonstrate without much investigation. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia tomorrow, this will allow about a 36 hour period for the editor to make up his mind as to what he chooses to do. Willietell (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an ultimatum, Willietell. Numerous editors have advised you to stop screaming "POV spin!" every time you see wording you disagree with. The latest example is Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Lede in which Willitell keeps complaining of a "factual inaccuracy" about who establishes doctrines for the religion, and yet is apparently unable to see that the article simply does not contradict his claim. The long thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns is a window into the thinking of an editor who throughout the entire exchange gained no support for any change from a wide variety of editors. I don't think an editor whose biggest response is a thunderous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in much a position to be sitting on the judge's bench. We all agree that this subject is something that divides editors. I will happily work with editors with whom I disagree. I do not, however, accept that editors who continually goad, taunt and ignore requests to engage on matters of conduct should be permitted to do so freely without a sanction of some kind. BlackCab (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly bizarre that Willietell insists on "topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors" unless some action is taken by BlackCab. And then he accuses me of being "overly co-operative"(?!), but conveniently ignores all the times I've also agreed with other editors, including AuthorityTam.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I've already stated above, AuthorityTam is capable of collaboration. The problems largely arise when he verges off into irrelevant attacks on the motives of other editors (mostly of BlackCab) at the mildest of perceived provocation, and often with no provocation at all.

I should note that although I expressed agreement with some of his suggestions at Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, he did not actually acknowledge any contribution by or agreement with me, and the only time he mentioned me was earlier at that page when he felt the need to state that "the AfD proposal [opposed by AuthorityTam] by User:Jeffro77 was closed with Keep", which seemed to have been stated that way to highlight the supposed 'failure' of my proposal, despite the fact that a) the closure was self-evident from the removal of the AfD template, b) all the editors involved at the Talk page were also involved in the AfD, and c) I had accepted the result of the AfD—in isolation, the comment might seem innocuous, but in a broader context is part of AuthorityTam's dismissive comments about editors he doesn't like. If this is not the case, AuthorityTam should be able to provide evidence where he's made special mention of AfD closures that were a) not closed the way he wanted or b) not proposed by me, BlackCab, or other editors he considers to be former JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing. I was never a JW, but my most vocal support at the Jesus Crucifixion page came from AuthorityTam - my personal interaction has been fine, but the diffs and a trawling of edit history (since I had nothing better to do than keep refreshing this page and work on some Wikidramatics) reveal problems. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I see a view coalescing that my complaint that AuthorityTam’s actions in (a) repeatedly goading me with his mischievous “aka LTSally” line despite my asking him several times to stop, (b) maintaining generally antagonistic and combative comments towards me, (c) recycling years-old exchanges and (d) repeatedly quoting a line I deleted from my user page two years ago .... was not worth raising. Apparently I should stop bullying the poor soul, because he’s just reacting to the fact that sometimes there are two editors in a discussion who disagree with him.

Maunus has previously warned AuthorityTam to minimise his personal attacks[98] and has also advised editors to treat others as they would like to be treated.[99]. He has also suggested (without supporting evidence) that Jeffro77 and I have bullied AuthorityTam.[100].

In the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint, despite his best efforts to pour gasoline on the fire. It’s worth noting that in the dreadful Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Can we wrap this RfC up? thread, which is probably one of the low points of all JW discussions, the thread began on February 6 and was still going at March 30. I withdrew from the thread on March 3. My earlier condemnation of AuthorityTam’s behaviour was all turned around as evidence of my “attacks” on him. If you can stomach it, read the thread in its entirety.

Or try this one for a prime example of his tactics of misrepresentation and escalation. Follow this trail of breadcrumbs: (1) AT's "Keep" vote of Feb 27 that concludes with a sneering dig at "the nominator's decision" (that's Jeffro) that clearly misconstrues Jeffro's initial comment. (2) History2007's comment of Feb 28 seizing on ATam's "evidence" that Jeffro is being devious. (3) My comment immediately afterwards with the fairly innocuous observation that "I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion". Then ... (4) AuthorityTam's over-the-top spray of March 1 employing his "aka LTSally" device, links to comments of mine from 2009 and April 2010, before he (yet again) parades my userpage comments before I deleted them in January 2010. My chiding his unnecessary denigration of anothereditor as "mischevous" prompts his rants of "hyperventilatingly caterwauls" and "outrageous namecalling". His links are all ancient history. They're three years old! Again, I have learned a lot about civility and respect since mid-2009. AuthorityTam has learned nothing.

