Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CoolKoon (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 3 May 2011 (→User:Bizovne reloaded: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:CodyJoeBibby continued

    Per Atama, there is no admin action to be taken at this time.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    That's a shame. I had been hoping for some sort of credible response to the concerns that I expressed here. SuperMarioMan 19:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, your specific concerns have been noted, but few other admins have had time to respond now. Perhaps meanwhile you could help, using your experience in similar matters, to check this week's edits to "Osama Bin Laden" (or some other controversial article) which is taxing the resources of the active admins. Thanks. -Wikid77 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Few other admins have had time to respond" - was that your reason for archiving it? Odd, seeing as this page is archived by bot. pablo 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I only archived the upper portion, beginning with concerns about WP:NPA and WP:POINT, which had been closed by another admin & hatted, and the concerns had drifted into WP:COATRACK, which is still being discussed below. I did not archive the top to stop all discussion, just to focus on recent concerns. I apologize if that has upset you. -Wikid77 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that isn't true. You archived an open discussion as well as the part which had been closed. It's unsatisfactory to close a discussion one has been involved in, especially when it is still open. Can you see why? --John (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't 'upset' me at all. I just said that it was odd. And hinted that it was pointless. pablo 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys don't need to worry. I will be busy working on a whole new Wikipedia page, which may take me quite a while. It's nothing to do with MoMK, so a topic ban won't hurt me. I won't have the time or energy to engage with this interminable futile thread concerning me here at AN/I. It should be pretty obvious by now that no sanctions are going to be applied to me, but by all means continue bloviating. Ciao! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Same disruptive behavior in different articles

    Since this user's self-declared moratorium on editing the Meredith Kercher article, he has moved on to Italy and Perugia, attempting to create a "human rights" section in the former, and a blurb about press freedom in the latter. Both are about as clear a case of WP:COATRACK as one can find. We have an editor here with a singular obsession on the Kercher case; how long will we play whack-a-mole here? Tarc (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check the talk sections of the relevant articles for discussion about content, thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I could see a lot of articles about various countries had a short section on human rights issues. If they have such a section, the article on Italy can have such a section. If people don't like the alleged 'coatracking' material, i will substitute it with material about press freedom issues in Italy sourced from Wikipedia itself. I intend to resubmit the rewritten human rights section tomorrow. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous. "a lot of articles about various countries".. yes, China, Libya, Burma etc i.e. countries were there is some notability/history of human rights abuses. AFAIK, no western European country articles have "human rights" sections, and for good reason. Blatant attempt to pursue the Amanda Knox obsession outside of the Meredith Kercher article. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The UK has an entire entry thousands of words long devoted to the subject of human rights in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

    LOL. you might want to try the old search button occasionally. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pay attention to what was written. United Kingdom does not have a human rights section. You want Italy to have a human rights section in order to denigrate human rights observance in Italy to advance your POV supporting Amanda Knox. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha ha! Italy, unlike the UK, France, Germany and Spain, does not have a separate entry on human rights. I think I'll be writing one. That might take a while though, with the considerable number of abuses in Italy. Sorry everyone, my next update to Wikipedia will not be tomorrow, as promised! I have a big job to do! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck with that endeavour. However, bear in mind that, to ensure a neutral tone, a prospective "Human rights in Italy" article would have to be more than a mere "List of human rights abuses in Italy". SuperMarioMan 21:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did i suggest that would be the title? Why don't you find something, anything, to do with your life other than talking to me? Maybe you could help out on the Osama bin Ladin article as Wikid suggested? That might genuinely help out Wikipedia. Why not just let me write the article and you can tear it to pieces when it's finished. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "That might take a while though, with the considerable number of abuses in Italy." I think that post will used in any discussion on whether anything you "write" on that subject is in good faith and is NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't help it if Italy accounts for the largest number of human rights abuse cases in Europe. I object to your putting the word 'write' in quotes. That is a personal attack, please see WP:NPA for guidance and desist from making such attacks, thank you. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure the government of Belarus etc will be delighted with your article. Although, I'm not so sure many editors will have the same confidence in your "research" as they will. DeCausa (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I require you to cease your personal attacks with immediate effect, thank you. Please see WP:NPA for guidance. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourced from the approved sources used by other Wikipedia articles, then, if you insist on making a point of pure pedantry. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't pedantry but a very important distinction, which I am glad you are beginning to understand. The other thing you have to get your head around is that you need consensus at article talk to add this material, however well referenced it is. Good luck. --John (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I take your statement of 'good luck' as an encouragement or as a threat that you will continue to stalk me and wholesale revert any edits I make, in violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING? I guess we'll find out soon enough, won't we? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you continue to make WP:COATRACK/WP:UNDUE edits about a topic that's already got you in hot water, your edits will be reverted and other actions may be occur. I suggest you broaden your scope of topic interests if you want to make constructive contributions here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But I'm not in hot water. No sanctions have been applied despite the inordinate length of this thread. I'm as free as the day I was born to edit Wikipedia, and I intend to resume doing so tomorrow. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're only not in "hot water" because you pledged to back off for awhile (a pledge that you never really carried out, since you went about adding MoMK material to other articles, where you were rebuffed by numerous editors, including editors who were not previously involved with any MoMK disputes). That should tell you something. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So as I said, I'm not in hot water, to be precise. No need to bloviate. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think this is "inordinate length" for an ANI discussion, you might want to look through the archives. We also like to warn people about their behavior before we have to block them, so you should take heed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be blocked. I intend to write a whole new Wikipedia article. I'll be too busy doing that to continue responding to the petty disputes some people have with me. And a topic ban won't hurt me because my new article won't be related to the MoMK article even broadly construed. Ciao! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that as a manifesto (or is threat the right word?) to bring the "Free Amanda" campaign to a wide variety of articles. Transparent. I think you'll find yourself disappointed by the reaction of the knowledgeable editors who have contributed to those articles over a long period. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else it suggests a worrying campaign of "issues" - Wikipedia is not the place for such coat-racking. We do not lead the field, we record the sum of human history. Many editors in this topic area do not seem to comprehend this. --Errant (chat!) 09:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And why is this sort of blatant soap-boxing even being tolerated? I sincerely hope it's not because of which individuals support it. DeCausa (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a couple of users are encouraged by J. Wales' recent interest in this case and now feel they have license to spray this kind of POV-spam anywhere that has even a tangential connection to the case. pablo 10:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Coatrack is exactly the right word. We've already seen Cody do just that on the Italy and Perugia, using a single incident to make broad declarations, then edit-war to keep them in place. The best thing that can come from all of this is a few more uninvolved admins to monitor the MoMK page and Cody's edits. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Wikid77 has put forward such a major proposal, the aim of which is stated to be "productive editing" but the result of which more often than not amounts to poorly-disguised POV-pushing and coat-racking of material even only loosely-related to the main subject into a host of other, tenuously-connected articles. For an example of this, check the earliest revisions of Delayed grief and its AfD discussion - it will probably cast a fresh light on why False confession, Falsified evidence and Police brutality are just some of the many other articles linked to above. I for one am not convinced in the slightest that such articles are targeted "because they are not advocating for Knox, they are addressing any of 20 major topics which concern millions of people." SuperMarioMan 14:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the policy on WP:COATRACK, and it doesn't really seem to apply to the edits i made. Moreover, even if coatracking has occurred, the guidelines say that the non-coatrack material should be preserved. Wholesale reversion of edits is not recommended. You and SMM are just hiding behind rules which don't even justify your actions if you bothered to read them. Why don't both of you just get a life and move on. I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing certain people's usernames again and again. Go and edit something. Write an article. Just stop constantly posting here on this ridiculous thread! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is beginning to look more like a case of Wiki-hounding than a thread which is honestly looking into how to ensure editors edit more constructively. If the editors at the other articles don't think the contributions are worthy, they will revert, and then Cody will discuss the changes on the talk page. As this already seems to be happening, I suggest that this topic be closed, as it is not particularly contructive.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fat lady has sung on this thread, but i guess the hearing impaired didn't hear her. No matter. Bring the hat. We need closure. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite correct, Cody, there's a great deal of WP:IDHT from you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant sniping. The hat please. 86.163.195.143 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, and which logged-out and/or blocked editor is this, I wonder? This probably can be closed at any time, but it certainly has provided a rich amount of material for when this invariably crops up again. One SPA declares an intent to disrupt other articles, goaded by supporters. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another, more accurate way to look at this would be a small group of editors hounds one editor for slightly problematic edits as part of an ongoing mission to suppress views with which they disagree. I'm not saying Cody hasn't made his mistakes, in fact I've explicitly said the opposite. I'm also not saying anyone critical of Cody is part of an evil cabal (that would put me in such cabal). But this has long since passed the point of productive and constructive conversation and has moved into farsical hounding.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    86.163.195.143 is me. Not sure what happened there. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • LedRush, it would seem to be more than just a "small group of editors" who are critical of the edits made - I fail to see many administrators or other uninvolved users leaping to defend such edits. Cody, as for your suggestion that I go and "write an article", I have done, already, many times - I have pretty much written a Featured Article single-handed. On the other hand, for you suggest that there has been not a single violation of WP:COATRACK, and then order others to "get a life" when legitimate concerns are put to you, certainly does not bode well for the future, nor does it reflect well on the promise that you made to become more acquainted with policies and guidelines. Incidentally, about "wholesale reversion" to Italy, the question is whether Italy requires any form of "Human rights" section at all as a principle, a problem quite separate from the fact that about half of the edit went into WP:UNDUE detail about one incident that occurred in Perugia. SuperMarioMan 17:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SuperMario, of course it's more than a ""small group of editors" who are critical of the edits [Cody] made". Hence the reason I didn't say that. I said a small group are hounding him. A larger group are critical of Cody's edits, and I include myself in that second, larger group.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you've written articles, SuperMarioMan. They may be earthshatteringly tedious and trivial by my (purely subjective) estimation, but they are certainly articles. No doubt about that. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend anyone who has a problem with the material that CodyJoeBibby has introduced in any article, to try dispute resolution. As Pablo said, nobody has actually asked for administrator action so this discussion doesn't belong at ANI. -- Atama頭 20:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Damiens.rf has, over the last few hours, nominated more that 100 articles converning Playboy models (mostly Playmates) for deletion; the count is steadily growing. The nominations really can't be bundled together, and typically require examination of each individual's movie/TV credits. There's no way that interested editors can handle this volume of nominations, which often prove controversial. This runs afoul of the fait accompli principle set out by Arbcom in the TV episodes and characters cases; while not formally adopted as policy or guideline, I think there can be little doubt that the principle enjoys community support -- without it, consensus-building becomes a war of attrition. Make no mistake, I believe Damiens is right on principle on the notability issues involved, and disagree with him only as to exactly where to draw the lines involved. I don't doubt his good faith; while not all the AFDs on Playmates he made in the recent past were successful, I think they demonstrated significant support for the arguments he's advanced. But this is too much for the process to handle in one batch, far too much. It's inherently disruptive, despite the nominator's good faith, and it's likely to turn into a contentious mess that prevents the sort of article-by-article decision making that ought to be going on. Similar large bundles of Playmate nominations in the past have led to cookie-cutter voting and unpleasantness, and didn't contribute enough to building an encyclopedia to justify the effort and bad feelings involved. Full disclosure: I've been working in the same direction as Damiens for some time now, working gradually and using "soft" redirects to convert the large number of poorly sourced Playmate stubs into better-organized, more notability and BLP-compliant components of group articles. That process has been minimally controversial so fsr, and I believe it offers a better compromise that can enjoy a broader consensus. But even if I agreed entirely with the nominator, this is too much to handle in a single wave of AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Damiens has agreed to stop, so I think this is set for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is everything set? Damiens.rf has a history of doing these large scale mass nominations for both images and articles. He's been brought here more than once for this very issue. He'll likely be brought here again. AniMate 04:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Geeze, and I thought I did too much when I did about 10 at once. BelloWello (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't we tar and feather another editor who went on a AfD spree of articles that may or may not have had appropriate justifications? Just wondering if we intend to trot out the WikiMob on this case as well as 100 is significantly more than the ~20 articles that were nominated in the other case (with the other case also having the multiple distinct "events" of nomination frenzies). Disclosure: I've interactied with Damiens before on a discussion about a picture's Fair Usage Rationale. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an important difference here -- Damiens did a much smaller batch of Playmate nominations a short time ago, and these nominations are reasonably consistent with the results there. The previous spree you're referring to, by a different editor, was completely off the wall, and completely indiscriminate -- and used an automated tool in evasion of his blacklisting from the use of that tool. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Wuhwuzdat had it coming. HalfShadow 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    background - Some years back, folks at WP:PORN decided to include "is a playboy playmate" as one of the final evidences of notability in WP:PORNBIO. What followed was that there were articles created for every girl that has ever striped for playboy. When this piece of WP:PORNBIO was brought to an wider audience via an RFC, the community decided that being a playboy playmate is not, by itself, evidence of notability, and playmates should have articles only when otherwise notable.

    These deletions were expected. I have not run across all of the playmates. And I have not nominated all I have ran across. Of course, some of them may be proven otherwise notable, but that's why we have a discussion process.

    Most of the articles will surely end up being deleted or redirected to a list. After that, the playmate's enthusiast's efforts may concentrate on improving the articles on really notable playmates, as today, many of these are stubs just because there's simply not enough volunteers to keep up with an playmate sub-encyclopedia. --Damiens.rf 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The concern, I think, is that those who are interested in this topic area have to go through a large number of AFDs at once, each debate generating its own discussion and finding its own consensus. If I were intent on Keeping each of the articles you nominated, checking and following such a large number of debates would be a full-time job for the coming week. I'm sure as hell not going to edit much else, either. Here, the scale of the nominations detracts from the (probably valid) point that the subjects just aren't notable.
    If you were intent on keeping each of the articles I nominated you'd be wrong to begin with. Each case should be judged on its own merits, and an intention of blindingly keeping all playmates was the original problem we started from. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would have been far better to nominate a dozen or so to establish your test cases, and then bundle 5 or so at a time thereafter. If, as you say, these articles are sure to be deleted, the second and third sets of articles would have precedent to follow, and the debates would be much simpler. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He did do a run of test cases. They're in the deletion log for April 4. [1] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Damians. Restrict the nominations to a level that the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography can handle. For example, 7 AfDs per week. Just make all your research in one go, write the AfDs, and save the list of AfDs in a text file. You can open it every week and mechanically nominate the first 7 items via copy/paste. You can combine this with Ultraexactzz's advice above. I know, this is nowhere near as rewarding as doing all of them in one go :-) . --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    7 Afds in a week would be a good rate; you don't want Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography to be slammed to hard, after all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pacing AFD nominations is especially important when nominating biographies whose potential sources are likely to predate the Internet era. It's pretty easy to determine notability -- or the lack thereof -- for someone active in 2002 or even in 1995. But some of these nominations are from the 1970s, and may require additional legwork (especially due to newspaper paywall policies). Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seven articles per week is ridiculous low. Why should I restrict the pace of deletion nominations where there were no restriction of the pace of creation for such articles?

    It has been a long time since the rfc that established that it was a mistake to consider all playmates notable, and I have seen not organized effort from wp:pornbio to clean up the mess.

