Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278

NOTE: Because of items brought up newly within the Meta Discussion, and discussion on with which group reviews the item, this is moved to the A/R/E board, intact. Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has just made some pretty serious accusations about me (in an AE thread that was originally about something else, which has since run its course). I am pretty taken aback and I would like advice on the relevant AE procedures. Am I allowed to ask for time to compose a response? Am I allowed to call witnesses? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to review the move of

Article was approved via AFC and from the edit summaries[1] [2]it appears there is some disagreement on if it should have been moved or titled as such. The move back to draft was then followed up by an edit to redirect it to a page which has in turn prevented it being moved back again.

There has been a string of edits on the page by the original editor who was unaware of the process for reversing the changes and he has sought help on the irc channel. I'll ask them to confirm this here shortly. If someone is willing to review the move as I feel it was out of process to move the page and then edit the redirect to prevent it being moved back and for a discussion to follow.

If not I'll take it to a requested move.

Pinging @Anna Frodesiak: as original approver and @Viriditas: as the editor who moved it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not all that familiar with the AFC process, so some clarification would be helpful. Potguru added a link to the new mainspace article in an article I created. I went to look at it, only to find that it had been declined by two AFC reviewers but somehow made its way to mainspace. The current article is mostly original research and cherry picked poor sourcing. I agree that Wikipedia could use an article on cannabis dispensaries, but this is not ready for mainspace. I tried to point out problems on the draft talk page in two different threads only to have my comments deleted. I am very familiar with the history of cannabis dispensaries in the US, so I was surprised to find this poorly sourced and poorly written article in mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I too am unfamiliar with the AFC process hence asking the person who approved it to see if they can advise further. Just to note I am unsure of the exact process so comments on uncertainty on process are just that and not aimed at implying wrongdoing. Amortias (T)(C) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I have caused all this by moving it to the mainspace prematurely. It seemed fine. Such page moves from main to draft have been done before, but cannot find a policy on it. It is not on the list. I will post at AfC about that and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis to help get a review. The author must be very upset and the sooner he is un-upset the better. I have a long, long history with Viriditas, so I really should stay out judging right and wrong here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up:

• I just posted at Wikiproject Cannabis asking for a review.
• It seems that users can boldly move an article into draft space per "Articles are incubated as a result of...iv) a bold move from article space..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Anna, it is perfectly fine for friends to disagree. Btw, when editors refer to a "long history" with another user, that generally means they are enemies. I'm guessing you did not intend to imply that interpretation. In any case, I note that the problems observed by the two previous AFC reviewers who declined it, were not fixed when you moved it. In order to move things toward resolution, I have noted on Potguru's talk page that I have no objection to a well-sourced stub that shows room for improvement and development. [3] Since you have lots of experience, maybe you could try starting a new stub on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Viriditas I also was one of the people that helped Potguru on this draft. Why would Anna have to start a new stub? Why wouldn't they just be able to use the draft that was already made? It is not referenced properly but it is referenced and there is plenty of news coverage out there on marijuana cannabis dispensaries. So it is a notable topic. As to your original move, I find your edit summary a little inappropriate. If I had created the page I would take your comment as calling me a "racist and prohibitionist." So Potguru's idea that you were calling them that is not farfetched. You could have just cited COMMONNAME and been done with it. But that is a different issue. This entire thing has blown up to an unnecessary level and I fear that we may lose an editor that actually wants to improve the encyclopedia over it. --Majora (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the term "marijuana" is entirely separate from the problem with the article. As Anna has said below, she mistakenly moved a declined draft to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Enemies? Of course not. You were my mentor and we have been good friends for six years.

When I moved it, I saw no comments from other reviewers. Now, digging into the history, among the long string of Potguru edits, I see [4][5]. My apologies. Those pink boxes had been removed. I have been away from AfC for too long. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, potguru asked whether he should remove the pink boxes on the IRC channel. The manner in which the question was asked, and the answer he received (no fault on either side, IMHO) resulted in the misunderstanding that he should remove them.

talk

) 05:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I was participating in the IRC conversation between

talk · contribs) and I. First off, I'd personally like to know if we have a policy in place as to what to call marijuana/cannabis. If we don't have a policy, perhaps now we be a good time to make an RfC and get one set in stone. Secondly, potguru (talk · contribs) posted a response over on his user talk since he currently can't participate here. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs}

01:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nathan, nothing is set in stone, however our stable articles on the subject of cannabis were the result of long community discussions on the topic. Given that Wikipedia prefers to use terms that are accurate and precise, it would seem a step back to open a new discussion about using a xenophobic, Prohibitionist term to replace the more traditional historical term that is free from neutrality problems. The term "marijuana" is an early relic from the

reefer madness days, when government agencies tried to scare people about immigrants using the drug. Viriditas (talk

) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just posted at his talk about those pink boxes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This whole situation seems to have gotten out of control rather quickly, and I think we are all a little worked up over this. I would humbly (very humbly) suggest that the two parties remember that it IS possible to resolve differences of opinion calmly and that it will likely be resolved more quickly (and more to everyone's satisfaction) if we allow a civil discussion to take place. I have attempted to research "precedent" regarding use of the two terms and haven't found much, much less an actual RfC. Has an RfC been conducted regarding this that I'm missing somewhere? If so, could someone link it here? I think different folks have very different ideas about what each of these terms means and as far as I can tell the correct course on Wikipedia is to have an RfC in this situation. If one has not been conducted already, please let's have one. Thank you!

talk

) 05:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death, which is why

marijuana redirects to cannabis. The new user in question has problems with his draft article that need to be resolved, so anything else (especially a debate over terms) is a distraction. I have discussed the subject on the user's talk page, but they don't seem to be very familiar with the subject, which explains part of the problem. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as all of us engage in a bit of autodidactic editing, but there remains the problem of basic, foundational source material that remains to be answered. So instead of reinventing the wheel, I have encouraged the user to focus on improving his source material. Viriditas (talk

) 06:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: If the draft was already accepted, it should have been improved, tagged, or sent to AfD, not moved back to draft namespace. I completely understand potguru's anger over the whole situation. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft was declined twice by two different reviewers. Anna says she moved it to mainspace by accident (at least I think that's what she said, correct me if I'm wrong). Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The declines were due to it not having enough information to warrant a standalone article. It is very common for people that have had their drafts declined to come on IRC and ask questions. Dozens of people do that every day and the decline template specifically says that that is an option. So saying that they were "lobbying on IRC off-wiki" is nonsense. Frankly, the two reasoning behind the two declines were fixed in my opinion anyways. So they would have had no bearing on Anna's review of the draft. Anna is an intelligent person who can fully decide for herself what drafts are ready for mainspace. Her decision here should have been allowed to stand without you moving it right back to draftspace. Once accepted, if you don't believe it meets standards you should have taken it to AfD or fixed it yourself. Moving it right back to draftspace after an editor worked hard on something, and it was accepted, is a massive slap in the face to the editor. --Majora (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Did Anna review the article? I saw the two declines by two different reviewers, then I saw the article in mainspace, no review. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Anna moving it into mainspace was a review was it not? A draft does not just move on its own without a reviewer pressing the buttons. And per her move edit summary [6] she accepted it. --Majora (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw no review and the problems raised in the previous reviews, such as the unsourced content, were unaddressed. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 06:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a separate issue from the overall problem, and you are welcome to start a new thread over at the relevant WikiProject or on the cannabis (drug) talk page, however, I think you have it somewhat backwards, as society has changed in the opposite direction, from using and abusing prohibition language rooted in racism and xenophobia to a return to more neutral language rooted in science and history. There are an enormous number of sources on this subject, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding them. Search for "Anslinger" and "racism". Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The original concerns with unsourced content leading to a decline were not addressed.[7] Anna has also said that she failed to see those declining comments. The article should never have been moved to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Another point that I feel I should make. If Potguru made this article outright, instead of going through the AfC process, would you have still moved it draftspace? If I saw that article at NPP I would have tagged it as needing cleanup. I may have even done a little bit of the cleanup myself. But I certainly wouldn't have drafted the article. Just because it went through the AfC process does not mean it should be treated any differently than articles that are made outright. --Majora (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It would have been redirected. And considering the opinions of the two declining reviewers, that decision would have been supported. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Asking him if it would be okay to move back to draft space for a few days
• Giving him time and guidance on what needs to be done
• Working with him to edit it
• Adding citation needed here and there and tagging
• Chopping a bit
• AfD, although I suspect that would have been a quick keep per GNG and because of no satisfactory place to merge

My review

I must respectfully disagree with

I also respectfully disagree with Viriditas' "...unsourced content, were unaddressed...". That was one of the decline rationales made when the draft was but a few sentences long.