Put simply, I can’t win. I can’t make him stop this shit, and when I try, I’m accused of bullying or being thin-skinned. Really, this whole ANI complaint was a complete waste of time. AuthorityTam doesn’t admit any fault, few others see anything wrong with his conduct and now editors are discussing possible sanctions against me for doing nothing more than asking him to stop. Really, I’d rather just drop the whole thing. I have zero faith in Wikipedia processes for dealing with inflammatory behaviour ... but then I would, wouldn't I? BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly some frustration here. Thing is, even the editors supporting AuthorityTam, despite some fairly evident bias, have acknowledged above that at least some of his conduct has been improper. Maybe the admins are just busy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is now marked "unresolved", which means it's going to come back here in no time. RfC/U seems like the next step: the question is, RfC/U on which user? Additionally, everyone seems to have their own cheering squad, which makes getting anything done look very, very difficult if not impossible ("unstoppable force, meet immovable object"). From my reading of this (granted, I've only been involved in about half a score of these processes now) it - the process - seems to have broken down (and shall continue to as long as each and every editor on such a polarized topic has, as I mentioned, their very own cheer section that will oppose/support according to that). What is the next step? Wait for this to come back to AN/I and leave "unresolved" next month? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

90.218.255.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This looks like the same IP editor I previously raised here, who I think is deliberately adding false information. This edit changed the caption from the correct year to an incorrect one, this edit claimed Freddie Starr performed at the Manchester Comedy Store in 1986, 14 years before it opened [101]. These IPs all edit mainly British comedy-related articles; although less concerning, other common patterns that make me think it's the same person include overlinking and unnecessary capitalisation of common words in the infobox (current IP: [102][103], previous IP [104][105]). As with the other IPs they do not respond to any communication, on this IP they have ignored several requests on their talk page to stop overlinking. January (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Their addition, "Starting on Friday April 13th 2012, John will be embarking on another book tour to promote 'Being Boycie', starting with Waterstones Uxbridge." appears to be true [106], and adding caps is when they are wikifying (and overlinking...) terms. Granted, not really needed but it is a common enough mistake around here. Doesn't look like vandalism, although I can see it is mildly disruptive, and likely just ignorance of the guidelines, which yes, they can't address if they don't respond. I noticed no warnings in two weeks+, just this ANI notice. Since it is a dynamic IP, it is usually better to warn them a time or two first, at least within a day or two period. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin][reply]

They removed the correct addition about the book signing [107], it was added by a different IP [108]. I can see that it's described as a dynamic IP in Geolocate, but it looks like the same person throughout. January (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They haven't edited today, nor responded to the ANI request. Would recommend just keeping an eye on. If they are attempting stealthy vandalism, making minor errors for the purpose of undermining WP, and they come back doing more, then WP:AIV would be the place to take it for stealth vandalism. It can usually get handled much faster there as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin][reply]

I've warned Rivercard (talk · contribs) to cease making off-topic personal attacks, here, here and here. In response, Rivercard has doubled down the personal attacks and defended them with Wikilawyering.

The personal attacks I'd like to see deleted are from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#BMW R1100GS .28Reopened.29: "This is so hubristic it almost offends: to argue for the deletion (seriously?)" and "Fan fervour can be good - without great enthusiasm there would be no Wikipedia - but it can also effect objectivity. (And not sure why motorcylists seem particularly aggressive about 'their' edits - is it something to do with the tightness of the riding suits?)". From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#RfC on WP:WPACT.2C trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles, please remove the ad hominem accusation "(Note: There is an absence of full disclosure in the initial proposal here in that it is not mentioned that the proposing editor is already involved in a dispute that involves WP:PACT and which is covered in depth here BMW R1100GS discussion (reopened) and here Talk. Please remain mindful of and conversant with WP:GAME, WP:GAMETYPE.)".

This all began with Rivercard carrying out a pointy campaign of retaliation against Biker Biker (talk · contribs), after Biker Biker removed some of Rivercard's edits from an Volkswagen Corrado [109][110][111]. Rivercard took a sudden interest in pages Biker Biker had edited or created, particularly BMW R1100GS.