    There's no reason to worry. AFDs that do not have enough participation get relisted. And if a stub of the form "Rose Rosewood was the Jan 1961 Playmate. She was clicked by Mr. Photographer" get deleted, and we later find out that Ms. Rosewood was notable, it can easily recreated. As easily as it was first created. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) WP:KITTENS works both ways. And there are significantly fewer people able to handle AfD nominations than there are people willing to create articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should restrict the pace of deletion nominations out of respect for the people who will be trying to determine consensus on each article. Seven per week is ridiculously low, but there is no reason at all why you can't limit to say, five per day. And I would say to nominate no further articles until the current backlog clears. Resolute 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will nominate no further Playmate-articles until the current backlog clears. --Damiens.rf 15:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Resolute 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the nominator should be commended for instigating these long-overdue AfD discususions. Particularly so for going through the AfD process honestly, rather than sneaking around a discussion by creating a redirect. A subject whose only claim to fame is to being a Playboy Playmate is not notable, as consensus has determined. It is wrong to redirect this article to a list of 12 other such non-notables, whose only claim to fame has been specifically determined to be non-notable. List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 for example links to not one artice, contrary to all guidelines, and the subject of the list is in itself non-notable. If the subject is notable, she will have a standalone article at which her Playmate centerfold can be mentioned. Including her on a list of a non-notable subject is simply wrong. Kudos to User:Damiens.rf for stepping up and doing the honest work that the fans have been covering up. Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • On a separate note, Dekkappai's nomination of said list he linked, AfD here, seems to be failing spectacularly. And my arguments would be the same as is stated in the AfD, essentially that Dekkappai is completely wrong about what lists are for, considering in most cases they are specifically for listing people or other information that are not notable enough to have their own article. SilverserenC 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems Damiens.rf is simply implementing previously established site-wide consensus, against a minority of vociferous WikiProject members. How many articles are we talking about here in total? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Except for the fact that Damiens.rf has not been previously banned from using automated tools, I honestly don't see much difference in his deletion nominations here and the ones for which Wuhwazdat was banned from starting AFDs. How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD? The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable. The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate as the past sprees against British models or fraternities, targeting a subject rather than considering each article topic on its own merits (for example, that sufficient sources exist here, or that the subject is notable for other things here or here). I agree with Carrite: there needs to be some restriction on using automated tools to AFD articles, even if it's just a cap on the noms per day or per hour, because that kind of bot-like editing is completely at odds with the kind of consideration that an AFD requires, Isn't the point of automated tools to make noncontroversial edits easier? The purpose is not to make one side of a deletion debate labor-free, while imposing the unreasonable burden of researching 100+ articles a day upon those who are interested in seeing if they can be saved. Particularly where the AFD nominator obviously hasn't bothered to do that work. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Q - "How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD?"
    A - It would be only possible if the articles were almost all just one paragraph long and equally boilerplatelly written. Oh, wait a second!
    The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable.
    Are you implying I used this rationale? I haven't.
    "The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate"
    No, they are not. Most of the articles are going to be deleted/redirected.

    My nominations were not undiscriminated. I reviewed every article and, when needed, searched for the model's page on imdb. Of course, in some of the nominations, it could turn out that the model is notable after all. But these will be the exceptional cases.

    You know, many of the articles say nothing more than "Ms. Nice Flower was <insert date> Playboy Playmate. She was shot by photographer Mr. PhotoMan". Since being a playmate is, by community consensus, a grant of notability, such articles are qualified for WP:CSD#A7. But I have sent them to AfD anyway. --Damiens.rf 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh really? Explain your review process for someone like Ms. Teen Oregon USA 1994 who has multiple acting credits? Garbage. Just like how you seem to interpret the consensus that playmates are not inherently notable to mean that reliable source coverage about their "playmatehood" are disqualified in determining notability, which is a perverted interpretation that defies WP:BASIC. The proper reading of that consensus is that playmates are not notable in and of themselves if they do not have independent coverage by reliable sources. If several newspapers cover some girl with some depth because she was named playmate or only cover her because she is a playmate, that's her notability! Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also clear from your mention of WP:CSD A7 that your understanding of deletion criteria is weak. CSD A7 is for articles that don't indicate why a person is important. It "is a lower standard than notability" and to use it on Playmates just because playmates are not inherently notable would have been improper and probably would have gotten you blocked if you had done 100 in a day. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no use arguing with deletionists. They don't care about concensus. They live to delete stuff... and vice versa: If they don't get their daily ration of deletions, they could shrivel and die. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be nasty, Bugs. Many of us care about consensus and take the time to clean up around here.—Kww(talk) 07:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor in question says he doesn't care about concensus, he's nominating for deletion anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Welll, A7 isn't about notability, so that part's just a common misapprehension. As for "Since being a playmate is, by community consensus, a grant of notability, such articles are qualified for WP:CSD#A7. But I have sent them to AfD anyway.", the only way that parses at all is if you assume he mean "...by community consensus, [not] a grant of notability,...". Either way, it doesn't excuse discussing people that work at identifying the material that needs to be removed from Wikipedia with such negative tones and implications.—Kww(talk) 07:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he meant to say "NOT", then he should have said "NOT". I'm not a mind-reader, I can only go by what he said, or appeared to me to say. As far as negativity... deletionists are pretty much useless. They take away instead of adding. They aren't interested in value to the readers. They are only interested in deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm strongly inclusionist myself, but I think that there are definitely some deletionists who do add some quality content to the project. The problem is when some of them get in their minds that all articles on certain topic are all inherently non-notable and do spray and pray style nominations. I mean, if they just took their time and picked the low-hanging fruit they'd have more success getting junk deleted with much less drama. (Though I accept that the nominator in this case was acting in good faith) Qrsdogg (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be clear here, Bugs: I don't think that I am "pretty much useless", nor do I consider my preference for removing material to be one that doesn't add "value to the readers". I take your statement as a personal insult, and think you should stop. A project where no one took out the trash would be just as useless as a project where no one added content.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serria_Tawan I see the only two people trying to delete it are copying and pasting the same exact argument time and again without even reading the article, considering its merits, or looking for sources. I clicked the Google news archive button at the top of the AFD, and found she had written a book which was reviewed in the news, and she interviewed for it. WP:BEFORE exist for a reason. You can't expect people to go through a hundred different AFD at once. And the mindless boilerplating "Delete them all, I don't need to bother looking for sources or even reading the article" should be stopped as well. Dream Focus 09:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, DreamFocus. Damien says above that he was 1) nominating on the basis of the article's current state, rather than its potential, and 2) doing no more than "review[ing] every article and, when needed, searched for the model's page on imdb". That's not compliance with WP:BEFORE, and you can't justify this by saying that most are delete-worthy, even if it's only a few that are notable. We don't expect every AFD to be correct, but it's simply not acceptable to post an AFD on the based on averages related to the subject matter rather than a careful consideration of that particular article topic.

        So we do we need a ban here from Damien.rf using automated tools to list articles at AFD, or is it enough that he's said he will stop? postdlf (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Close all of them. If people want to nominate just a few at a time, after doing things properly, such as taking a few seconds to do a Google news search first before each nomination, so be it. Dream Focus 16:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be fair to at least speedy close all the AFDs that just have the same copied and pasted boilerplate comments from the nom and the delete !voters, with no other substantive comments. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't go that far. After the RfC change, these Playmate articles do need to be reviewed, and speedy closing them would force someone to start all over again with AfDs. And if a speedy-closed article were re-nominated soon, someone would object with a "this was just speedy closed a few weeks ago". I would be more in favor of (1) speedy closing only the clearly notable nominations, and (2) a promise from Damiens not to make any more nominations until this backlog is fully cleared. --JaGatalk 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be rolled back as if the nominations had never occurred. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why nominate them at all? Why not just merge them all into some big "List of" articles? That lets the articles get broken out again if notability is established. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-Admin comment)I'm troubled by the very act of mass AfD nominating by anybody. I disagree with the inclusion of some content, but that doesn't entitle me to create headaches for the people who put it in & defend it with good reason (even if I disagree with them). That appears to be what's at play here. I'd also disagree Playmates aren't inherently notable. Any member of such a readily-identifiable group would seem to be, IMO. Moreover, deletion risks deleting useful information. (Yes, I am strongly inclusionist most of the time.) IMO, this kind of behaviour should be discouraged strongly. In this case, it's way over the top IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to move this to a policy discussion, because I think there are a few critical issues here.
    1) PORNBIO is widely seen as the lowest of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to notability. It probably needs a strong rewrite to bring it in line with general notability guidelines (most curiously how is a single limited-scope award "multiple significant reliable sources"?). It is my understanding that WP:GNG is the minimum standard and project page guidelines should not go lower than that.
    2) We need a process for mass deletion that allows for consistent results across an entire field without creating a fiat accompli by volume of nominations. The current situation is utter chaos because it's all on a case-by-case basis. I realize that every article needs to be examined on its own merits but I would rather see a standard created, and then applied. We should be arguing over the standard first, then how it applies to given articles, not judging each article by a different standard.
    3) Wikipedia has a serious problem with a lack of adherence to GNG, especially in areas of fandom. The end result is, in practice, that areas that have a wide fan-base willing to vocally defend them have voluminous coverage and very low standards for inclusion. Because articles are judged on a case-by-case basis whomever shows up carries the day most often. Without a method for mass deletions and soliciting wider community input the process is vulnerable to canvassing and meatpuppetry. HominidMachinae (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for a review of all the specific notability criteria. Local criteria are supposed to be specialized clues to help identifying when someone on a given field passes the general criteria. But since they are mostly written (and only reviewed) by local enthusiasts, it's usual for them to serve as a backdoor entrance to Wikipedia for otherwise non-notable subjects. --Damiens.rf 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Should automated tools ever be used to list articles at AFD?

    Apart from the conduct of any individual editor, it seems like the use of automated tools generally to post AFDs just causes ill will and can easily be abused (whether or not in good faith) by the rapid posting of bulk nominations. Per WP:BEFORE, we expect that those listing articles for deletion individually assess each article and its potential as a topic before listing it, and we expect tailored deletion rationales rather than boilerplate votes. Automating this process obviously runs counter to those expectations, and I see no inherent benefit to enabling people to post more AFDs at a faster rate. When is it ever a good idea to post AFDs in bulk? When has it ever improved the accuracy and validity of deletion nominations and rationales? As I noted in the last AN/I posting about abuse of automated AFD postings, it not only causes a wide net to be cast that inevitably catches valid article subjects in with the crowd, however few proportionately, it also hinders deletion of the articles that should be deleted because the whole process ends up being mistrusted as indiscriminate. Listing an article at AFD shouldn't be quick and easy; it should be cautious and deliberate.

    So I think we need to evaluate whether this feature should be disabled entirely in all automated tools, or at least hindered in some way to prevent rapid-fire mass nominations, such as by capping the rate (e.g., no more than one every ten minutes) or absolute number (e.g., no more than ten per day). postdlf (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As a regular participant in AfD debates, I place great importance on WP:BEFORE and believe that AfD nominators who ignore it create a fair amount of dissension. Automated nominations pretty much assure that individual assessment of the notability of the topic and the avaiability of reliable sources has not taken place. I agree with most of what Postdlf has said. However, I think that a hard working and conscientious editor could make more than ten nominations a day, if each was researched and had its own rationale, so I would oppose such a limit. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The limit I propose is not for manual AFD listings, just automated ones. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD templates are also set up the be pretty self-automating. I mean, once you {{subst:afd}} into an article, you get links for the the AfD page preloaded with templates, the day's list where the new AfD is reported, and the author notification template. IMO, it's not that hard to take the AfD the rest of the way manually for there.
    That said, I know there are some editors who batch process. They will find 10–20 articles they have concerns about, research them, and then post all the AfDs consecutively for the ones that warrant deletion. If they choose to use an automated tool to help them post the AfDs, I don't object to that usage—so not every person who fires off a bunch of AfDs consecutively has not thought them through. However, those batch-processing editors are probably the exceptions to the rule, with the editors who do start a bunch of ill-considered, cookie-cutter AfDs being more common—and if the latter group is abusing the automated tools, then the tools need to be either throttled or disabled. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this proposal treat individual (i.e. non-bulk) Twinkle-style AfDs as "automated"? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of responsible editors use automated tools for nominations. Anyhow, a general proposal like this should be at the Village Pump, not ANI. --RL0919 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I use twinkle to place xfds. Automated tools for such purposes are convenient for avoiding mistakes, like forgetting to notify. I think there's nothing why with doing mechanical things by using machinery. Judging when to nominate for deletion is needed no matter how one is going to do it. It's true that the availability of the tools makes it easier to be thoughtless, but the lack of required thought is in the responsibility of the editor who uses them. Large batch nominations have been a problem for a long time: there are some times when individual attention is clearly not needed, but often it is. Nobody should be nominating in significant batches, either in one group nomination of in many closely spaced individual ones, without making it very plain from the start that they have searched carefully each of the individual items, and how they have done it. Proper preparation makes things go much smoother, than placing the nominations without such comment, and then having to justify oneself in response to criticism. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer, no. Mass edits of any sort need to be approached carefully, and in particular invocations of a deliberative process like an AfD need to be done deliberatively rather than in mechanical fashion, lest Wikipedia turn into a battle between editors and bots. That's not to say there's anything wrong with helper bots and Twinkle, applied carefully, or that you can't do just as much harm by cutting and pasting. The point is that unleashing a whole bunch of processes at once swamps anyone's ability to deal with them. Seven (or five, or fifteen) per week is not ridiculously slow, as Wikipedia has no deadline. But it would still need some consensus, as it's not reasonable for a single editor to dictate process for everyone else. There's a threshold somewhere between several dozen and several hundred pages with the same issues, beyond which AfD is just not the best venue for making decisions. Anyway, best to put the brakes on things before people invest too much in it. For example, why not keep all the AfDs open as is, but announce a schedule for closing them in batches of a period of 30 days? Or maybe group all the sub-stubs with no claim to notability other than being a playmate into a single batch (all of which would be deleted within 7 days if no further sourced claims to notability are made). That would give people enough time to handle it. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This case again points to the need for a mass deletion policy. To avoid both the issues of inconsistency and fiat accompli in these matters. Also, for the record, I disagree with any ary arbitrary throttle limit on AfD nominations of non-notable articles ESPECIALLY BLPs. HominidMachinae (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be very wary of saying that we should absolutely never automate big batches of submissions to AfD; it might not be appropriate here and now, but it's difficult to anticipate the future environment (including who !votes, how they !vote, changes to what might need deleting, changes to other bots and other processes...). Agreed that it would be helpful to improve how we deal with bulk deletions of related articles which don't fit within CSD criteria. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the encouragement of several editors I'm going to take a stab at a mass deletion policy to put up for RfC. I have a job interview tonight maybe I'll have it up tomorrow. My goal is a policy that allows for us to look at localized criteria that might show adherence to GNG and other important policies in that specific area and apply it in a uniform fashion to a wide area, to ensure consistency and adherence to core policies and guidelines. A side goal is a process that is NOT limited to the 7-day AfD term, to avoid the creation of a fiat accompli by giving an article's defenders more time to perform proper research. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)