Viriditas, you said, I did not review it before moving it. I did. When reviewing and declining, details are required. When reviewing and accepting, it is common to leave no other comment or rationale than "acceptable for the mainspace" or the like. Am I right in this?

Viritidas, you say that I moved a "declined" article to the mainspace. To be fair, it was also an article waiting for review. I inspected the article, checked for duplicates, noticed lots of references that seemed good, did a copyvio check. All seemed fine, so I moved it. Even had I seen the two declines, I would have moved it:

The first decline was when it was a tiny stub. The rationale was "...note that dispensaries are covered in the Medical cannibis article, so first you should see if this fits in there because we like to keep related information together when possible....". Well, it was a stub. Now, it is way to big to fit into that article. It passes GNG and seems perfectly fit for a standalone. That rationale no longer applies, in my view.

The second decline's rationale was "Recommend merging into the Cannabis in the United States article..." The draft at that point was still only a few sentences long. Dispensaries exist in other parts of the world too. It passes GNG and seems perfectly fit for a standalone. That rationale does not apply to the current version, in my view.

In neither of those two recommended targets for the draft are is there a dispensaries section. Dispensaries are discussed here and there. The draft, considering its current size, could never fit into either of those articles, and nor should it.

I also posted part of this post at Potguru's talk. As he is blocked, I thought he might like to comment on it. I am sorry to split the discussion like that, and also sorry for the long post.

Moving on to getting this sorted out, can't all who are involved just step back and let the project cannibis people decide what to do with the draft? They can see and take the draft at face value and make up their minds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. Encouraged by your defense, I took another look at the draft. I don't see any good reason why this should be in mainspace. The entire article consists of unsourced original research written in incomplete sentences lacking proper grammar and punctuation. The entire lead section consists of an unsourced original research comparison between Dutch coffee shops and dispensaries while the body consists mostly of unsourced statements. Where sources are used, they either don't support the content at all, or are improperly used. For example, the entire section on "locating services" is sourced to citation 27, but there's nothing there supporting the paragraph, nor is it a RS. Out of 23 paragraphs, 12 are unsourced, virtually half the article, while the ones that are sourced are sourced poorly or don't support it at all. I'm also a bit concerned about another article this user created concerning marijuana vending machines which appears to consist of rumors, crystalballing, and promotional press releases by the company. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. I would like to know what other reviewers would have done and have asked at AfC talk. I haven't done AfC work for ages and perhaps didn't do a thorough enough job.

However, the main task stated in the AfC instructions is... "...to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined..."

As for marijuana vending machine, t'was I not Potguru who created it. I left it in this state 19 October 2013. Maybe I should send my drafts through AfC in the future. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think at this stage, the best course of action would be to open an AfD on the article. That is our process for determining whether an article should exist in mainspace or not. I would advise in future that once an article has been accepted at AfC, it should go through one of the deletion processes rather than attempting to revert the AfC review by moving it back to draft space. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! User

@

Strongjam (talk

) 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Mister Poeticbent is doing exactly that.

talk

) 16:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@

Strongjam (talk

) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@

Strongjam

: Yes I did. When I get really nervous that sometimes happens to me.

• Ah well--another case of "not for this forum", but this one a bit worse:
  WP:OWNTALK. Thank you. Drmies (talk
  ) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• There is nothing to investigate. You misquote policy, and when that is pointed out you misread the comment. Strongjam said Poeticbend is NOT prohibited from removing your comments. NOT prohibited. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So users can remove everything what is writed in their talk pages? In Finnish wikipedia that is 100% prohibited, only after a month.

• No, not everything. Read the guideline I linked. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. Thank you for this lesson, I'm sorry for interrupting you.

• That's quite alright. We aim to please. Please convey my best wishes to the Finnish colleagues, especially when the days are short and the nights are long. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

move to ANI - sorry posted on wrong board LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban on

Orthodox2014's recent tactic has been to create his own version of the article and, after considerable discussion and incremental edits, revert wholsale [12][13] or dump his preferred sandbox version back [14][15], making it difficult if not impossible to meaningfully discuss any issues. They have, in their most recent post on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson announced their intention to do the same thing again, after which no doubt we will have all gone full circle. Their obsessive attention to one specific subject is not constructive and a draining time and resources which can be better applied elsewhere.