Deleting so-called "trivia" from and impugning sources on BMW motorcycle articles to get back at Biker Biker for removing trivia and poor sources from Volkswagen Corrado is bad enough. But at the very least, can we discuss articles without making personal attacks? If Rivercard will not delete the personal attacks and cease making further off-topic personal attacks, then I request a topic ban. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you used such terms as "silly" and "laughable," as Rivercard claims? If so, this is a WP:BOOMERANG deal, and you really have no leg to stand on to complain about such oblique "attacks" as you cite. Ravenswing 18:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. I have used strong language to criticize arguments, but not people. I have said the info page WP:WPACT was "stinking up the place" but have made no attacks on those who wrote it. It is obvious that Rivercard thinks that if his argument is harshly criticized, he is justified in ad hominem attacks. But WP:BOOMERANG says no such thing, it merely points out that it can be hard to referee disputes like this. I'd be happy to agree to use gentler language to criticize arguments if it meant we'd have no more attacks against people from this editor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, so you claim, at any rate. However, I expect you are no more psychic than I am, and I have no more way of knowing that your use of such terms isn't (of course) targeting people than I have of knowing that Rivercard's intent is to target people. Since I've used such language myself, I'd never dream of hauling someone before ANI to whine about it; my idea of a personal attack is "You are an idiot," not "This is hubristic." Ravenswing 02:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also don't see anything worth WP:REVDEL there ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not asking for REVDEL. Rivercard can edit his own comments, and be sure to not alter his intended meaning while removing the off-topic attacks. Most of his comments are constructive enough; it's only the attacks that need to cease. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is already being handled at an open WP:DR case [112]. I don't see any advantage to spreading the disagreement over two venues. There are plenty of admins and others over there. While I'm sure you aren't forum shopping, it doesn't look good to drag the situation over multiple open discussions. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[non-admin][reply]

• Those issues can't proceed in a constructive manner until the personal attacks cease. Hence the need for ANI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'm asking, have you approached any admin involved over there on their talk page? Coming here probably shouldn't be the first or second option, because it spreads the dispute over multiple venues. This is less than optimal. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin][reply]

• That's a good point. But if I had complained to two different admins, they could have just as easily said that it should go to ANI because the issue spanned multiple venues. Wikipedia has more than one way to address almost everything, and it seems unfortunate to have to start over because of a technicality in forum choice. If an admin here can fix it, I would think they should go ahead and do it. And next time I'll try harder to hit the right forum on the first try. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And now we can add Canvassing for sympathetic editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me just weigh in one last time, do with it what you will. Dennis, you might want to just drop this and focus on the dispute. Against my own better judgement, I went and read everything I could on your dispute, and I just don't see anything that warrants serious action. You both can get snippy. His "canvasing" wasn't canvasing, it was on the talk page of someone who had already participated in the DR 4 days ago. Compared to recent ANIs re: 2012 in UFC events that resulted in mild warnings, this dispute looks like two people having tea and crumpets. I think you are both acting in good faith (from what I can tell), being a bit snippy, and getting on each other's nerves. This is exactly why it needs to be dispute resolution and not here. There simply isn't anything that is far enough over the line to warrant any action. Or provide diffs if I've missed something. Sometimes in a dispute, people get a little dickish, but as long as the conversation stays on topic, I think we all have to man up and ignore petty jabs, and focus on the issue at hand, to avoid that nasty old boomerang[113]. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin][reply]

• Good points, again. I'm sorry to hear that civility is even worse elsewhere. However, I don't think the worse behavior of others justifies me having to tolerate personal attacks. On canvassing, it would not, generally, have been canvassing to notify everyone in a discussion. But when you pick the one editor whom you think will favor you, and don't notify the others in the same discussion, that's canvassing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  
  

Hi. I'm very glad that other editors are looking at this and some sense is being seen. (Many thanks to Dennis Brown in particular for investing so much time here.) Dennis Bratland clearly knows many Wikipedia codes, but this can be a problem in itself: I genuinely believe that heavy handed use of issuing code violation warnings is counter-productive to Wikipedia. So, for the record, my reponse to the Dennis Bratland's first accusation above is written below. Thanks, Rivercard:

Rivercard (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Disregard

 – User blocked by User:The_Bushranger SÆdon^talk 04:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, desysoped, ArbCom on the case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked by Geni for being a compromised account. Pending an appeal. Doc talk 07:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this edit by Centrx (talk · contribs) to the Main page [120] Hot Stop 05:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Doesn't seem compromised from what I've noticed [121]. Centrx should definitely know better than to make such edits without consensus, though. --Rschen7754 06:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about the Main Page, please answer my question on its Talk Page.

If you do not want to answer the question. Reverse the edit.

Why have you reported this to a third party before contacting me about this? —Centrx→talk • 06:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So admin coming back after not contributing for 6 months and vandalizing the MP isn't suspicious? Hot Stop 06:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the vandalism?

I am editing now and less than two months ago, but you are not even talking to me.