    An IP address is accusing me of "bad faith"[2] and "harassment" [3]. The IP address has now received 4 warnings [4]. Since the IP appears to be attacking me, I would like another admin to intervene and block if the IP doesn't stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what those warnings for edit warring is for. You seem to be doing the same thing? Nymf hideliho! 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the same old story. Jack makes a table sortable on year, which most folks consider an improvement. Gimme removes endashes from date ranges because Safari 4 (!) doesn't sort them properly. Jack puts the endashes back per MOS:ENDASH on the grounds that hardly anybody uses Safari 4 anymore - it's now on Safari 5, a free update. Gimme then perversely decides that "since the changes that allow sortability to work are repeatedly removed, consensus appears to be that sortability is not desired"[5] and removes the sorting functionality. Jack puts the sorting back, and the cycle begins again. Gimme knows how to make the table sortable for Safari 4 (because I showed him how), but would rather escalate a situation to an edit war than do the fix or update an outdated browser. This combative behaviour really needs to stop: it's perfectly possible to have tables with sorting functionality on date ranges that also comply with MOS. --RexxS (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's often not as simple as just a "free update" to Safari - for example, Safari 5 for Mac requires OSX 10.5.8 or later, so people who have not bought 10.5 cannot use it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They can use Safari 4.1. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know that - but the suggestion above is that Safari 5 is needed, and I'm pointing out that that is not always an option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    either undermines the idea the " to " is warranted. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page. SilverserenC 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack should use his account per his sanctions that are still in place. His many accounts are blocked so shouldn't he have to go to arbcom and figure out how to edit again since he last retired/quit? Some of us can tell it's Jack editing with this IP but there are editors who do not know who this is plus with Jack being rude to some it just complicates things even further. If Jack wants to continue to edit than he needs to get an account unblocked or some other acceptable thing done. Right now it looks like he is socking around a block. Sorry Jack but that's what it looks like. Please go back to the arbitrators and get this sorted out, please. Just my opinion of the situation but this is only going to get worse before it gets better if he continues to use this IP and behave like has been shown. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrespective of this issue, that founing principle does not prevent Wikimedia communities from sanctioning, and stopping from editing, users who are disruptive. This does not mean that you, Jack, are so disruptive, just that the "anyone can edit" mantra is not a defense against accusations of shenanigans, which Crohnie appears to be implying. --Jayron32 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But "they" don't stop most disruptive users; they're everywhere, making this project suck, driving away those who actually have a clue. The mob hates that.
    @Crohnie; why the fuck should I allow myself to be tied to the Jack account with shite like this out there. The Jack account has been impersonated out there many times. What do you and the WHL coterie do when you spot me? Tie me back to that shite. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that's toxic in the extreme. As Fetch said, the problem with wikipedia is the *participants*. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack I have never been disrepectful to you like you are being right now. The reason is because the arbitrators, as far as I'm aware, haven't released you from using one account, the Jack Merridew account. Remember you withdrew your request to have those sanctions removed? This is the last I remember about this and though there is discussion about allowing you to have socks to play with, the discussion doesn't seem finished or accepted. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you in this thread? (it's a rhetorical question). Because I proved your friend WHL wrong across the board on a lot of issues; it's what's up Doc9871's ass, too, as he said on user talk:diannaa, and which she lit into him for. Look harder, the diff you're needing was already offered to you on Doc's talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing you've proven, at least to me is that you can behave poorly to other editors and do as you want and no one cares so neither do I. Yea Jack, you're right and all the rest of us idiots should go away and let you do what you want, so have a good time, I'm out of here. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack isn't sanctioned. My understanding is that his main account is blocked because, apparently, it was hacked. He is not personally under sanctions, and is free to edit under a new account or IP address, and may regain his account if he can prove to stewards who he is. However, this edit warring behavior is itself troubling, and should be addressed. --Jayron32 12:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I scuttled the accounts; they're blocked because I posted the password; sul:locked, too. The password was scrambled again after that. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate comments both from Jack Merridew on the overall situation and from Gimmetoo on RexxS's description above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Gimme's been dogging my edits for a year, surreptitiously reverting at first, but always finding something to take exception to. It's harassment. He creates a hostile editing environment, as do far too many here. He went way over the line trying to ban me from cites last year, and has generally been a prat in all manner of discussions (with RexxS and Rossrs, too). He's unfit to be an editor much less an admin. RexxS is right, as far as he goes. Brad, you and others need to fix the toxic environment; many have left, leaving the field to idiots. Jack 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm cross-posting (a redacted version of) Rexx's summary of the technical issue to WP:WPT. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
     No I'm not since Rexx's post make it clear there is a technical fix here. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Rex's fix is this, which snots-up the wiki-text for a tiny number of users (ma'af).
    Some statistics are available here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Safari 4.0 usage is well below 1%. Anyway, the Gimme-shite issue is across the board; he's targeted most areas that I've tried to work improving structure. He's not the only one nipping at my heels; doc9871, I/Okip grawp ... the wiki-mob never forgets anything and is always vicious.
    Brad, perhaps you could read through Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table which is one of the issues Jack is referring to, with RexxS and me. Gimmetoo saw a problem in the sorting in the filmography table at Yvonne Strahovski, but failed to define the problem despite being asked several times, over the course of 2 days. See how long the discussion is. Gimmetoo should have said "The dash causes a sorting problem for editors using Safari 4". Eleven words. Easy to understand. We could then have fast-forwarded through to a solution. Any editor, let alone an admin, should be acting in good enough faith to provide an eleven word sentence to answer a question, instead of creating an atmosphere where other editors had to guess what he was on about, and then be ridiculed for failing to guess. From Gimmetoo's talk page, his question Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is? (Answer: No) Obviously RexxS had no idea what he meant, and I certainly didn't. And on and on it went with Gimmetoo refusing to give a straight answer. To RexxS's credit, when he finally realized what "the problem" was, he came up with a "fix". Satisfactory, rather than ideal. If Jacks's frustrated and fed up, I don't blame him, and going back to RexxS's comment above, I think RexxS sums it up well. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See [6] RexxS was condescending and insulting, and stated without reserve that everything I had said was "patently untrue". Do you and RexxS admit you were wrong in any way? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you link to another long chunk of dialogue that you could have nipped in the bud by actually saying what the problem was. Other editors made similar comments there. Both RexxS and I failed to read your mind, but you escalated it and kept it going. I don't know how RexxS would answer your question, but no, I did nothing wrong. I didn't understand what your problem was because you failed to spell it out, but that's your failing, not mine. Rossrs (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on. This is *Merridew*?! And the IP is accusing me of "dogging" his edits? Absolutely unacceptabe. First, if that's true, then some of the responders here are WP:INVOLVED and have failed to note their involvement. Second, Merridew has a long history of abusive editing, including arbitration cases for targetting a user and for abusive editing from multiple accounts. If Merridew is still doing this, it's more than past time that Merridew was banned. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm uninvolved here wrt to past disagreements and who did what to whom and when, so I'm ignoring all of that. What I see here is a positive attempt to improve a table in an article, which caused a minor technical problem for an old version of a browser, and which was quickly fixed once the problem was properly explained and understood. Besides that, I see hints of people trying to restart old arguments and settle old scores, but none of that seems pertinent - now that the technical issue is sorted, is there anything of actual relevance that needs admin action here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, the technical issue has not been fixed on all involved articles. Second, the issue here is the IP/Merridew's targetting of my edits, and the IP/Merridew's accusations of harassment and "bad faith". Merridew has a long history of targetting other editors. If the IP is, indeed, Merridew, then the IP is continuing to edit without disclosing clearly who he is and the associated arbcom sanctions. The IP should be blocked at this point. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, regarding the technical issue, now that a fix is known then surely it just needs to be applied to the relevant articles, doesn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Two fixes have been known for months. If the IP is indeed Merridew, then the IP is well aware of those fixes, and has knowingly not implemented either of them. The IP undid my fixes, and, indeed, appears to be systemaically undoing my edits. The IP has not opened discussion, and shows no interest in opening discussion on this issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not anybody else's individual responsibility to implement the fix - now that a fix is known that will enable to table to be sortable in the problematic browser too, why not just do it instead of all this bickering? If there is still a dispute about the best fix, go discuss it on an appropriate article page and decide by consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, and as far as I can make out, the *user* JackMerridew is not blocked or banned - the *account* was blocked, but only because it was compromised. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • When an IP knowingly removes a fix for a problem, that IP's editing is not good. When this is part of a pattern of targetting users, and with refusal to discuss the issues, it is WP:DISRUPTive editing and the IP should be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please post some diffs of this behaviour. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For instance [7] [8] [9], [10]. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so will the fix detailed above by RexxS make the standard "dash" version work in Safari 4, yes or no? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but the IP doesn't want that fix [11]; also notice the abuse in that edit. There are many other disputed changes involved in the IPs recent edits. If this is, indeed, Merridew, remember that Merridew has a history of targeting users. One lead to arbitration; there is also [12] and [13]. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, those 'fixes' for a dead browser are unwarranted. We don't support telegraphs or Campbell Soup Cans, either. If such a fix is centralised, mebbe, but snotting-up thousands of articles to accomodate a tiny number (an ever-diminishing#) of users is just going to make a mess and impede editing by editors who know nothing of this faux-issue. You "dispute" anything I've tried to do, and don't discuss in good faith; that's harassment. You've ownership issues, too, mosty re hottie celebrity bios. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about some diffs of the discussions you opened on this topic that the IP refused to join? Or some diffs of him targetting users? These are serious accusations, and you are calling for a block, so please post these diffs too. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has accused me of harassment. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs to support that very serious accusation? In any event, [14], and the IPs response was [15]. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was you making a pointy and sarky comment, and the other guy removing it. What you are being asked for is some evidence of *you* or someone else actually starting a discussion on the relevant issues and the other guy refusing to join in - not evidence of your demanding that he start it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the technical issue, please stop evasively poking sticks at the other guy and just answer the question. If you have a content dispute (which is what this is) then show us where the discussion took place and show us your attempts to resolve it. Where were the alternative fixes discussed? Where was it decided not to go with RexxS's fix? Where was the discussion held that resulted in a consensus to replace the standard "2001-2006" format with "2001 to 2006"? Where was the impact on Safari 4 users discussed? How badly does it affect them? Does it just make that column sort wrong or does it screw up the whole table? Where was it decided to go with a non-standard date format to fix a sorting problem that only affects less than 1% of our readers? That's what you should be doing - discussing this on its merits, not arguing back and forth just because you don't like each other -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP chose to re-revert rather than discuss, contrary to WP:BRD. The IP then continued to make disputed edits to multiple other articles, also without stopping to discuss. On the technical issue, see Talk:Ursula_Andress#Accessibility_and_dates, specifically near the end where RexxS said: "I've also restored the "1987 to 1988" format for the date range, as I can't see that producing any problems for any browser." Nevertheless the IP did [16]. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:BRD is only an essay, and you're still not presenting us with what was requested - evidence that *you* tried to discuss the issue and the other guy refused to join in, and so support the accusations you are making against him. (I had the comment below ready to add when I got an edit conflict, so I'm going ahead with posting it as it was - if you genuinely wish to solve this problem rather than just carry on fighting with someone you don't like, I hope you will respond positively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened discussion on the IP's talk page. The IP did not engage, and has not engaged. Instead, the IP has accused me of harassment and continued to make the same disputed edits. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs supporting that very serious accusation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking back into some of the history of this table sorting business, I came across User talk:Gimmetoo#Yvonne Strahovski from back in September 2010, where Gimmetoo was plainly and simply asked to explain what he saw as the problem. But he responded just as obtusely and tendentiously as he is still doing today, steadfastly refusing to just clearly state what he meant. I apologize if I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but what I think I'm seeing is a long-running personal feud rather than any genuine attempt to make Wikipedia better. Gimmetoo, I think you need to put up or shut up - start a discussion explaining the technical problem (not other people, and not your feuds with them, but the technical issue itself), and offer constructive suggestions for a solution so we can discuss it and get a consensus - I'm a Mac user myself, and one of my old machines still has Safari 4, so I can help technically -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in the light of the above, how about we stop the "It's all his fault" game based on selective quoting, and instead start a brand new attempt to solve the technical problem with table sorting and get a consensus on what to do? Then it will be sorted (pun intended, sorry), and we can all leave the playground and get back to making Wikipedia better. How does that sound? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Boing, this issue here is abusive editing. The technical discussion has been had before, at for instance Talk:Ursula Andress. The IP editor is not helping. Technical issues could be discussed again if the disruptive editing by the IP is stopped. But if this IP is indeed Merridew, then there is another facet; Merridew has picked on editors before (see prior arbcom case, prior ANI) and has picked on me in the past. That needs to stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I would like to call for some recent diffs giving examples. All you have here is some diffs of six-month-old ANI reports and references to a ban that was lifted in 2008. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gimmetoo, I have no previous interaction with this dispute, so I hope you don't mind me being open and honest here when I tell you that what I see is egotistical dickishness all round - I see each of you just trying to win a willy-waving contest, and little or no willingness from anyone to actually get together and solve the underlying problem. The arguments on this technical issue and the related fallout have been going on for at least 8 months as far as I can see, and I think the only way forward is tackle the issue itself is in one consensus-driven discussion that involves more than just the same three or four people - and not one that excludes any specific individual you don't like! I honestly don't think you will succeed in making this a one-sided accusation of abusive editing, because I see just as much dickishness from you as from anyone else - and again, that's just an honest observation. Basically, I'm offering to help solve the underlying problem, and if we can get a consensus about that then there should be no basis to any further arguments. But if all you're interested in is kicking shite out of each other and don't really care about Wikipedia itself, then I'm afraid I'll be walking away and leaving you to it. So come on, why don't you take a major constructive step and agree to join me in a civil discussion on the technical issue? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Boing, I have been attacked by the IP in edit summaries, and in comments on this very thread. Are you going to do anything about that? Are you going to block the IP if there are any further abusive edit summaries or attacks? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My offer of assistance with a discussion on the technical issue still stands, but I thought I'd made it clear I'm not going to take sides in the dick war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can get that editor to discuss civilly, fine, but whatever I may or may not have done in the past does not mean that I have to be subject to never-ending abuse from that IP/Editor. If you wish to support and enable the environment such editors foster, that's your choice. If this IP is Merridew, then Merridew was under restriction to edit only from the Merridew account, though apparently the editor indicated a week ago intentions to disregard the arbitration motion [17]. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look at quite a bit of this going back some time now, and I have to say I've seen bone-headed stubbornness that would be the envy of a Triceratops. So no, it is absolutely not a case of my allowing the other guy to carry on being abusive - and if you stick with the "I'm 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong" attitude, then we are unlikely to get anywhere. If, however, all sides are prepared to discuss the problem openly as members of the same Wikipedia team rather than slugging it out like street brawlers, we might actually get somewhere. It's getting late where I am, so I'm going to get some rest - and tomorrow I'll find a suitable place for a discussion of the table sorting issue where we can hopefully get a consensus on what to do (and I've already downloaded copies of Safari 4.0 and 4.1 for comparison purposes). And I suggest you get some rest away from this dispute too - it is, after all, not real life. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    tldr
    There have been discussion attempts w/gimme since about last August; they never go anywhere. This didn't even start with the sorting or dashes; it was citation templates at first. Gimme has decided to take-on Merridew, since no one else has the "guts" to; said so last August or so.. Discussions with him never go anywhere because he's not acting in good faith; his intent is to pin my ears back and thwart whatever it is I'm trying to do. WP:HA-101. I LOL re his feigning to not have realized that I'm me; [18] [19]. He's seen this before. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes more accusations of WP:HA from the IP. Ironically, the IP notes a "toxic environment"[20]. Since User:Boing! said Zebedee seems reluctant to do anything about these sorts of comments, is there any admin who will do anything to encourage the IP to contribute without creating and expanding that toxic environment? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Silver Seren accuses Jack of incivility

    I suppose in order to have people actually discuss on the ongoing incivility that Jack is exhibiting, I need to make this a subsection, since people just ignored my comment and keep going on about Gimmetoo's incident (not that your incident isn't important). So i'm just going to re-copy what I said above here so people can actually comment on it.

    "That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page."