Pinging other involved editors @

I can't guess the motive, but the editing is obviously unconstructive, and there does not seem any way of reasoning with him. This is the only recourse short of a block. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• That is a particularly vexing and unconstructive approach to editing, I think a TBAN is amply justified. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm past thinking a TBAN would necessarily stop the user's character assassination campaign against Smalljim, which is now officially past ridiculous. I've blocked indefinitely. Read all about it on User talk:Orthodox2014. It's an ordinary block, not arbitration enforcement. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

• Talk:Glyphosate § RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study.

The debate appears to have run down and some of the more vociferous are now topic-banned, it's enormous and slow to load, I think we could probably do with closing it now. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sure that she believed she was correct, but she actually erred here.

Bratland had made four reverts in 24 hours: three on one word, and one on another. Both parties had crossed the bright line.

SpaceCowboy420 raised this in an unblock request here and later on KrakatoaKatie's talk page here. No comment, except to say "See you in court." So, here we are.

Admin Krakatoa Katie has indicated that she will respond here. I'd like to hear what she has to say. Again, I don't think she has done anything wrong beyond being unaware of the exact wikilaw, and she acted in good faith, but there are wider implications here, and I believe that this is an appropriate forum to discuss them.

1. If an admin makes an error and polite discussion ensues over the problems this has caused, is a "No comment" response appropriate? This forces the editor to either give up in frustration, or "take it to court", which can be a daunting process for some, especially new editors.
2. If the editor is blocked, the difficulty level is higher. There is a (possibly indefinite) delay before the wronged editor can take it further, and if the admin refuses to acknowledge or engage in polite discussion on the blocked editor's talk page, then that creates more frustration with Wikipedia and its processes.

Can we do anything to help both admins and editors work through such issues in a transparent and non-judgemental fashion? --Pete (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have blocked both editors and fully protected the page, though much good it would have done. One gets upset because another wasn't blocked, another gets upset because another was. They throw accusations of sockpuppetry around but won't take it to SPI. They're still edit warring over the word 'winningest' on Harley-Davidson XR-750, they're still sniping at each other over multiple articles about motorcycles, and they're dragging it out from my talk page to Swarm's (two separate sections) to SQL's to others, I'm sure. It's becoming a problem with each of these editors disrupting all over the encyclopedia. Topic bans may be in order, but someone else needs to do it. I have no opinion on the article content and I'm not going to take any further administrative action here. Katie^talk 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Katie, I'm not concerned with your actions as an admin. I believe you acted in good faith in that incident. I'm interested in your inability to respond in polite discussion when the error was pointed out. --Pete (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)Unblock- both editors crossed the 3RR line, so they either should both be blocked, or neither should be. As Pete says, one revert by one of the parties was disregarded for erroneous reasons. This could unfortunately give the impression of playing favourites. Reyk _YO! 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• In such situations like this? the article should be protected. If blocks are going to be handed out? it shouldn't be to just one participant. Certaintly not 60hr blocks, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The block was 24 hours, not 60 hours.[21].—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Pardon me. I was speaking of Administrator Swarm's 60hr-block of Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
      • They are different circumstances. See the AN3 closing in Skyring (aka Pete)'s case. Suggest continuing in a different thread, if necessary.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Okie Doke, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Lousy block, and attempts to evade valid criticism after the lousy block don't impress me. KrakatoaKatie should be sent back to admin school, if we had such a thing. Meantime I don't think she should exercise admin tools unless she is able to grasp the magnitude of her error. I don't see such understanding in her statement above. I would welcome further reflection on her actions followed by a better statement. Otherwise my respect for her judgement skills will be permanently tarnished. Realistically we do not desysop for one stupid mistake followed by avoidance. In a way that's a shame sometimes. --John (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to avoid criticism. I'm open to criticism anywhere and I try to respond as politely as I can. I think what happened on my talk page was the editors in question started talking amongst themselves and I wanted that to play out, without realizing I let it go on too long without my own input. Sorry about that to all involved. As I said above, I should have blocked both editors and protected the page. No excuse for not doing that. We've got a problem now, though, with the disruption spilling out in multiple places, and that needs to be discussed somewhere. Katie^talk 19:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@John: I also don't think Katie was attempting to avoid criticism. See my comments below (or diff here)—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair points, KrakatoaKatie, and I apologise if my comment was unduly harsh. I think when I looked at it the edit I found troubling was this one. It is always better to deal promptly and openly with such requests, rather than refer them to a central venue like this one. But I accept you made an honest error and have acknowledged its seriousness. Thanks for that. I also agree there is a wider problem. --John (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• These discussions would take far less time if Pete/Skyring would simply tell the truth. I wish I could make this brief but the facts don't allow it; we have to wast valuable time with point-by-point refutations of Skying's ludicrous howlers.