—Centrx→talk • 06:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My last edit was two days ago when no one responded to my question on the talk page.
• If you respond to more questions at the main portal to Wikipedia, you will have reverted my edit before it happened.
• How important is this?

—Centrx→talk • 06:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Account almost certainly compromised, either that or the admin in question is drunk. — foxj 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense to be a compromised account. Just pointy. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be compromised, I'd say it's just being pointy indeed. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You misunderstand and it is my fault.
• Do you hate me?
• Do you have any constructive improvements for the Main Page?

—Centrx→talk • 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a warning to not do this again. --Rschen7754 06:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw all my previous statements and I promise never to edit a Main Namespace Page again. —Centrx→talk • 07:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't get all "flaky" on the admin decisions, now, huh? Doc talk 07:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be an administrator if I cannot edit a page or get an answer on the talk page of the most trafficked page on Wikipedia? —Centrx→talk • 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the account is compromised or not, but judging by Centrx's talk page, this isn't Centrx's normal style of expression, and this comment is rather odd. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something does seem off, on reflection. Either we have an admin gone rogue, or a compromised account. --Rschen7754 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How can I be an administrator if I cannot edit a page or initiate a discussion on the talk page of the most trafficked page on Wikipedia?
• Who are you doing this for if not the readers or the editors?

—Centrx→talk • 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite clear the account isn't compromised, but I do see the potential that Centrx has gone a little rogue. Perhaps the wait and see approach is best here - Next inappropriate edit to the main page and we can issue a quick block and request a desysop. I see no reason why anyone would edit the main page when they've barely edited in the last 6 months. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to block and saw Geni did already. Clearly compromised imo -- Samir 07:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is compromised, just Centrx's style for the last few hundred of his edits. Used to be a good guy as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna email ArbCom. --Rschen7754 07:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call Rs - I don't think anything's urgent at the minute - doesn't look like he's going to go crazy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, perhaps it is compromised actually - this is just weird. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Email sent, linking to this thread. --Rschen7754 07:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asking "Do you hate me?" as a general question here is truly bizarre behavior for any competent admin, for sure... Doc talk 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as an admin he should already know that everybody hates him automatically--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Compromised (since when?) or not in a competent state of mind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultimately its academic. Once the account is de-admined we can work out what is going on.©Geni 08:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To keep the community in the loop: the Arbitration Committee is aware of this incident and has made contact with the administrator in question. (Thank you to all the editors who conducted this sensible, reasonable discussion. It's good that we can deal with things without panicking.) For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Suicide by Arbcom"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible, but an odd way to go about it. My own speculations run in different directions, but the account has been desysop'ed and ArbCom will sort out as much as we can now that that's been done. Note that the full details of our investigation may not be made public, in the interest of preserving editor privacy, as we've done with others who've had similar unexplained breaks from past constructive behavior. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note that a checkuser has already been run; regarding the idea of a compromised account, AGK says "technical data suggests this is probably not the case". Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

 – user has been blocked 72 hours

An interaction and topic ban for both of us would resolve this completely. There is fault on both sides and we could move on without this thread becoming pointlessly long like so many others. It would resolve Bittergrey's apparent issue of wikihounding, it would resolve my issue of the continuous edit warring agains the misrepresentation of sources, save everyone here time and aggravation and I will tag my User:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page for speedy deletion immediately. If I am the problem, Bittergrey will never run into a dispute with another editor again and we can both focus on generating content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – IP range blocked by MuZemike

131.123.123.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps reverting two articles against the consensus of recently closed AFDs. In the case of UFC on FX 4, the consensus was to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4, and it ended up becoming a redirect. In the case of UFC on Fox 4, the consensus was also to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4, I had to seek and obtain full page protection [185], and it was recreated two days later, same content, and the speedy tags removed. I left a warning on the users page because they kept restoring articles clearly against consensus in the AFD, the responded by warning me. AIV refused action due to the lack of level 4 warning[186] but this is more complicated than a single event, so I'm not surprised. My reverts have been to try to restore the article to redirects (the only alternative to delete) per the actual AFD closings, trying to provide reasonable rationales. This back and forth reverting has gone on long enough that someone else needs to look at this editors series of edits and offer some guidance as to a proper course of action. From my own (admittedly biased) perspective, either we enforce the closing requests of admins at AFDs, or we say it is fine to ignore them if they don't suit us. I don't want to have to seek full protection for all these MMA articles, when the problem is a single IP at this time. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it is a University IP. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved by User:MuZemike elsewhere with an extended rangeblock. [187]. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.