    Jack has been extremely uncivil to multiple people over the past few days. I strongly advise you to look at the discussion in that SPI report. SilverserenC 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Further evidence of incivility would be here. This led to an edit war with Qwyrxian who thought it was an unconstructive comment, though Bishonen ultimately kept it. Ultimately unimportant compared to the stuff above. SilverserenC 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [Embarrassed, Bishonen hastily updates her Safari 3.] I "ultimately" kept it, Silver Seren? What does that mean? I wrote to Qwyrxian to stop reverting the IP as soon as I saw the edit war on my page. By then, however, Nikkimaria had already asked Qwyrxian why he was so insistently reverting the post on my page, which didn't look anything like vandalism to her (or to me), and Qwyrxian had already realised that he'd made mistake and apologised nicely to the IP.[21] And this you describe as "further evidence of incivility" (by the IP, not by Qwyrxian), and hint that the edit war was the IP's fault, not Qwyrxian's "who thought it was an unconstructive comment"? Yes, well, he thought so until he realised he'd made a mistake. Then he very properly apologised. You didn't think that worth mentioning, I guess. Silver Seren, your post about my talkpage is completely misleading, in a particular direction, which makes it uphill work to assume the slightest good faith of you. Clicking on your other diffs makes your "extremely uncivil to multiple people" look ridiculous, too. (And you feel impelled to let us have your text twice? What's that about?) I encourage everybody to click on those diffs and form their own opinion. Silver Seren, please go read WP:BATTLE. Slowly. Carefully. P.S. I have changed your header to a more neutral and truthful one. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Um...that comment wasn't meant to be an attack on your or to say anything about you either. It was meant to point out that Qwyrxian's trying to remove the comment was a little pointless (because I was sure someone else would have pointed that out if I hadn't said it myself). That, however, doesn't change Jack's incivility in the comment directed toward this ANI discussion. I apologize if I upset you, I never meant the comment to be negative toward you at all. I've gone ahead and removed it, so there isn't an issue. Again, I apologize. Can we instead focus on Jack? SilverserenC 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Thank you, but it's a misdirected kindness to remove the words I quoted, as it makes some of my reply incomprehensible. This is something you should never do in a discussion. Please put them back. What you should do if you regret something you said is cross it out with the <s></s> code. Please don't bother to cross out anything whatever on my account, though; I didn't think you said anything about me, so we're in agreement there. I merely thought the "ultimately" comment was somewhat contributory to the misleading way you described Jack's role on my page. And I see you now (as a counsel of desperation?) suggest he was being incivil towards ANI on my page. Wow. Good job you can't see what people say about ANI on IRC, you'd probably faint. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    I added it back in, as you've asked, but struck through the entire comment, since it is unimportant compared to the diffs I have at the beginning and below. I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to direct this away from Jack, but can we please focus on the comments that Jack has made and I have linked to above and below? SilverserenC 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And let me just add that Jack making comments like "another “anyone” hauling out one of the usual wiki-weapons. all part of teh toxic-wiki" and "wp:boomerang 4 teh trolls ;)" is not helpful at all and is what I mean by incivil. SilverserenC 23:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention "you're not trying hard enough; you should be asking me to assume good faith, pointing out some of teh diffs on your list-of-bad-acts, that I call you a troll and an asshole. that's the wiki's core problem; it's open to all and fails to remove the likes of you." SilverserenC 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Silver, I'd have thought you'd learned your lesson about jumping in feet first by now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, seriously, I know that we have past disagreements, Elen, but trying to redirect this onto me without addressing the topic of the section is rather unhelpful. SilverserenC 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves. → User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior#31 –MuZemike 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Silver seren is simply an ARS partisan who's taking shots at an ARS critic. Mostly this is left over from my sorting the A Nobody issue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (sorting problematic editors for seven years;)[reply]
    Have I ever really interacted with you, Jack? If so, it's been a long time since then, since I really don't remember you at all. The only reason i'm making this report is because of your hostile actions and words toward myself and others, nothing more than that. SilverserenC 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This shite count? I'll have to look into whatever Elen and Bish are on about; Mike seems to see it, too. hint: flee. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case there was any lack of clarity, I was wrong (and admitted as such) to revert the IP's comment on Bishonen's talk page. I mistakenly thought I was seeing a pattern of disruptive behavior by an IP editor(s) across multiple pages via Huggle (there was a multi-page attack allegedly from the GNAA going on at the same time); this was compounded by edit summaries that appeared to confirm bad intentions. However, after the issue was raised on my talk page and I looked more carefully, I agreed that I was mistaken to call the edit vandalism, and apologized on my and the IP's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Apology accepted. You really need to not be so aggressive with the Huggle-matic. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • *sighs* This is why I dislike starting sections on ANI, because it's just like lighting a lamp to all of the editors that dislike me. I notice that no one responding to this section has yet to actually address anything in regards to Jack or the diffs I presented. SilverserenC 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you dislike it, and are unable to fathom what causes the WP:BOOMERANG effect, maybe you shouldn't do it. Funny how often we get this on ANI: Stop talking about me, we're talking about that guy ! See WP:BOOMERANG: "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Compare your experiences in the Noleander RFAR case, which I suppose is what Elen is referring to above. Bishonen | talk 07:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Except all of you aren't specifying anything that I did wrong, you're just insinuating things about me. What exactly have I done wrong here? I'm not the one that has been making comments like Jack has above. Tell me straight off, what exactly have I done wrong here? SilverserenC 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll tell you what you're doing wrong here; a) you're being a civility-prig. When I criticize editors, people take notice and teh subject usually fares poorly over time. b) people look unfavourably at editors doing the pile-on to an ani-cluster-fuck thing, which is what this little sideshow amounts to. ANI magnifies one of the wikis major problems; it offers a platform to anyone who wants to play the talk-like-an-admin game. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you're the one making comments like this. SilverserenC 09:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Jack is a strange duck, he can be tough to handle, but he does good work. I have nothing remotely good to say about Silverseren, and plenty of bad things to say about him. However the greater point here is that this is an incredibly stupid situation. After what must be months of this battle playing out, the proper solution would have been to hold a binding RfC on the sortable tables issue, (another one on color use is in order as well), and then whomever's edits were going against said binding RfC would be warned then blocked. It should never have gotten this far. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC on colour has been had; twice, actually. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show us where the RfCs on the tables were held? (I'm planning to start a new one, so the old ones would be very useful). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    the first ranges over a bunch of issues and is about a quarter meg ;) The second had a pretty wishy-washy close. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, thanks. What are you talking about with sortable tables? Is that Gimmetoo's thing from up above? I'm not involved in that whatsoever and know pretty much nothing about it. I made this section to discuss the incivility Jack has been showing toward multiple editors. SilverserenC 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the problems (caused by all sides - this is not one-sided) all stem from a disagreement about sortable tables -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about tables, or sorting, or colour, or cite templates, specifically; it's about my having been critical of a lot of poor users and poor editing over years and they and their friends endlessly nip at my heels and oh-so-much want to see me dinged. The mob loves to have a user offered up on the pillory. Wiki is a blood sport, with live targets. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Doc9871 involved in this dispute? Is that why Jack was bad-mouthing him in the SPI case? If not, then I don't see the relation at all between Gimmetoo's incident and mine. SilverserenC 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you mention him first here? You notify him? The moar, the moar toxic ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sortable tables RFC

    I'm planning to start an RFC on the sortable tables issue, which seems to be a long-simmering cause of aggravation. It's a content dispute, so it's not something to be fixed here at ANI. But as the main protagonists seems to be present here, if anyone knows of any previous RFCs or other attempts to get a consensus, would they please provide some links. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mean to say, RexxS has provided what seems like a good basic summary of the technical issue, at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Table sorting and ANI (though if people want to add to that, please save it for the RFC itself) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is needed; WHL's the only one who was strongly against sorting and she folded. This is about editors harassing me and that the AC's left old sanctions gathering dust for years. Moar broadly, it's about the extreme toxicity of this project. It's not getting any better, either. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we have you saying it's all about other editors harassing you, and others saying it's about you harassing them. And we're certainly not going to get anywhere with the two sides just sticking their fingers in their ears and butting heads - frankly, whatever the origins of this dispute, you're coming across as bad as each other right now. If at least part of the root cause is disagreement on a technical issue, then resolving that technical issue has to be worthwhile, don't you think? Otherwise the headbutting over it, which has been going on for at least 8 months, will not stop. Anyway, thanks for providing the links above - I'll read them later and see where they lead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On first glance, the two previous discussion you linked to above seem to be wide in scope. The specific disagreement here is about whether to accommodate Safari 4.0 in table sorting, and if so, how, as that seems to be what people have been edit-warring over. But it's all useful, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I referred to colour RfCs, and you asked after table RfC; the one at ACTOR is both, and huge. It got into sorting rather late-on, and gimme was not involved in any of it. He came in a bit later and is reverting my on mere newlines (horizontal format of table, which is necessary for adding proper scope attributes to the headers). And anything else I do to his articles.
    A much more important issue to settle would be the citation templates and list-defined references one.
    125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good too - if we can define the problem clearly (as a technical issue rather then a "He did, he said" spat) then that might also be productive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft RFC

    I've started a draft RFC at User:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC - please make any comments at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC. Please do not start any discussion in the RFC itself yet - I just want comments about any errors or omissions that should be rectified before it goes live. Actual discussion of the issue itself should wait until it's live. (And please note that any personal attacks or incivility at this stage will be removed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Palliomine

    New user Palliomine has wreaked havoc on palestine categories. I have a very slow connection at present and cannot revert his changes. (It relates to Palestinian rabbis in various ategories) Chesdovi (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like they're tagging empty categories for deletion. Is this incorrect? The categories do appear to be empty. TNXMan 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect User:Debresser is behind this. He has depopulated nearly 100 pages in various Palestine categories without responding to my reply on my talk page. Action needs to be taken. Chesdovi (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I only depopulated what you recently created and started to actively populate without any prior discussion and in disregard of immediate protests on your talkpage. You can't push your ideas through against the will of the community. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. Since we're here. Let's have it!

    Chesdovi has recently created a whole group of "Palestinian" categories. He continues to create more of them and to populate them, despite the fact that 1. This term is controversial 2. He is replacing another term with his new term, and splitting up existing categories. 3. All of this without seeking prior consensus, and 4. in disregard of the protests of two editors on his talkpage, each of these editors with several arguments

    I also agree that action has to be taken. And that action is that Chesdovi should be admonished to desist from creating and populating these categories he created until he can show consensus, rather than protests. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser has acted wrongly in this case. If he felt certain categories were controversial, he should have raised it at category disscusion page, or the like. Without coming to an amicable solution, he proceeds to depopulate tens of pages, the vast majority which had been under that category for a number of weeks. He has not responded to clear proof that this term does exist in acdemic circles. His claim that the term Palestine did not exist in the 13th century is nonsensical. I have not "replaced another term. Most acuartely, i have sorted rabbis who lived in ottoman and british palestine in centuries to be onisten with all other such cats. He has want also to delted Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine. Wholly unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    since this disscussion has started, Debresseer contines to enforce his edits. [22]. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you..., so let's not go there. The difference is, you are the one trying to change things and introduce new terms. So you should show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first protests on you page are a week old. Why do you continue making controversial edits? All these categories are your idea, replacing the term Land of Israel and splitting up Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. You're just pushing through your ideas, and can not accept the fact that the community sees them as problematic, and thinks you should refrain from doing so unless and until you can show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First thing first: How do you justify depopulating over 50 pages without seeking the communities consensus if this is so controversial. I spent a long time creating and populating many pages and you come along and revert all my work without a conclusion to the matter. That in itself deserves investigation. Chesdovi (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I told Chesdovi one week ago that unless he could find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians, then I was gonna restore the original category, one week has passed, and he has still not added any sources, so the removal of the categorys is appropriate. But he provided one source at his talkpage for one guy, so at that article the Palestinian cat could be added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that even there the best thing is to use the naming system that was in use till Chesdovi made his whole new category system. To avoid misunderstandings and controversies. After all, we have no obligation to use the specific wording of each and every of our sources. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) I do not obey you sd. Its your opinion against mine. You have no right to wilfully decat over 50 cats based on some irrational demand of yours. We don't need to cite each and every word. If a person has lived a significant portion of his life in a palce, he automaticaaly can be categorised as beloning to that place. Palestinian means "of Palestine". Not member fatah or Hamas. And it applies to all those people I added. I am backed up by a plethora of academic works. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting old. If no sources calls those specific people "Palestinian", then you cant ad the cats.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "misunderstandings and controversies. "? Pls elaborate Debresser. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We have Land of Israel. We have explanatory combinations like "Ottoman and British Palestine" (which could be split, of course into Ottoman and British, or even per century categories). Even if during some time the land was called "Palestine", we should disambiguate that. But in this case you are simply wrong. Because usually somebody born in Germany is also an ethnic German. But in this case none of these rabbis and other Jews was an ethnic Palestinian. Somewhat like Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. So here we should be more careful with how to name our categories. All this is obvious and has been explained to you for a whole week on your talkpage. And you refuse to recognize that your edits are controversial, and that is what WP:ANI needs to explain to you. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    DBRSR; Acc. to ur reasoning, we should have no German rabbis as thery are not "ethnicly" German. They are ethnicly Jews! Your reasoning if flawed. You yourself have revealled that you are confused. You agree when it comes to Israeli Arabs and Jews that they are both Israeli. So why can't you agree to have Palestinian Jews and Palestinain Arabs? AFAIMC my edits are not controverail. Why should they be? You have never expalned that have you? Have you? NO! Chesdovi (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be confused here, since you are repeating my arguments now. Anyway, the problem here is not so much the content discussion. That has been going on on your talkpage, and today a little on mine. The problem is that you continue to create and populate controversial categroies, while two editors have expressed arguments for their objections against your innovations and changes. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you just admitted to being a sock of Palliomine? Stop wasting my time and trying to wriigle out of the subject at hand. It ALL about the content. The content you want censored. expalin why we cant use the word Palestine to describe people who lived there in the medieval era. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it is about content, then you have quite a few arguments against it in this section already. But let's take an example, to amke the point. I was almost shocked when I saw Nachmanides being called a "Palestinian rabbi". Of his 76 years long life he lived only 3 years in the Land of Israel!! Not to mention that the Land of Israel was then under Egyptian Mamluk rule, so he actually should be called an Egyptian rabbi! Chesdovi, calling Nachmanides "Palestinian" is absurd! Sorry, but it really is! Debresser (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, this point has been made by Supreme Deliciousness on Chesdovi's talkpage. The real problem here is Chesdovi's unwillingness to see reason, or to at least accept that his innovations are controversial and contested. He should refrain from them unless and until he will get consensus for them. But he won't, obviously, so he decided to push them... Debresser (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any reason why these edits ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) should not be seen as a violation of WP:POINT? I have rolbacked them, and recommend Chesdovi for a 24 hour block. Debresser (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done. Now we are getting somewhere. Having now made you see sense with regrd to the fallacy of this cat indicated "ethnicity", you are beginning to come round that a person living in a region attains that regions label. If the Egyptains ruled Palestine at the time would not make a difference, since the region was known as Palestine notwithstanding. So you agree that living in a place bestows upon you the designation of that place? Many sephardi Jews in aragon were not ethnic aragonesse, but they are called aragonses Rabbis. The fatc that you had an issue with Ramban could have been solved instead of going on your palestineophobe crusade. Chesdovi (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted you because of Wikipedia:REICHSTAG, and that is why I recommend you be blocked for 24 hours. You have proven the issue is first and foremost behavioral for you. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain to me why MM Schnersohn can be called an American Rabbi, But Issac Luria can not be called Palestinian? You should have been bloked long ago. Chesdovi (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained that earlier in this section. You seem not to have understood it, as I mentioned above as well. Your Wikipedia:REICHSTAG behavior was a mistake. I'll see you tomorrow (or after 24 hours). Debresser (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    well you better had think how to explain yourself much better, b/c s far as i'm concerned you have wasted hours of my time without giving acceptable rationale why you 1) saw fit to depopulted over 50 pages beofre the discussion had come to and end 2) cretaed a new account to deleted the empty cats. 3) cayy on revrting afte you had strted a discussing th matter here 4) explained why Mediveal Jews in Palestine is not a worthy category. 5) hy there cannot be be something calle da Palesting Jew.. etc. Chesdovi (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit, in which you call the greatest Jewish kabbalist who ever lived a Palestinian, and use the edit summary "Yup, he's also Palestinian. Debresser, You daven using nusach Palestine! Have I sent a shudder down your spine? "Palestine". Oi vey!" makes me doubt your capability to edit Wikipedia objectively. That was a sick edit, which no doubt would offend many, and rightfully so. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet Break

    These are all אֶפְרָתָה (talk · contribs). The following are  Confirmed matches:

    Both primary disputants topic banned for 72 hrs

    Both primary disputants here (Deb and Ches) have edit warred and disrupted unacceptably, along with actions of the sockpuppeteer which escalated the situation. Both are topic banned under ARBPIA for 72 hrs to enable the situation to calm down from the current pointless head-butting. Notifications on their talk pages and the arbcom case logs to follow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban accepted, but I'd like to argue the following. I knew nothing about WP:ARBPIA, and simply have a very specific dispute with a user here who has been making undiscussed reforms and doesn't want to postpone his actions until after reaching consensus. Doesn't seem completely fair to me to ban us from other articles. Perhaps you'd reconsider and narrow down the ban to only the specific categories involved. I think we are both editors without a known history of edit warring in this subject area, and that this is overkill. Nor, on a more personal note, does it seem fair to me to treat the aggressor and the defender in the same harsh way. Note on Chesdovi's talkpage that he has been blocked a few times before for edit warring and problematic edits in connection with WP:ARBPIA, while I don't even have a warning on mine! Debresser (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can appeal at WP:AE. I suspect that lack of prior warning may be sufficient grounds. Or it might not, they change the rules all the time. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks you for the suggestion. I have asked for the banning admin to look into it again. In addition, I really have no interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and hold that the present disagreement is not really related to it. The connection was made by the banning admin, perhaps without sufficient consideration of the nature of this disagreement. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I take this back. I wasn't aware Chesdovi had been banned and blocked several times before in connection with WP:ARBPIA. This, however, is all the more reason not to treat me the same way. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser caused the problem here. He depopulated over 50 pages and nominated numerous categories for deletion before a conclusion had been reached on a disscusion at my talk page. He first seemed to be amblivient to the new categories, and then did a mass edit before disscusing the subject at length. Cats should be discussed at the appropriate page. His mass-edits were a massive POV violation which has cause massive disrutption. The case of Ephrata and his sockpuppets is not know to me, but i am highly convinced that Debresser created a new account to nominated the cats he deopoluated for deletion [29]. Can someone look into this please. Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never edited with any other than my main account on any Wikipedia project. Apart from when I accidentally forgot to log in. I have no problem with any admin checking this, since I find the accusation made above slanderous and highly offensive. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Palliomine is not Debresser. TNXMan 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to report that Chesdovi has been making personal attacks, insinuating that I am a fanatic zionist, and a right-wing zionist, and in the latter post also suggests I might be a sockpuppet (as he did on this page as well in this and this edit). He also calls my edits a "massacre" and a "crusade". I find all of these highly offensive, and indicative of the behavioral problem on Wikipedia which he has so amply demonstrated by pushing through his "Palestinian" categories. I can't help but feel myself victimized by this editor and the topic ban against me, and have approached the banning admin to reconsider. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In this edit Chesdovi clearly states that he will not seek consensus, but will continue to edit war. I really think that treating both of us the same way is rather unfair. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You behaviour is audacious at the least. You think you are the teacher round here. You did not keep on discussing the matter before you carried out a mass-revert and category deletion nomination. Thats what i call acting without consensus. Chesdovi (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After two editors tried to persuade you on your talkpage for a week to stop creating and populating controversial categories... Debresser (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You intentionally misconstrue the events, Rabbi Debresser. After having reconstructed the events as they unfolded, I can report the following:

    • 02:31, 24 April 2011 - The last instance of me removing "Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine" before you protested.
    • 06:17, 24 April 2011 - You leave me a message about it on my talk page.
    • 09:30, 24 April 2011 – SD posts.
    • 13:38, 24 April 2011 – I respond.
    • 21:04, 24 April 2011 – SD posts.
    • 13:51, 24 April 2011 – I revert edit by User:Davshul in connection with this issue.
    • 21:50, 25 April 2011 – You post.
    • 00:30, 27 April 2011 – I respond.
    • 06:02, 28 April 2011 – You post.
    • 09:50, 28 April 2011 – I respond.
    • 07:48, 29 April 2011 – You post.
    • 00:12, 1 May 2011 – You post a suggestion.
    • 00:18, 1 May 2011 – I ask for your rational.
    • 00:25, 1 May 2011 – You respond.
    • 00:28, 1 May 2011 – You then embark on mass depopulation exercise, a mere 3 minutes after making your last post. [30] with the strange summary: "Per User_talk:Chesdovi#Question." I see no conclusive conclusion to the discussion, How did you? This first phase ends at 01:28, 1 May 2011, after removal of cats form around 30 pages.
    • 10:16, 1 May 2011 - I respond to your previous post.
    • 10:24, 1 May 2011 - I revert cat remaoval at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra.
    • 10:26, 1 May 2011 – I try and save "Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine."
    • 10:34, 1 May 2011 – You rv my edit at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra.
    • 10:41, 1 May 2011 – I revert another cat removal by you at Daniel ben Azariah [31]
    • 10:48, 1 May 2011 – I add cat to Nathan of Gaza.
    • 10:53, 1 May 2011 - I create New cat "Palestinian Geoanin".
    • 10:53, 1 May 2011 – I rv cats.
    • 10:59, 1 May 2011 – I rv cats.
    • 11:03, 1 May 2011 - I Contest deletion of "Category talk:13th-century Palestinian rabbis."‎
    • After a few more edits at 13:51, 1 May 2011 the next message you leave me is a “Warning.” You then resume reverts to 100 pages without further discussion. I subsequently made one or two re-adds and proceed to add citations for Palestinians. It is only then that you continue with the discussion. After I respond to your Warning you state: “Well, you can't create a whole group of categories, using a controversial term, then substitute existing categories with your categories, while this is being protested on your talk page.” To that I would say, while ithe issue is being discussed, you should not go ahead a revert over 130 pages without my response. Without consensus. And you feel "victimised?" The cheek of it. Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This proves my point. That you continue to create and populate controversial categories even after a week of discussion on your talkpage, where two editors try to argue you out of it. In plain English, you push through a non-consensus category structure. And that after some five blocks and bans, as is testified to by your talkpage. You are a disruptive editor, and you should be permanently banned, and your edits in connection with this subject reverted.
    Since the original banning admin hasn't seen fit to return to this thread for over 24 hours, I call upon any admin to reconsider this case. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to “argue me out of it” is just not good enough to justify your rampage. You cannot force you edits upon other without reaching a solution, agreed with by all involved. I have made more headway with the other editor who had conceded that as long as Palestinian is cited, that's fine. You still ignore that editors and continue to revert! Are you in charge here? There were over five categories you nominated for deletion. How did you go about that? By starting a discussion at the Category deletion page? No! You instead emptied all the pages and them nominated the cats since they “are empty”. How strange. They weren’t empty a few hours ago? What happened here? A major disruption occurred. You are the culprit. No question about it. I can not be culpable for reverting a handful of pages to tell you I’m not accepting your edits, when you refused to continue discussing the matter. After I had indicated I was unhappy with your changes, you still ignore me and go ahead and revert over 100 more pages. That is unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing, POV pushing, and ownership by Barnstarbob

    Barnstarbob (talk · contribs) is being very difficult at Chevrolet Vega. He was brought to this page a couple of weeks ago, but his behaviour has not improved and he continues with tendentious editing and presumed ownership of the article. If anything it has got worse. I have tried to improve the article, but many of my changes have been reverted. Today 842U (talk · contribs) made a series of edits which started to address the bias and reduce the trivia that was present in the article. Now Barnstarbob has reverted those edits (multiple times) and refuses to engage, as I have asked him to do, on the article's talk page to explain why he thinks 842U's edits are wrong. Instead he states all the current content was approved by other people implying that we have no right to make any changes. I'm not going to revert him again because I may have already tripped 3RR, for which I apologise, but I would ask that someone take a look at his actions and consider what can be done to help. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Update - he has once again reverted - making it four straight reverts in a row, and once again has refused to take the discussion to the article's talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard telling who's "right", content-wise, but Bob has reported you and another user at the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been two discussions of which Biker Biker and 842U have not participated in. One two years ago, AND one started by 842U in a Project discussion recently, but he DID NOT participate. Any of the suggestions, deletions and changes made by any User were NOT reverted by me during that discussion. Biker Biker however has made several deletions and changes (only recently) of which I have not reverted as well. However three sections, the Lead, Problems, and Reception were totally changed by 842U after they were approved and judged neutral two years ago and in the recent projects discussion. These three section edits were reverted by me to the former. My work and research used in the three sections was deleted in these three sections AFTER the discussions they did not participate in and were judged neutral and complete. I have followed ALL suggestions in those discussions before making any major changes to the article and have not reverted any of those Users changes during those discussions. 842U is making major changes to the article after the fact. I reverted those major changes and Biker Biker reverted back to 842As changes. Again, The two Users did not participate in ANY of the discussions regarding the article's content, size, or neutrality. 842A is exhibiting Ownership as he deletes complete sections and ignores the discussion suggestions and outcomes, with Biker Biker recently reverting back 842Us major changes as well. More than two Users have concluded the lead, Problems, and Reception are proper and neutral and do not require complete changes or deltion of the material. (Barnstarbob (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    Baseball Bugs - thanks for pointing out the edit-warring entry. I have added my side of the story there including the four reverts done by Barnstarbob - thus tripping 3RR. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to retract that "thank you". It's hard to tell from the reverts just what's going on, as a lot of it seems to be reshuffling of the same info. But I detect that the OP here is trying to promote a more negative view of the Vega (which was pretty much of a "throwaway car", as I recall) while Bob wants to present it in a more positive light. In short, it's a content dispute, and the main players here are all guilty of edit-warring, when they ought to instead take it to some sort of dispute resolution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that some sort of dispute resolution is in order. It wouldn't hurt for Barnstarbob to have a look at WP:Consensus#Consensus can change, though, especially if he's citing discussion that took place two years ago as support for "his version" of the article. It may be time for another discussion on the content to see where consensus is now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion started by 842U was recent and he did not participate, and did not like the outcome and proceeded tp make major changes after it was discussed and determined no further prunning was needed. But he just does what he wants.(Barnstarbob (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    The current opinion is the article is neutral and there are no ownership issues then or now on my part. There have been two Users that have accused me in two years, including you, of which it was determined these were false.842A', You are the one who thinks he OWNS it. You start a discussion in Project Automobiles, then you don't participate, then you proceed to go against everything that was discussed. I'm following that discussion and the suggestions of the Users from it and the discussion from two years ago as well. Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest. I have all the referenced text, Do you think I would if I didn't like the subject? It has helped the article, not hurt it. I've worked on it as a group effort from the beginning with other Users, most offering suggestions. I do not delete contributions. You're only kidding yourself if you think I hurt the article. The Problems section has been in the article for two years. The facts pertaining to all aspects of the car, good and bad should be more important for an encyclopedia article than reviews, as reviews are a combination of fact and opinion which can be biased depending on its source; nonetheless the reviews here are unmatched anywhere in one article. Your sole contributions to the article - non-automotive sourced criticism, was not deleted, nor were any other contributions from any User. I've added much automotive press sourced criticism past and present from 1970-2010, and reverted the deleted praise to keep the article neutral. If anyone is looking to render the article non-neutral or one sided its 842U.

    A sampling below from the WikiProject Chevrolet Vega Discussion 842A initiated to accuse me of ownership, but did not participate in, concludes there is no ownership or conflict of interest issues on my part. In this sample it is clear by my working with other Users and the User comments below, the original accusations by 842U are false, and currently Biker Biker's discussion here is nothing more than frustration of his inability to OWN the article making major changes without discussion or approval by anyone first.

    • Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk. TREKphiler 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As for Bob's adding his own pix, I don't see the beef. I added mine to custom car because there weren't any. If there are better ones (not just different ones...), replace them. TREKphiler 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    And current discussion on Vega page -

    • I do feel that Barnstarbob has managed to lose most or all of the ownership issues that were previously problematic. He is still a bit hotheaded at times (as correctly stated in the previous section), and I would suggest endeavouring to remedy this. Nonetheless, I think that these problems are best dealt with on Barnstarbob's own userpage and not here on the Chevy Vega page. I would like to separate any possible issues with Chevrolet Vega from the problems of User:Barnstarbob entirely, which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours:  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    I agree with the admins who have pointed out that this is indeed a content disput. The way to achieve consensus about content is by discussion, which Barnstarbob is steadfastly refusing to do, instead he states again and again that the page was "approved two years ago" and thus doesn't need chaning. As stated here consensus can change and that needs discussion not reversion. My beef is not about the article, but about Barnstarbob's behaviour in this content dispute and his refusal to play fair - which is why I have brought him to ANI. I welcome discussion, have invited him to discuss, but he won't. --Biker Biker (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was discussed in a lengthy discussion in Project Automobile RECENTLY of which you and 842U did not participate in. Had you participated you would know it has been determined the article no longer needs MAJOR pruning, or constant lengthening of the lead, or deletion or major changes in the sections, of which you have tried and failed to do on your own against the discussion outcome. I've tried to explain, but all did was start this accusation discussion, probably out of your own frustration of not getting your (own) way... Your editing including the External Link deletions and other changes were not reverted (excluding your deletion of the five gallery images) AS no MAJOR changes or deletions of the sections are needed or necessary according to the opinions expressed in the recent projects discussion and the recent article talk page. (i.e. "which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours": User:Mr.choppers) My conclusion for what its worth is 842U doesn't care about those discussions based on his persistence of constantly making MAJOR changes to the article, and Biker Biker hasn't read the discussions at all. Stop deleting the discussion approved, careful, neutral work made by other Users either from their suggestions or actual contributions.
    another discussion example...Ok ObtuseAngle, paragraphes removed. It has been returned to a shortened version of the lead used in the last article discussion. (Now it looks like other Wikipedia article's lead paragraphs). If you think anything else is not needed in the lead, please advise. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC))
    Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    But 842 has continued to completely change and lengthen the lead paragraph every few days, still ignoring other Users in previous or current discussions. 842 has been warned to stop framing criticism with HIS opinions. (reserved for reputable sources in Criticism) and now Biker Biker... the Problems section, as added by User suggestion to remove a neutrality flag, lists facts of the cars issues or problems in a separate section. It also is not reserved for 842Us or any Wikipedia User's opinions. This is not a web blog. The car's problems are presented with facts from referenced reliable sources. The fixes over the car's seven year production run are noted there as well as part of the article's factual and neutral tone. The Reception section lists all verifiable Praise and Criticism, both automotive and non-automotive sourced, past and present. As per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia Users are not to express their opinions of the subject of the article, rendering it biased or non-neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    For the last month or so, using the discussion page to cite the plethora of sources that encapsulate the Vega's legacy as a promising but seriously flawed product, I've tried to introduce information to the body of the article and to the lead. These edits have been continuously reverted by Barstarbob, previously Vegavairbob, despite all efforts to discuss the lack of balance in the article, as well as the article's reliance on promotional material from the manufacturer, his own photographs as well as photographs, photos of his own cars as well as bloated fancruft (a whole section on the article on fake wood siding application, but where is the ongoing damage the Vega continues to affect on General Motors reputation with small cars?). Most recently, the discussion page reflects Barstarbob's contention that books written by historians as well as Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics are somehow not worthy of being introduced into the article. Barstarbob has spent the last weeks discouraging edits, has attacked me personally, and has used a machine-gun approach to editing the article -- basically to protect his singular viewpoint. He insists on burying any information of substance about the car's broad legacy. Taken individually, these problems (i.e., the photos of his own cars) aren't egregious. But taken together, Barnstarbob is owning the article, trying to shut out any other points of view besides his own. He is essentially using the article to grandstand for the Vega – in an especially narrow, minutely-focused manner.842U (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am trying everything to get Barnstarbob to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page but he continues with his endless cycle of reverting other people's work. He has gone 3RR yet again today on some changes that I made and despite me starting a thread on the talk page he just ignored it and reverted my change. Please help. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He has also just gone 3RR on the lead section despite my appealing on his talk page as well as the article's talk page for him to engage in discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This post on his talk page, not on the article's talk page demonstrates his WP:OWN approach, refusing to engage in discussion on the article's talk page saying it is pointless. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is, unfortunately, a longstanding problem for Bob. I came across it a good six months ago, & AFAIK, nothing has changed. The apologist tone he's adopted (& insisted on) for the page is beyond POV. His unwillingness to accept even quite small changes to even page appearance (never mind content) without conflict is extreme.
    I also find it odd he's changed usernames three times now. (Suspicious minds might think he's trying to hide something.)
    I should also note I have a strong preference for early & long blocks for all forms of bad behavior, so judge my attitude accordingly. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Misrepresentation of sources at the White Latin American article

    The White Latin American article contains the following statement in the lede:

    "Composing about 36% of the population as of 2010, White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic group in the region.[24][25]"