  Skyring habitually posts statements which are blatantly untrue, easily disproved by the page histories, or easily Googled reliable sources, and when you point out that he's making erroneous statements, he doubles down, and fills talk pages with long rants repeating the same unsupported claims. Fundamentally, Skyring never

  meat puppets who edit in a coordinated, tendentious way, they have admitted tracking my contribution list to find targets, and that is Wikihounding and meat puppetry. But they'll never get blocked for it unless a volunteer spends a great deal of their time researching it, and that's a thankless task. Look at the admins who are now facing blowback for trying to mitigate some of the damage caused by Skyring, Spacecowboy420, 72bikers and Zachlita. --Dennis Bratland (talk
  ) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: KrakatoaKatie erred in their interpretation of 3RR, but there's no denying the blocked editor was edit warring. Being that the editor who made the report to AN3 was also warring, alternatives such as full protection would have been better options. I don't think she's been intentionally ignoring the requests. The block was 24 hours, and the unblock request was clearly against
  WP:DROPTHESTICK.—Bagumba (talk
  ) 20:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking of dropping the stick, Bagumba… I've made it quite clear that this discussion isn't about any of that. I'm not criticising Krakatoa Katie for her admin actions. I believe she acted in good faith. It's the consequent question about admins withdrawing themselves from polite discussion, even when they have made an honest error. If you want to bring up other matters, perhaps another forum? Or well, take your own advice and drop the stick? Please. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You are more than welcome to present the date of my last edit related to winningest in comparison it to yours. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • "Gaslighting" is the specific term for the type of harassment Skyring is doing to you and the rest of us here.Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Was anyone checking out what Skyring was posting at the exact time he was here
  WP:WABBITSEASON, bud. I just can't do this with you any more". And does he finally stop debating winningest? Of course not, he goes on hectoring me: "Just out of curiosity..."!!! This is gaslighting, it's provoking more pointless, lame discussion then attacking others for beating the same dead horse. Swarm specifically told Skyring it was these kinds of two-faced broken promises that bought him a 60 hour block. Back on January 14, Drmies warned Skyring: "Dennis Bratland may be wrong in all kinds of ways, I don't know, but hounding is still a policy violation. I really, really, hope that you two can leave each other alone." And, of course, Skyring made another false promise
  "Thanks for the advice. I'll do more watching and less helping."
• The other boomerang Skyring has coming his way?
  Forum shopping. He's said he's not here to get any one de-sysoped, and not here to criticize any admins. Why the hell is he here now? Same old same old: to get Dennis Bratland. He wanted to get me blocked, twice, at AN/I, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. He asked to get me blocked twice at 3RR/N, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. He took it to 3 (or was it 4?) different admin's talk pages, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. So now? Here he is, at AN, posting false assertions and disingenuous canards hiding his real purpose: trying again, in yet another forum, to get Dennis Bratland blocked. If he doesn't get the block he's after today, is he going to be allowed to keep coming at me in yet more forums until he gets the revenge he seeks? --Dennis Bratland (talk
  ) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pete, Katie and all concerned. The block was short, I was curious if it was a result of an error, or just me deserving a block. I was also curious as to why other parties were lucky enough to avoid a block. Those questions have been answered. I stand by my comments that Dennis was in violation of 3RR and should have been blocked, but for a stale violation that wouldn't seem to help much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to pile on here as this subject matter has nothing to do with me. But really do not appreciate my name once again brought up about sock and meat thing. Dennis you openly stated that the IP trail doesn't support it. So there is no evidence to support it yet you continuously make these false unsupported accusations. Then repeatedly go on too attack other editors of making false or unsupported claims. Not sure if you are aware that is a bit of a contradiction as well this claim. they have admitted tracking my contribution list to find targets I have never done this or made that statement and I could be wrong but not aware of others making that statement either. Or am I aware of some conspiracy out to get you as you have repeatedly stated verging on sounding like paranoia. But you have openly admitted this. When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) And that was proven by him posting on my talk page just moments after another editor he deems disruptive that he follows around. Even when asked politely to stay off my talk page with harassing messages. Dennis you are aware the admin has stated she made a mistake in not blocking you. Because I see no remorse no apology no humility nothing just more attacks more incivility. And you have gone on to the very same misconduct of the 3rr rule. Having not been reprimanded on your misconduct has just seem to emboldened you. And maybe you feel like the rules don't imply to you. Because it has made you a bear to deal with when a editor does not share your views. None of this gives me any pleasure to say. And as I live a very active life I have limited time to come here and edit. But instead editing I find myself either defending myself or in some drawn out debate over what should just really be a trivial matter. 72bikers (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This statement by Dennis sums up how much respect he has for Wikipedia and the attitude in which he interacts with others: " instead tell him to "f**** off" as often as necessary" while it might not be a personal insult as per certain guidelines, it shows a total lack of respect for his fellow editor and a very aggressive, confrontational and provocative attitude. How this attitude can be seen as compatible with a group project like Wikipedia is beyond me. I see no reason why Dennis should be allowed to continue editing, especially when he sees nothing wrong with acting like this towards fellow editors. Indef block please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

IP evidence is not definitive proof of socking or not socking. The above comments are yet more evidence that these guys follow each other around, yapping at each other's heels "me too! me too!" It doesn't matter if they are intentionally acting as meat puppets, or if it is entirely accidental that they ignore Wikihounding policy, click on my contributions list, and then each, individually, without coordination, choose to hound me and all agree to oppose me. The point of

WP:DUCK, which Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers have proven once again, is that the behavior is the problem, regardless of what caused the behavior. The behavior is Wikihounding and meat puppetry. I've posted many diffs showing they track me, and they have admitted the click on conbribs for that purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk

) 16:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is the case here, but some admins (being naturally human) are inclined to take shortcuts, and "No Comment" is certainly an easy option to take, especially if one feels that errors are things made by others. --Pete (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Collapse digression"? You mean the part about the

WP:BOOMERANG that you've earned? I don't think so, bud. I can see why you'd want to suppress any thought of that, but you're the guy who jumped from one venue to another to another bleating "Dennis Bratland! Dennis Bratland!" It is a fact that you are gaslighting, hounding, and that you are pushing a vendetta, and forum shopping to get your way. Don't try to censor it. --Dennis Bratland (talk

) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing of comments: "Collapse digression" refers to Pete's edit summary when they attempted to collapse a large set of comments here at 15:55, 27 January (UTC), which included remarks concerning them. While

WP:TPG allows an editor to be bold when they believe a discussion has gone off-topic, the guideline clearly states: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." It's clearly not productive to edit war on what is "off topic", as they did again in another attempt to collapse the same comments at 16:41, 27 January. Please leave it to an uninvolved editor at this point. Personally, I think WP:BOOMERANG is fair to discuss. The accused, Katie, opined that "Topic bans may be in order", while John stated "I also agree there is a wider problem".—Bagumba (talk

) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Stray observation: Skyring grumbled but moved along when apparently male admins SQL, Drmies, and Swarm told him to drop the stick. But when an apparently female admin, KrakatoaKatie, ignored him, it seemed to inflame his sense of male entitlement, and precipitate this bizarre attempt at public shaming. Far fetched? I don't know. Is Skyring gaslighting? Is he as obsessed with me as Captain Ahab? Is he being so two-faced that it almost seems like a put on, like performance art? Maybe. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• And now the
  WP:OWN a topic and discourage participation and input. Who was it who said "Discussion – polite discussion, as opposed to ranting at others – is far more productive"? Uh, Skyring said it.

  So, If I should be "indef blocked" for two reverts today, shouldn't Skyring be indefed for his 3 reverts today? The day before today the guy who said "edit warring is wrong!" reverted twice.

  The common denominator behind all this drama is Skyring. He's obsessed chasing his white whale and has lost all perspective. He's had blocks and interaction bans before for exactly the same harassment. At the minimum, Skyring needs an interaction ban to stay the hell away from me. And if you really want the disruption to end, tell 72bikers, Zachlita, and Spacecowboy420 to leave me the hell alone too. --Dennis Bratland (talk

  ) 21:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am a female editor and a female human. I have been personally attacked by editor Shootingstar88 accusing me of not being a female?? The gender biased personal attack on me is here. [25]. I retaliated to some degree on my talk page, but would never attack another editor in this way. I did believe that Wikipedia is trying to encourage female editors to participate, but this type of attack doesn't help that cause!!Charlotte135 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to prove my gender to any editor too. How can I do this please?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out why it would matter to Shootingstar88 whether you were male or female, but after reading the diff you provided, I see that you have somewhat misrepresented what they said. The nub of their claim was not that you weren't female per se, but that you are a men's rights activist masquerading as a female in order to push a men's rights POV on articles about women, and not get negative feedback for it. That's really quite different from what you reported here. Shootingstar88 is essentially claiming that you are not editing from a