    As I have pointed out in an edit summary [32], neither source cited refers to 'white Latin Americans' as a unified ethnic group. Lizcano [33] refers to 'Latin or Iberian' ethnicity in the English-language abstract, and from what I can tell via Google translate, makes no claim that there are unified ethnic groups crossing national boundaries - the article is however in Spanish, and I'd appreciate if someone familiar with the language will check this. The CIA Factbook [34] likewise makes no claim that 'white Latin Americans' is an ethnic group - though I very much doubt that the Factbook could be considered WP:RS on this subject, given the disparate reporting regarding ethnicity, and the total lack of any indication of sources. The statement that 'white Latin American' is an ethnic group is therefore WP:OR, and the figure arrived at is WP:SYN. Rather than responding to my comments, USER:SamEV has chosen to slap an edit warning template on my talk page: [35]

    I consider SamEV's actions to be in breach of the expected standards from editors, and given his refusal to answer my objections to the above sentence from the article lede, ask that appropriate action be taken against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've edited the above to remove the <ref></ref> tags. They don't work well on noticeboards like this, especially if multiple sections use them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    About Lizcano's paper I give you an analysis of the paper done in:[36]
    Lizcano text is very generally used to support assertions that are central. The source is poorly used, poorly referenced, it does not indicate the precise spot where Lizcano says this or that. Moreover, Lizcano is talking about people "ethnic" (culture), and he often say "independently of skin color" when referring to any of the ethnic groups ('white or not). Speaks about "white" only when referring to statistics of population, but before anything else speaks of "criollo" in the sense of European (culture) transplanted in Latin America. Lizcano, never made ​​explicit what is the method by which concluded that the minority criolla population is the largest component of Latin America.
    As the paper is in Spanish, it's easier to believe it says something that does not actually say. Be manipulated very easily. I apologize for my English. Best --Jcestepario (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. As I suspected, it seems that Lizcano is being misrepresented. As it turns out, other contributors have reworded the lede to the extent that the edits made by SamEV are moot, and given his lack of response, I can only assume he is either unconcerned about the article, or has accepted that my objections to the original text are valid. On that basis, unless he attempts to revert to the earlier POV-pushing version of the article, I'm prepared to consider the issue closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In this article[37] Lizcano gives a very long theoretical definition of what he means by "etnia" and "grupos etnicos" - he explicitly states that "Whites", "Mestizos", "indians" are not Ethnic groups in the normal use of the term, they do not have a common identity and they do not interact. He basically states that he uses etnia as a shorthand for "Ethnic Category" using "category "in the sense of Giddens' "social category" as a label applied externally to groups who do not selfidentify as members of such a group. He then goes on to use Barth's concept of ethnicity in a novel way as he says that the groups can be seen as being ethnic groups in the sense of sharing particular cultural traits as the ethnic categories share important aspects of their history (in this case mostly the geographic ancestry of their cultures apparently). The most important part is that he makes it very clear that he does not consider "White people" or "Mestizos" to be ethnic groups in the usual meaning of the word which implies common identity. To the question of whether these groups could have common identity he says emphatically no.(p. 13). He is also clearly aware that most scholars would consider it is highly problematic to talk about "whites", "mestizos" and "Indians" as "etnias" - since he goes to a great lengths to explain and justify his use of that terminology. He talks about "la misma distincion entre etnia y grupo etnico defendida en este articulo" - clearly implying that the distinction requires to be defended (i.e. it is not generally accepted). ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok guys, it's very unlikely any admin action is needed here. Perhaps you should find a suitable WikiProject to continue this conversation. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?

    {{resolved|Unblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

    On Day of the Moon a recent Doctor Who episode, part of the plot involves a resolution that is unclear to the viewer (any statement made about it is engaging in OR). Earlier today there was an IP along with a few editors including User:U-Mos that discussed the wording of this section to avoid consternation on the phrasing and avoid OR. (see Talk:Day of the Moon#Amy's pregnancy). The change was implemented per how consensus operates by U-Mos here [38]. Note the invisicomments to highlight the issue to new editors.

    Some time later editors changed this sentence to readd the language that was contested before, at least a couple times. U-Mos proceeds to revert back pointing to the talk page discussion. At this point User:SarekOfVulcan warns him of violating 3RR (which, if one didn't see the talk page discussion, certainly can be interpreted as that) [39] and then after another U-Mos revert back to the talk page consensus version, Sarek blocks him ([40]), and the review of the block was denied because apparently reverting back to a consensus version after something has been contested is not a valid 3RR reason. ([41]). Note that there was no 3RR report filed, Sarak took this initiative, apparently related to an earlier similar problem with the 7th Harry Potter book or movie. Now, there may be other issues going on personality-wise and past history, but I'm not looking at the people involved, only what actually transpired.

    Now, since then, a registered but infrequent editor - uninvolved with the talk page discussion - has added back the text that was in consternation in the first place, basically nullifying the whole take page discussion. I am afraid of reverting it for the same reason of being blocked despite the fact this text had consensus from the talk page. Is this really how 3RR is supposed to work? I could understand that if U-Mos simply reverted without any talk page discussion that the 3RR block is warranted, but when consensus has come to a conclusion and that conclusion is overridden by an unaware editor (acting in good faith), I cannot see how a reversion back to a consensus-agreed (particularly as recent as that was completed) version with appropriate change notice to the talk page can be seen as a strike towards 3RR. But as the reviewing admin noted, there is no "written" allowance for such revisions within WP:3RR, nor could I expect that to be codified because it will be gamed. But I don't believe U-Mos was gaming anything here. It feels like people are jumping at this mechanically and not considering the entire issue... --MASEM (t) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And again, to be clear, before the completion of the discussion on the proper phrasing U-Mos was approaching 3RR-like editing and appropriately warned about it. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:3RR is part of WP:Edit warring for a reason. Reverting to a version that has a demonstrated consensus should not be completely exempt from being considered edit warring (it's not a stated exemption), but it should certainly be given a lot of leeway. That doesn't seem to have happened here. Rd232 talk 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there could be editing warring, and am not seeking a full exemption for that type of use (again, chance of gaming is high). But as you note, a non-mechanical analysis of this situation would show that 3RR doesn't immediately apply. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am tempted to unblock here, per WP:IAR. There is no User:3RR Blocking Bot; there is a reason administrators are supposed to use judgment when blocking. And I don't believe that Sarek's judgment was correct, at least with regards to the final strike. NW (Talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support unblocking here, based on Masem's report (haven't checked all the details/context). Rd232 talk 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. U-Mos (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify the comment about Harry Potter 7, I hit 7RR while attempting to keep an article about a newly-released movie accurate and neutral the day after its release. When I realized what I had done, I insisted on receiving the same block that anyone else would have received in the same situation. My initial warning to U-Mos indicated that I was sympathetic, but that he was (significantly) over the line. He agreed to step away from the article, but then returned to make his 13th revert (just on the Undos, ignoring any reverts as part of other editing), at which point I blocked him. While I have no problem with the unblock, I fail to see why this was a lapse in judgement on my part. If there was a strong consensus for this wording, that means there were other people who could have made the revert. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's important to remember what 3RR is meant for; it's meant to prevent singular editors from insisting on their version of the article compared to what consensus has said or without seeking additional consensus. In this case, consensus had been gained, and U-Mos was reverting to that version from a random IP/infrequent editor's change. Though for all practical purposes it looked like a 3RR over the course of 24hrs, it was special circumstances (the intervention of consensus discussion) that interviens here. I don't know the details of your case at HP to know if there was discussion towards a consensus, but as you simply describe it, I can certainly understand why you requested the block.
    But again, I think the comments above highlight the heart of the matter - 3RR is not some mechanical rule. It is meant to discourage editors from edit warring to a preferred version, and thus the circumstances of the 3RR need to be investigated before it can be slapped down. Some cases are very easy (same article, we have one user StacyGMU who did just that and warned off on revert #3) but U-Mos' case here is far from that and is the type of case that judgement is needed as suggested per WP:3RR itself. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an argument that unilaterally deviating from a consensus could be perceived as vandalism anyway, which is exempt from 3RR. It's up to the admin's judgment whether that is a valid defence in the case of this article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time, a new IP editor or infrequent registered editor coming to make the change against consensus once is difficult to call vandalism (if anything, its more than likely a change in good faith). I'm not trying to fit U-Mos' actions into the mold of what is an acceptable 3RR exempted allowance, only that the situation is more complex than just counting the number of reverts and block if that's more than three. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no. Don't let's redefine "vandalism", please. Half the POV pushers I know falsely claim consensus for everything they do. There's no way we need to open up editing against their actions to charges of vandalism.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that my 3RR block was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Reverting crap from high profile articles, which I missed at the time. I don't see that a clear consensus was formed for or against maintaining consensus as a 3RR exemption, but I suggest continuing discussion there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:3RR is a mechanical, or at least bright-line, rule. There are very specific exemptions: the edit warring page explains "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." U-Mos claimed "talk page consensus" -- this is not an exception to 3RR. And now that I count your reverts, Masem, I see you made 4 reverts on Day of the Moon yesterday, every one of which you marked as "reverted good faith edits". You were quite right to be afraid of being blocked as you stated above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection of Osama bin Laden

    I changed Osama bin Laden from semi-protect to full protect. I have had comments on my talk page for and against that action. Feel free to revert this action but I couldn't revert vandalism of the semi-protected page faster than the edit conflicts were happening. Rmhermen (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You did the right thing. I had made the suggestion on its talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too late to protect him. He gawn, bye-bye. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins needed at Osama Bin Laden

    Osama Bin Laden is dead and the article is locked down the sheer volume of Edit requests is swampin the talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) As of 8:10pm (PDT) the "official" announcement from the White House hasn't been made. CNN and Fox are quoting "unnamed sources", and have engaged in speculation before that turned out to be inaccurate. Suggest leaving the article at Full protection for at least 3 hours until something a bit more definitive comes out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Prodego unprotected it but has taken no action to remove the false information from the article. After ten consecutive edit conflicts trying to remove the "fact" that Obama had a press conference and announced this already (which has not occurred yet but is still in the article), I wash my hands of the matter. At least someone managed to get the I love Chooee. removed. Rmhermen (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Obama is expected to address the nation at 03:30 UTC (about 5 minutes from now). –MuZemike 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins aren't super editors - there is no reason to restrict that page to editing only by admins at this time. Prodego talk 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Some eyes also needed on Death of Osama bin Laden, as I doubt this is going to be deleted. –MuZemike 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives has also been semi-protected for a bit. –MuZemike 03:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    President Obama is on TV now confirming it - however, obvious care should be taken with the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe also semi-protect "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" in case of an attempt to redirect it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BEANS much? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late Really shouldnt give people ideas Bugs The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and nothing of value was lost. God, I've always wanted to say that... HalfShadow 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nothing of value was lost." I wouldn't say that. Osama will make good fertilizer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We may also want to protect "America, Fuck Yeah", as an article might be created from that redirect (I know, heaven forbid we (re)create new articles, WP:BEANS be damned). –MuZemike 06:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to repost it below - I'll comment here. I do think protection will be needed there for a while, there will be a lot of people trying to edit and it's no easier getting edit conflicts through on an active article than an active talk page. On the talk page, we can at least edit in a section and not affect the editing for other users elsewhere, so that seems the best bet right now. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also need eyes on US Navy Seals, Delta Force, and other USSOCOM related articles. May want semi or full protection on all of them too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I say keep all'em articles protected until we see a Long Form Death Certificate, that doesn't have no fuzzy print on it. Let the "deather" movement begin!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long while: Count me in! :-) Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    US Navy Seals semiprotected for 1 hr after ongoing foo... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late, the term "deathers" is taken. [42] Ironically they are likely to be the same people as the "birthers"--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group semiprotected for 3 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC
    Hah! Wikipedia is protecting the Navy Seals! Take that Marines. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In other Wikipedia-related business, we should go back to full-protection, as Spork4beans (talk · contribs) intentionally busted autoconfirmed to vandalize the article. –MuZemike 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Death date

    Since it appears that Osama died on April 29th in the morning when the operation was undertaken, it would be helpful if some people could keep an eye on May 2nd, since IPs are probably going to try to keep adding that as his day of death (I already reverted once), when that is just the date that his death was announced. May 1st as well, it seems. SilverserenC 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, but the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, in a statement dated May 2, that "Osama Bin Ladin was killed in the surroundings of Abbotabad in the early hours of this morning". So, it appears bin Laden did die on May 2 (where did April 29 come from?). They're not vandals. -- tariqabjotu 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect people are getting their time zone conversions wrong. From what I've heard, it sounds like it took place around 12:30am or 1:00am on May 2nd (very early morning). ← George talk 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see my confusion. The article says that Obama decided to make the raid on April 29th, but it apparently wasn't actually done until May 1st, which the article doesn't say, but the sources do. Now, the question is, are we going by May 1st here or May 2nd there? This needs to be decided, because his death is being added to both days. Since Obama gave the announcement on May 1st here at 11:30 PM that Osama was dead, are we going by that? The Death article itself flip-flops on dates. SilverserenC 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why this is a discussion for ANI. But if it's clear it was 2nd May at the place he died then that's what we go by for the date of death (if it's felt that's needed for the article). The date at the US when he died is irrelevant for his date of death even if it was their forces that killed him although there's nothing wrong with also putting the time and date of the annoucement by Obama of his death (but the date/time of the annoucement shouldn't be confused with when he died). Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I made this section is because his death is being listed on both the May 1st article and the May 2nd article and it should obviously be on only one. If we're all agreed on which one it should be, then we need to take it off of the other one and make sure it stays off. SilverserenC 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see any reason to have this discussion here particularly since it may take a few days to resolve yet that doesn't mean there will be many comments (meaning we will have to keep this open) and it will likely be missed by many who can contribute (not thinking they have to check out the ANI for what is a local issue that doesn't require administrative attention) and in the future anyone who wants to see how the decision was reached isn't going to find it in the archives because the discussion was at WP:ANI. Instead this discussion should either be at the ObL article (where there are already multiple discussions) or start a discussion at May 2nd (or May 1st) and linked to that discussion at May 1st (or May 2nd). Note that asking people to keep an eye on the articles here doesn't mean the discussion or where to list the death has to be held here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure in which place it should be had though. I feel like if it is done on the Death page, it's just going to be drowned in all the other discussion sections that are being made there. SilverserenC 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paedophile

    Resolved
     – Handled by Lankiveil. Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If Wikipedia takes child protection seriously, and especially stomping out pedo-advocacy, then why oh why is the howlingly-inappropriately named Paedophile (talk · contribs) not blocked?? Needs a prompt block, admins. I report it here because "Usernames for administrator attention" says "Accounts that haven't edited in 3 weeks or more should not be reported." I happen to think User:Paedophile should be blocked anyway. WP:CHILDPROTECT and all that. 203.118.185.117 (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest a soft block is in order, despite the length of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked as clearly inappropriate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Good block, but the account apparently never edited anything, so it seems a case of Chicken Little. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I think a case could be made for WP:U violation, but it would require a better lawyer than me. Doubly so since I'm not a lawyer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The probability that a sleeper account with that name is ever going to be a positive contributor, is considerably less than the probability of my getting elected Pope. Good block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Signature of India Politician

    I have some doubt about Signature of popular living people. Are signature is public domain material or can any one upload signature of any popular living people like politician claming that his work??

    see the list of Signature of India Politician by User:GaneshBhakt. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 09:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Claiming it's his "own" work is never going to be appropriate, unless he's the individual, but the question about whether the content is public domain is a bit of a legal grey area, I believe. See Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons (proposed). I have no idea where India stands on the issue. The template he's attempting to use, Template:PD-signature, does not exist on Wikipedia, but does on Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a grey area. I helped draft that proposal (I am not a lawyer!), we never got around to finally trying to get consensus for it to be adopted as a guideline. And yet, plainly those {{own}} templates are not true, for example Sting would be miffed at someone claiming to own his signature: File:Signature of Sting.svg. Fences&Windows 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. You didn't alert GaneshBhakt on this thread or even discuss the matter with them afaics. I've done so. Fences&Windows 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not an ANI problem but would the signatures be original research without some reference to a reliable source, not sure how these signatures can be used without some evidence that they are in fact the correct signatures. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    True. The proposal mentioned reliable sources, but didn't specifically mention WP:V. I've updated it. Without a source to demonstrate that these are the correct signatures, they fail WP:V and should be removed from the articles. Fences&Windows 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    thank for comments, yes ANI is not discussing such about this king of problem. So please let me know,Wikipedia talk:Signatures of living persons may be right place for discussing. How are we treat this kind of signature without verification ?--- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IP range making nationalist edits

    I'm not entirely sure where to go with this, but it's not entirely about nationalism because it's also going to move into edit warring and also throwing extraneous flags into paragraphs, so I bring it here. There's an IP range that is insisting on being verbose about the difference between the People's Republic of China (commonly "China" in English) and the Republic of China (Commonly "Taiwan"). Here are some examples of the range's edits:

    • [43] - Insists on adding "Taiwan" after every mention of the ROC
    • [44] - Adds flag icons to every mention of China, even changing the position's name, also adding "(PRC)" after every mention of the country.

    Since it's a large range (with IPs including 208.157.149.67 and 208.168.230.177) and because he's now begun to revert my reversions of his edits, I wanted to bring it to the wider community, and ANI is always the first place I think of to do that. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: The main reason I came here before leaving him a note was because of the fact that the IP changes so often, but I have left a note at the most reason one [tersely] expressing my concerns and linking here. --Golbez (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    They're also insisting on, among other things, listing Martha Stewart as a Polish American businesswoman in the lede of her article, rather than, you know, American. And reverting to get this through. This is a clear violation of WP:BRD and is now approaching edit-warring, of which I have become a party. Please see my contributions to see the articles I've encountered this range on, as I will be approaching 3RR and would like backup. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some reverts too, and gave a 3-rr warning to the IP Golbez warned, but it has moved on to another IP now. Thanks Jimbo for one of the many "joys" of open editing. - BilCat (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming soon to G4 TV...Celebrity Whac-A-Mole(tm)! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have now reverted three times on [45], I'd appreciate some guidance before continuing. I could just go blocking, but since there's a large range involved... --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you've been reverting the IP, best to get another admin to rangeblock if required. Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with the fact that I am in dispute with you. The guidelines on ROC/Taiwan go back a looonnng time, and I looked at how other articles about Taiwanese/ROC institutions and cities are formatted. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I didn't mean to revert you twice. My internet is being really slow and obnoxious and I simply hit the send button twice. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a returning user you should step back a bit and get a feel for how things work round here these days. Where is this link to the guideline that flagcruft in article body text is correct in this case where you are reverting? I see the user has self reverted and seems to have accepted the situation. Please don't follow me around from article to article when in dispute with me, its conflict escalation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue was not with the flag icons, but rather with ROC/Taiwan naming issue. Just a note: it is usually common decency to use cruft in much lighter, more civil and more humourous fashions.Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RevDel needed at Jack Kevorkian

    Resolved

    Recent schoolboy IP vandalism (two rounds so far today), targeting classmates by name and identifying the school they attend. Targets are apparently private persons and minors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 1 month, revdeleted as appropriate. NW (Talk) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Eyes requested

    Resolved

    Could we get some admin eyes over at Talk:Gay? I'm afraid there's a need for some RevDel work... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That was fast. Many thanks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davidglen77 at Maurcio Macri bio

    I apologize if this is not within the remit of this noticeboard, but it seems the most appropriate place. This came up at WP:BLPN some time ago which is why I watchlisted it.

    Davidglen77 (talk · contribs) shows up once a week or so at Mauricio Macri to add negative content about him based on personal recollections. This is a slow motion edit war and WP:3RR has not been violated while I've been watching the page. He has been warned many times and apparently blocked once for 72 hours, and consistently re-adds the identical content every time. I put the AN/I discussion tag on his page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked, there's no place for vendettas here. If he pledges to use RS and avoid OR, he can be unblocked. Fences&Windows 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone who speaks Spanish fix their version? They've protected the "wrong version" with the unsourced material included: http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauricio_Macri&action=history. Fences&Windows 16:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I can't believe they where online for over a month. I'll watch it. pmt7ar (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I'm not autoconfirmed over there. Fences&Windows 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bizarre case of WP:OWN

    Resolved
     – Nimur duly warned – ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 21:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor seems to have taken it upon himself to police the talkpage of the reference desk, closing all the threads for no clear reason and deleting other editors' comments [46] [47]

    Unless I'm missing something, I think an admin should tell him to cut it out? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also relevant are these diffs: [48] [49] – ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, he's also well over the WP:3RR (or '6RR' in this case!) [50] – ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nimur has decided to take ownership of the ref desk talk page. He needs to be told that he cannot do that. He's currently engaged in an edit war with at least two of us, to hide comments and questions he doesn't feel like looking at.

    This is an outgrowth of a heated discussion about how to handle a long-standing ref desk troll named Light Current. There has been lots of back-and-forth on it, but it was confined to that page. Now, with Nimur deciding to take ownership of that page, it has tipped the scales. It is not his place to tell others what to talk about on the talk page, especially as the topic is the ref desk.

    I've already warned him I was going to bring him here if he made one more edit-warring move, and he did, so here we are. I predict he will gripe about my behavior and downplay the activities of the LC troll. So be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nimur is a longstanding RefDesker, he evidently thought the multiple discussion threads were going nowhere and was trying to calm the storm in good faith. I've asked him to stop, as others obviously disagreed. That should be the end of it. Franamax (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of RefDesk traffic is people asking legitimate questions and getting (mostly) good answers. You may just be looking at the talk page, where the spillover shows up from the few bad questions that get removed. The people who like drama hang out there, and the serious answerers ignore it and get on with the questions and the research. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so, I gave up on the RefDesk talkpage years ago. I strongly recommend anyone else who loves the desks to do the same. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that when an obvious trolling question gets deleted, there is a small group of users who demand that it be retained, and that's where the "drama" starts. Following the off-wiki advice of an admin, I've decided to do no more deletions, no matter how outrageous the question is, and to just let the troll(s) have their/its way, and to let the clique handle the troll(s) as they see fit (or not). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank god for that. Your continual sticking your nose in was getting right up peoples noses. You just avoided becoming wabbit stew. well done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.100.75 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an unfortunately not-so-rare sighting of the bird under discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found it best to Template:archive top or Template:hat the offending question. That way it's still there, but clearly marked as inappropriate in the template summary. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chess dove

    Chess dove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Please sort out this imposter. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like that dove is now a dead pigeon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another n00b and NexCarnifex

    NexCarnifex (talk · contribs) came onto IRC and asked for help dealing with another user, the aforementioned Another n00b (talk · contribs), after he "spammed" Nex's userpage. After a quick look, the edits in question - [51] and [52] - are less spam and more outright vandalism. According to Nex, the vandalism was provoked when Nex added an image to an article ([53]), which he objected to because the image was "obscure creepypasta". From the looks of it there's not been a whole lot of discussion between the two, but it still doesn't justify the vandalism to Nex's userpage. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 18:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been notified, but on his talk page he admits that he did it "for the lulz", so my warning bells are already starting to move. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This was intended to be humourous, as he persists in uploading this shock image, even though it is not appropriate or notable enough for wikipedia. - Another n00b (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Homorous or not, it's still vandalism. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so adding to a user's userpage is worse than uploading un-useful, junk onto commons?? I object. - Another n00b (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both appear to be edit-warring on List of Internet phenomena -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even the "original" image so it has no legitimate use. Tagged for deletion as an unused non-free copyrighted file. Fences&Windows 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Objection to the use of a certain image in an article

    Article: Manx2 Flight 7100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Earlier today, IP 84.137.93.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed File:Metroliner OLT D-CSWF.jpg from the Manx2 Flight 7100 article, leaving a legal threat in the edit summary. I issued the IP with a uw-legal. I've now received a message on my talk page claiming to be from OLT Gmbh stating that the airline objects to the use of an image of one of their aircraft in an article about an aircrash that they have nothing to do with, basically the objection is that by having the image, they are shown in a negative light. A counter-argument is that there are plenty of images of the crashed aircraft available. Indeed there are plenty of images, but none of them on a compatible licence. I fear that any attempt to use an image of the actual crashed aircraft would result in the deletion of that image as not passing all the NFUR rules. There are other images in Commons:Category:Fairchild Metroliner that could be used, but the image that was being used (removed again by the IP) was chosen for its quality. What advice can we give the IP/airline as to the use of the image. They claim the use images of their aircraft on Wikipedia are unauthorised by them. This may well be the case, but the image is licenced by its author as PD. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Did the author of the image indeed release it as PD? If so, OLT can't do squat about it because they aren't the ones who took the picture. And if *they* released it as PD, they can't put use restrictions on it because PD is more or less waiving copyright. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From the licencing of the image:-
    I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
    In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
    I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
    Looks pretty clear to me. So, restore the image and semi-protect the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think their objection is fair. We should not use an image of an aircraft with a different Airline's logo on it to illustrate an article about a crash unrelated to said airline. While not a copyright issue, I think the image should stay out of the article. Monty845 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Adopting that would strip many aircrash articles of infobox images. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do most aircrash infobox images have such a prominently displayed logo of an unrelated airline? Monty845 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In lit I've read about airline crashes, any pictures of aircraft either illustrate the crash in progress or an aircraft of like model in the livery of the same airline. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, it is nice to have a photo of the actual aircraft. Failing that, one from the airline (actual livery is better still). Unfortunately, there isn't always a photo available that meets these criteria. So we go for a photo of the model of aircraft involved, picking the best quality image that we can get. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you find this photo manipulation an acceptable substitute: File:Metroliner_identifcation_removed.jpg? Monty845 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one way to find out! Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My highly unscientific review of the first 20 transclusions of the {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}} found one example of a photo from another airliner being used as an illustration [54], and imo the logo was not as visible. Monty845 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Make a copy with the logo blurred or Photoshopped off for such use in the crash articles. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good solution, let me try to come up with something in that regard. Monty845 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got some experience at that sort of thing, so feel free to post a link or two on my talk page if there are any you get stuck on. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow-burning edit war

    At: George I of Greece, George II of Greece, Constantine I of Greece, Constantine II of Greece, Alexander of Greece, Paul of Greece.

    Elizabeth II's monogram
    King George II'smonogram, an example of the current Greek monograms using blue

    User:Fry1989 insists on adding monograms colored blue to the articles above. There are no sources showing the monogram in blue, and so consequently I remove them as original research. Compare with the monogram which is the most familiar in the modern world: that of Elizabeth II (shown right). The monogram does not have to be colored, but when it is colored the lettering is always in yellow. Like company logos, flags and coats of arms, the color of monograms is set. If altered, the file is no longer that person's royal monogram, but is instead an inaccurate pastiche.

    I have tried to explain this to Fry over several weeks, articles and talk pages without success. I have repeatedly asked him to provide a source showing the monograms in blue. He has never provided one. I have asked for the files to be corrected [55][56], and I thought we had agreement here that he would remove the color but he has now refused.

    I have attempted to engage him and explain my reasoning for removing the inaccurate files, and in return he has replied with comments like: you're so thickheaded I don't trust anything you say You were wrong You WERE WRONG You're too lazy Can you read? you clearly have problems You're being disruptive childish, you're a troll and piss off.