WP:OTRS team can correct me on that if I'm wrong) doesn't really solve the perceived problem of bias and lack of neutrality. I would say you need to address that question, and not the other - and Shootingstar88 actually has some good advice for your there:

When I came here, I had trouble with the other editors too. But I discussed the issues and got over it, because in the end if you cite good studies that reflect the majority consensus in scientific literature then no one can revert your edits. Good research means you have to read a lot of scholarly reviews or replicated primary studies from pubmed or sciencedirect.

I think you should consider that. BMK (talk

) 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am specifically talking about me being accused falsely of not being a female and extreme gender bias!! Wikipedia talk of how many men are editors compared with women and I am accused of not being female. This is extreme sexism. So, who is the

WP:OTRS team? I am desperate now to prove my gender!! Why the hell should i have to though is the point. And here you are Beyond My Ken dismissing this personal attack. What type of sexist culture exists here??? Charlotte135 (talk

) 04:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify Shootingstar88 of this thread so that they may participate in the discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the underlying dispute at all, but that remark is definitely inappropriate on Shootingstar88's part. For the record, Wikipedia:Harassment is a policy (so are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy, but we'll leave those aside for the moment...). You don't need to prove anything about your identity. Nor could you, because gender identity is self-determined; we have to take your word for it by the very definition. — Earwig ^talk 04:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So, this was stated by Shootingstar88 four days ago and you followed with attacks against them and

boomerang. Your heat-to-light ratio isn't looking good so far.
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

05:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone wanting to know why I, Shootingstar88 or others feel the way we do about Charlotte135 can see this topic ban discussion. They can also see this and this section at Shootingstar88's talk page. And, yes, Charlotte135 commonly misrepresents people's comments, views and behavior. And even if one were to prove that Charlotte135 is female/a woman, it doesn't negate the disruptive editing and POV-pushing that Charlotte135 engages in when it comes to gender topics. Furthermore, as noted by me,

The reason I posted here is that I am a woman!!! And I am more than willing to prove it. I thought Wikipedia encourages women to join Wikipedia. Flyer22reborn you keep bringing up my editing at the domestic violence article because I dared, as a scientist to stumble across the article and saw extreme bias of you and a few editors However I've moved forward. How would you like your very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry between you and your brother in your parent's place every time you try to edit an article??? I just want the accusations that I am not a woman to stop! Full stop. I have periods each month, I have breasts and a vagina, but still I get accused of being part of some mensrights group and that I am a man. I want it to stop. That's it. Nothing more. No tactics. No bullshit, just stop the gender bias.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of shootringstar88 and flyerreborn accusing me of not being a woman. [26] I'm just sick of it and want it to stop. I am not a man and I am not a bloody mensrightsactivist!! Show some respect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is what another uninvolved editor who noticed the bullying going on, wrote to Shootingstar88. Shootingstar88. I have never met Charlotte135 but I have no reason to believe that she is a man masquerading as a woman. I am in favour of having more women contribute to Wikipedia. Does that make me a woman masquerading as a man? Biscuittin (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I very much appreciated them standing up for me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there are two things to look at here:

The first of them of them is the pov-pushing Charlotte 135 has been accused of, and Charlotte 135 has accused others of, to look if it is really POV-pushing or not.(on both sides, ofc).

The second of them are personal attacks on Charlotte 135 regarding gender... and the follow up incivilites by all involved editors.

I'll split it up in two sections.--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135, you asked, "How would [I] like [my] very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry between [me] and[ my] brother in [my] parent's place every time [I] try to edit an article???" I'd respond the way I've already responded to you on the matter;

No, I was just sick of you and others trying to drag me back into the domestic violence article. I've walked. But you and Shootingstar won't let me go. Here you and Shootingstar actually posted a separate section on domestic violence on another article's talk page. Then you Flyer22 went ahead and deleted it from the record! Here is the entire conversation [27]

Why do you and shootingstar keep dragging up the bloody domestic violence article. It is an extremely biased article which is filled with POV, but I don't care. I've walked and got on with editing. Nonetheless I'm a big girl and promise not to bring your sockpuppetry and history of blocks up again, albeit in reaction to your constant attempts to continue beating a dead horse. Just stop the accusations over my gender and your mensrights crud. Please!Charlotte135 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible POV-pushing

Personal attacks and incivility

This is clearly inappropiate. Don't speculate on any editors gender. Accusing someone of representing a wrong gender based on their views is unacceptable. User:Shootingstar88 please tell us why you did that. And please promise not to do it again. An apology would be good as well.

This is already a very angry post...

and no matter how someone attacks you personally, you must not tell anyone to grow up, User:Charlotte135. Editors at Wikipedia are asked to respond to personal attacks with civility. Not with other personal attacks, which just puts oil into the fire and makes the situation difficult to resolve(and can lead to sanctions against you as well!).--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Müdigkeit, that sounds fair. I'm a big girl and accept that my reaction to these comments was not ideal. I have read the policy you pointed out too. I apologise for my reaction.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

'Totally agree Müdigkeit, speculation on who someone is, which is what shootingstar88 did (not just gender, but in particular who they are ) is edging very close to outing, I'd request that edit ( the first one you mention) be revdel'd and ShootingStar88 needs to back off Charlotte135 unless proof of his accusation (through the appropriate channels on Wikipedia) can be offered. KoshVorlon 11:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the thing is, Charlotte clearly *is* an MRA (directly or indirectly) from perusing their editing history. While it is statistically unlikely such a person is female, there are highly active male feminists, so I wouldnt concentrate on their gender. Just focus on their POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that an attempt at a joke at my expense Only in death? And what exactly is "an MRA" by the way? And what is a female MRA? I actually do identify as a feminist, by the way, as did my mother, but what the hell has that got to do with anything either?? What business is it of yours?? How is this gender bias, gender attacks and extreme incivility tolerated by administrators?Charlotte135 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think User:Only in death is making a joke. “MRA” is an abbreviation for "Mens’ Rights Activist," a movement with which you would appear to hold some sympathy. The overwhelming majority of Mens’ Rights Activists are men, but of course women might support that movement just as many men support feminism. There's no bias in that observation, no attack, and no incivility that I can see. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But MarkBernstein I am a female feminist! I have a vagina, breasts, bleed once per month, have 2 biological children, one step child, a dog and a cat, and believe in rights for men, women, children and animals. I'm a scientist and believe in equality. None of my edits have evidenced POV. Only that some people like you and Flyer22, Shootingstar and others seem to know a whole lot more than me about thinks like the MRB! So...? Not all feminists are man haters Mark! But some men are misogynists and treat women with disrespect!Charlotte135 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, who can I contact in Wikipedia paid management team please, to discuss these attacks and bias against new female editors and provide some personal details to verify all of the factual, personal information being demanded of me, including my feminist beliefs? I thought Wikipedia were encouraging and welcoming of new female editors?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And MarkBernstein could you provide some diffs here to illustrate the exact edits to actual articles which show why you believe I am a male rights activist and not a fair minded adult woman in her 50's? That would be appreciated.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that all these editors who know so much about these types of groups are perhaps not neutral? Just an observation. For example if one were to carefully look at the entire editing history of shootinstar88, they seem to have only edited gender topics and hold extremely strong, even passionate personal points of view in these gender articles, very similar to the ones you and flyer22 also talk of so confidently and personally MarkBernstein. Is shootinstar88 showing a POV I'm wondering? Could some experienced editors (who importantly, are not as familiar with male and female rights movements) look at Shootingstars edit history and determine if there is a POV in their actual edits to actual articles as Beeblebrox pointed out we should only focus on. Would that explain the attacks on any neutral, good faith editors, (male or female) who try (tried, in my case) to show what the reliable sources actually say?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec)

Charlotte135, you have already had editors support you in your assertion that it was improper to question your gender. You don't have to list all of your womanly qualities with exclamation marks.

WP:NOR

. Focus on the work, not on other people's opinion of you.

Administrators can only take action against misconduct, not what other editors think and believe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Understood. Just wanted to ensure all editors now clearly understand the reality that I am a woman and I am a feminist and back off! It is very clear that these editors are incredibly passionate about these mens and womens rights groups. However I'm not, so, yes please back off and show some respect Flyer22reborn and co. Now, as for the significant personal attack on me by shootinstar88, I am waiting for administrator action against Shootingstar88's misconduct for their blatant and personal accusation that I am not a woman?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)