    As a result, our interaction has now descended into a tit-for-tat Fry inserts file; I remove file. I cannot disengage because I feel attached to George I of Greece, as it is a featured article that I brought to promotion. If the file remains, the article will no longer meet the FA criteria as it will contain original research. DrKiernan (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The only issue regarding these monograms that DrKiernan actually contests, is the colour. Yet he has never given proof that the colour blue is not right. He claims that a Medal, which is made of gold, is proof the monograms should be either gold or colourless. But that is not proof. Monograms come in a variety of colours based on use, such as in stationary. There' is plenty of proof of this. such as this pic which shows that monograms are used in even rather unorthodox colours in stationary. In this case, the creator of these monogram files on Commons for the Royal Family of Greece, has chosen blue, the national colour of Greece, which makes sense. Meanwhile, DrKiernan continuously remoees them claiming the colours are wrong. He doesn't contest the fact they exist. His only claim to inaccuracy is a medal and necklace made of gold, which of course then is going to be coloured gold. Unless he can prove that another colour was used in the stationary use of these monograms, the user who created them has no obligation to change the colours. Also, DrKiernan, in his constant removal of these monograms from their rightful pages, also removes Royal Titles infoboxes, claiming they're unneccesary. This in itself is a contradiction because the infoboxes have been there for months, and contained an image of the Royal Coat of Arms of Greece, and DrKiernan had no issue with them, having made numerous edits to those pages and leaving the infoboxes there. However, when I replaced the Coats of Arms with the Monograms, he suddenly claims the infoboxes are unneccesary. DrKiernanis making a childish attempt to deprive these pages of the monograms for an idiological issue he has with their colour. He has not made an effort to prove the colours in use are wrong, he simply says they are. I don't take his word for it, I want proof. He even admits in talk that he would "let" the monograms stay on the pages I have added them to, IF they are changed from blue to either gold or black. But he has NOT provided any proof towards his claims. aAgain, without proof, we have no obligation to change the colour of the monograms just to please him. His behaviour is contradictory, and baseless. He needs to be instructed to stop removing these monograms, which he admits are correct and belong there, simply because of an issue of colour, without making an effort to back his claims. Fry1989 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a definitive heraldic source that can be cited one way or the other? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator of these monograms has marked sources on each of their file pages. Most of them are traced from medals and awards, which again, being made of gold, are ofcourse going to be coloured gold. DrKiernan has resisted that both myself, and the files' original creator do not feel that is sufficient proof the change their colour from blue to gold. Therefore he just removes them from the pages. It's childish, and rude. Fry1989 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But that doesn't answer the question...a question which speaks directly to WP:V. Is there a definitive heraldic source that can be referenced and cited one way or the other? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been able, so far, to find direct sources of the monograms outside of the medals they are traced from. However, neither has DrKiernan, IF he has even tried. His behaviour regarding this issue is however, worthy of note. Fry1989 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then if his version at least has a verifiable source (the medals) but yours does not, why do you just not leave the monograms as they are until you find a reliable source? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fry, if your point is that there is no reason for them to be any particular colour ("Monograms come in a variety of colours ... an idiological issue he has with their colour") then could you please explain why you are so adamant that they should be blue? Why could you not just let the status quo stand if it really doesn't matter what colour they are? At a first glance – and I stand to be corrected by any source you can point us to – your behaviour seems to be rather POINTy. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am adamant for two reasons. One is that monograms come in a variety of colours. Denmark's are commonly blue, the Netherlands are often orange, Norway's are mostly red. In this case, being that blue is the national colour of Greece, it makes perfect sense, which is why this is the colour the files original creator chose to render them in. The second reason is because DrKiernan is so vehemently certain they aren't blue, but has yet to prove it. Fry1989 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "The creator of these monogram files on Commons for the Royal Family of Greece, has chosen blue". Therein lies the problem. You need to show that this colour is used in monograms by this royal family, Glasshouse's original colour choice was by his own admission according to his own whim. Go to the sources, not each others' opinions. Fences&Windows 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My $0.02:
    1. A is not B just because "it makes sense."
    2. While I personally don't think blue is objectionable for Greek royal cyphers, why can't it be just black? Colour printing was not as popular when most of these kinds were reigning.
    --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Therein lies the problem. Blue is not objectionable, nor has it been proven wrong. The only problem is ONE user, who claims without evidence, that blue was never used, something he can't prove. I have the ability, but do not like to completely change another user's files on the whim of someone who has behaved in the manner DrKiernan has. His contradictory edits remove their validity in my eyes. I feel this is in the personal discression of the creator, unless proven otherwise. DrKiernan has not shown how their being blue hurts the article, even though he has claimed such nonsense in the past, and again admits the monograms are real. Why should I change them without proof just so he, in his "personal grace", will allow them on a page where he already admits they belong?. Fry1989 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have archived the discussion above about which color should be used for royal monographs. This question will not be resolved on this page. To the extent this issue requires admin intervention, it is about the edit war and other editor conduct issues, not the color.  Sandstein  22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored the comments, that was pretty presumptuous Sandstein. Some of the comments, including my own, are an attempt at dispute resolution. ANI is not just for handing out blocks, bans and page protection you know. Fences&Windows 01:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A look at the history of the articles above shows that Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DrKiernan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are actively edit-warring with one another across these multiple articles, and that Fry1989 is also strongly incivil about it. I see no evidence of proper dispute resolution as provided for in WP:DR. I invite both editors to provide reasons why they should not both be blocked for edit-warring (and, in Fry1989's case, also for personal attacks and incivility).  Sandstein  22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as Fry has just reverted for a 4th time in a 25-hour period, I think that's going to be a tall order. DrKiernan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only called DrKiernan a troll once, at great frustration. He goes without let about how the colours are wrong, but he doesn't prove it. He removes infoboxes that he has absolutely no issue with BEFORE I have anything to do with the pages, but suddenly as soon as the coat of arms in them is replaced with a monogram, he feels they're "unneccesary". I have contacted him several times in the past on his page regarding this mater, asking him to find proof of his claims, and that I will happily change the files if he does. He refuses to do so. I am in an edit war yes, but I am not the one removing files that even I admit belong there, because of my personal conviction that their colour of choice is wrong, and refuse to back it up. If you want to punish me because I wont change someone else's files without evidence, then that's your decision but I would greatly disagree with it. All I've ever asked in this matter is proof from DrKiernan. He won't even try to give me any. Fry1989 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you called me a troll once, but on the 1st May, you called me a troll 12 times. DrKiernan (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I called you it once, and copy/pasted that summary in each revert edit on the 6 articles in question. Even if each edit counts seperately, then I only called you a troll 6 times, NOT 12. Fry1989 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    123456789101112
    • My 0.02, behaviour-wise:
      1. The colour of the royal cypher is by itself de minimis, especially Fry1989's preference of blue would not cause a misleading result. I see no reason why DrKiernan would consider this a high-priority issue, nor do I consider DrKiernan's first removal of these images as appropriate.
      2. The resultant edit war, however, is the fault of both of you.
      3. I think the current images can be put on the pages while you two discuss about WP:CITE issues.
      4. You two should cool yourselves down.
    • --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am calm. I have consistantly throughout this problem asked DrKiernan for proof, so that I can change the files colours to suit him. He won't do it. Instead, note now on his talk page he's calling me a pusher of inacccurate files. Wh y is this such a personal issue for him, and why won't he give any proof? I've asked politely so many times, and all he does is cite the medal. I don't think that's proof, and neither does the creator. I don't like this edit war, but what I don't like more is his contradictions. If anybody should be calming down, it's him, a person who constantly removes files his only issue with is colour, starts incident reports on users who disagree with him, and won't try and engage in correcting what he feels is an problem. I've tried, whether you like my reverts (yes I'mpart of the problem too) or not, atleast credit me for TRYING to correct the problem, something DrKiernan isn't interested in. Fry1989 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One other note, for Samuel Curtis. Blue isn't my preference. My preference is respecting the file's creator's choice in colour for his files until proven otherwise. I agree the issue should be de minimis, however DrKiernan is obsessed with it. I'm guilty of edit warring. I'll admit it. But I'm not obsessed with something as trivial as the colour of a file(which I won't even try to prove was a different colour) that I constantly remove it from pages, and start discussions about other users over it. Fry1989 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, and as Sandstein hints at, Fry1989 and DrKiernan are both guilty of edit-warring and therefore both should be blocked. Seems rather straight forward actually. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the punishment, so be it. But atleast I'm willing to admit where I'm wrong. Someone else has chosen not to. Fry1989 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not in the punishment business. We try to prevent disruption that bothers the work of others. I suspect that a block would not lastingly resolve the conduct problem, which is two editors unreasonably edit-warring over what seem to be mere personal color preferences. Fry1989 and DrKiernan, I propose the following solution to your problem. You both agree not to revert each other again on these articles or over issues of color. You also agree that whoever of you disagrees with the color of the monogram the articles are now left with may start a WP:RFC on the article talk page to settle the question, and that you will both abide by the outcome of that RFC as established by an uninvolved administrator. Fry1989 also needs to agree not to be uncivil to others again, and particularly not to use disparaging terms like "troll", "thick-headed", "piss off" etc. If both of you do not expressly and unreservedly agree to this, I see no option other than a block to prevent your continued disruption of the editing environment.  Sandstein  23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have absolutely no problem with those terms. All I have ever desired, is for DrKiernan to stop removing monograms that he has in the past admitted are correct, under false claims that if they're they wrong colour, it's "dishonest" and "hurtful", even calling it a a "pastiche". Fry1989 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To make sure that you understand these conditions, I ask you to please repeat what you agree to here, without further commentary.  Sandstein  23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, "dishonest" and "hurtful" are Fry's words, not mine. DrKiernan (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to refain from using disparaging terms towards users of whom I am in conflict with, and to not engage in edit wars. Fry1989 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but these are not the conditions I proposed above. Please repeat the exact conditions to which you agree so that I am sure that it is not necessary to block you at this time.  Sandstein  23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree not to revert DrKiernan again on these articles or over issues of color. I also agree to engage in WP:RFCs on the article talk page to settle the question, and abiding by the outcome of that RFC as established by an uninvolved administrator, as well as to remain civil towards other users. Fry1989 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All Sandstein's points fine by me. See Talk:Constantine II of Greece#Monogram. DrKiernan (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both. To summarize, both have agreed not to revert each other any more, to abide by whatever outcome an RfC may bring, and Fry1989 has agreed to stop being incivil. As such, no administrator action seems to be needed at this point and I suggest that this thread be closed. Should any party fails to live up to this agreement, the issue can be brought to ANI again and should result in blocks.  Sandstein  10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A comment

    I remember seeing this discussion months ago, and I suggested that the editors look to the definition of the word monogram. Per Wikipedia:

    A monogram is a motif made by overlapping or combining two or more letters or other graphemes to form one symbol.
    A grapheme (from the Greek: γράφω, gráphō, "write") is a fundamental unit in a written language.

    Since the composition of the monogram is solely an assembling of graphemes to create a symbol, and graphemes (aka letters) have no particular color, the ONLY non-Original-Research color they could be is black. But really I don't see how color would matter at all. Unless Wikipedia is mistaken on the definition of what a monogram is, I think this entire issue of color being Original Research has no basis. -- Avanu (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And DrKiernan is wrong about Big Liz's monogram. Where it appears in colour on a document eg here, the lettering is yellow (or uses gold ink) and the crown is 'proper', but it can also be gold paint on blue ground silver on a black ground with the monogram separate from the crown or even entirely painted red. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, no. As already discussed at Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom#Inclusion of Monogram, I'm using "colored" to mean the crown and writing being different colors, i.e. the emblem being multicolored. We've already established that "not colored" means monochrome. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that it can actually be in any colour. The coronation tin demonstrates that it doesn't have to be in gold, even on a polychrome artifact, as it's silver on that, not gold. Personally, in the absence of an official version (and I checked royal.gov.uk for one - there isn't one), I think it would be preferable to use a photograph of something with the monogram on it, or a b/w line drawing. 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Elen of the Roads (talk)
    On your last point, yes, I've already agreed to that three months back. DrKiernan (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph C. Hoagland

    Can someone restore the edit history for Joseph Christoffel Hoagland. Someone made a manual move from Joseph Christoffel Hoagland to Joseph C. Hoagland by cutting and pasting which doesn't move the edit history and is a no-no for preserving the copyright. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and hist-merged them, since it doesn't take long. I'll leave Kraxler a note about not doing cut and paste moves again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen

    A long-stalled requested move with no consensus was closed today as "move" by a non-admin, at Battles of the Mexican–American War. Since that time we've been having a bit of a back and forth by involved editors on both sides (myself included), as it is such an obvious travesty to claim that there was a consensus for a move in this case, and the guy who closed it somehow dismissed all the arguments about keeping it with the three-year-stable consensus as trivial. Now what happens? I thought old stalled RMs would just fade away, but if they hang around until someone jumps in and takes sides this way, where is the integrity of the process? Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The hyphen–en-dash war still rages, I see. I'm assuming no one followed up on the binding RfC suggestion that came up during the last WP:AN go-round? 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal has been batted around some more, but I haven't been told what it means, so am not so comfortable saying yes to it, and PMAnderson has pretty much said no anyway. It seemed for a while that we were discussing things rationally, but then we went back to calling me and Tony and Noetica and anyone else who disagreed with him liers and out to destroy wikipedia. He seems out to destroy the MOS; so it's a bit of a stalemate. And of course, it can be written off as trivial, as it is by many who don't care about typography, but for those who care it seems worth fighting for, as you've probably noticed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is trivial in the grand scheme of things (and I've no doubt another dozen people will chime in here to repeat that point), but it also needs to get resolved one way or another or else we're going to be seeing this pop up again and again on the noticeboards until the end of time. Am I correct in assuming that the hyphen-dash battle has largely been settled except for articles/categories/templates associated with the Mexican American war? 28bytes (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have been better if the decision whether the page was moved had been made by an admin who was not involved in any of the many hyphen disputes. The move was actually made by User:Born2cycle, who appeared to be a neutral person (he had not made a posting either way on Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War).
    Supporters of the dash immediately attacked the move, assuming bad faith:
    • Claiming that Born2cycle's assessment was "clearly prejudiced in favour of one side against the other"
    • Claiming that an IP editor who made a posting should not have been counted as: "It could easily be one of the named supporters coming in anonymously."
    It is of course true that there is no consensus either way. Of 14 editors who have expressed an opinion so far:
    --Toddy1 (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you counting the guy who closed it, User:Born2cycle? Oh, right, he did say the arguments against were all worthless. Also, the guy who did the speedy delete and the move was an admin, but not an uninvolved admin; User:Jonathunder was a supporter of Septentrionalis/PMAnderson's previous RM of Mexican–American War to the hyphen, with the brilliant analysis "per Septentrionalis". Is there anyone who has not misbehaved a bit here? Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll say what I've said before: we need to decide as a community (1) whether we want to have a Wikipedia MOS or if we should simply adopt the various MOS's of the primary sources used for our articles, (2) whether TITLE is supposed to cover style and formatting or just cover terminology, and (3) more specifically, do we want to restrict disjunctive en dashes to numeric ranges, as some style guides do, to geographic or temporal ranges, as other style guides do, to terms named after more than one person, as still other style guides do, or to use them for disjunctive relations in general, such as wars, borders, and the like. IMO it's a huge waste of time to fight this out on individual articles when one of the main points of the MOS is to avoid such repetitive problems. If we decide we don't want an MOS, then let's scrap the MOS. If we decide that the MOS does not apply to titles, but to content, then let's spell that out at MOS and at TITLE. If we decide that we want to restrict or eliminate en dashes on WP, then let's spell that out in the MOS. But until we do one of those things, as a community and for WP as a whole, then articles should follow the MOS unless there is compelling reason not to, with IDONTLIKEIT not being considered a compelling reason. — kwami (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The RM was closed by an uninvolved editor, while Dickylon, the reverter, was involved in the RM. Could someone please revert the move, warn Dickylon, and warn in the talk page that this shouldn't happen again? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I already stipulated that I was an involved editor who reverted your revert of Noetica's revert of the improper move. But a warning might be nice so I can be told what I did wrong. One thing is clear: there was no consensus for a move. Another thing is clear: those who argue in favor of the move for consistency, as they guy who closed it did, are clueless about what's going on here, when all the related articles except the one that was improperly moved use the en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course I reverted the improper closure of the move by User:Born2cycle. That editor was acting without any right. We should therefore feel free to revert the article to its original state, as equivalent to undoing vandalism: without fear of action against us. Here is relevant policy concerning closure by non-admins (my underlining):

    Experienced editors in good standing are allowed to close some requested move surveys.
    Non-administrators should restrict themselves to moves:

      • Which result in unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);
      • Where there is no contentious debate among participants;
      • Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and
      • Which do not have large numbers of subpages ...
    ...

    For me the four salient points are these (and I have been insisting on such points throughout and attempting to make peace, rather than joining in on the substance of the contested claims in totally inappropriate forums):

    1. If there are naming issues specific to the suite of articles concerned with the Mexican~American War, the established mechanism for dealing with them is a multiple move. Any single move is only advertised to the community as that. If by subreption such an RM is successful, it cannot legitimately be parlayed into a multiple move.
    2. If the matter concerns interpretation of WP:MOS or WP:TITLE, or the "jurisdiction" of WP:MOS or WP:TITLE, the discussion belongs at WT:MOS, WT:TITLE, or both. Any other way of proceeding must result in prolonged and wasteful turmoil.
    3. If it were proper to close such ill-formulated RMs as the one that moved us away from MOS-compliant Mexican–American War by considering that a simple count of votes reveals consensus (perhaps along with a blinkered and unexamined view of the policy issues that I mentioned just now), then the present RM for Battles of the Mexican–American War ought to be dismissed in a consistent way. If "no consensus for change" was a good reason for failing to revert at the first article, why should it not be a good reason to dismiss an RM at the second article? But of course, that's all speculative: those local and limited forums are of course improper for deciding on matters of policy and guidelines, which have very broad consequences for the structure of the whole Project.
    4. As I have maintained from the earliest stages, we ought to undo the initial erroneous and biased move, closed by an admin who despite the arguments I clearly laid out for him refused to look at the big picture, or to act in way that would prevent the turmoil that we now see. It is not too late for that to happen; but it would take more far-sighted action than we have yet seen from any admin who has ventured into the matter.

    NoeticaTea? 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dickylon. Once an article is renamed, it's "child" articles and categories should be also be renamed. That's plain common sense and common practice. Nobody should be forced to endure multiple RM and move-wars just to perform these gnomish moves. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my goodness, not Dickylon has reverted the RM closure, but he has edited the page in purpose to prevent being reverted[57]. Nice non-admin way of having the article locked in your preferred name. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite sympathetic to Dickylon's argument that this move discussion should have been closed by an uninvolved admin, but "poisoning" the redirect to lock in one's preferred title strikes me as indisputably disruptive. The back-and-forth page moves should be stopped, but this is not an appropriate way to accomplish that. 28bytes (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that stopping the edit war at the status quo condition this way was more, or less, disruptive than having an involved admin speedy and move it to start the war, as User:Jonathunder did, after we requested a hold on the speedy? Anyway, my argument with the closer had nothing to do with him being an admin or not; it was just wrong to claim consensus when there clearly was not, and he clearly had not even begun to understand the issues being debated. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure of binding RfC proposal

    The last AN proposed a binding RfC. Unfortunately the binding RfC is being rejected (and one of the accepters won't agree to be binded by the results), and one of the rejectors has even asked for a topic ban of the proposer. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's just a mess at the moment. Proposing a binding RfC was one of the few positive suggestions to come out of that discussion. I'm at a loss, and really a bit dejected by how requests for help are being received at AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dickylon, Noetica, Tony1 and PMAnderson should clean their act soon and abide to a binding RfC. If they refuse, the only remaining solution will be dragging them to Arbcomm for harsh measures. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, do include Kwamikagami, who has been equally irrational, and began the current flurry by demanding that Mexican-American War be moved back after its first RM was closed.
    For my part, I would now agree to a topic ban for all five of us; I have better things to do than engage in a battleground in which tactics like this are routine. Noetica and Dicklyon are acting in evident bad faith; if, as seems to be the case, nobody but Tony and Kwami share their preferences, somebody else will be along to clean this mess up and English this article.
    In the meantime, some admin should close the actual, and still outstanding, move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pmanderson agrees to a binding RfC but says "I do not agree to be bound without consensus." I feel similarly, which is why I haven't agreed; I'm all for an RfC to see if consensus emerges, but a precommitment to make it binding means what? Can you show an example of a process called "binding RfC" that we can review to see what is meant? Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial thought (and others may have better ideas) would be to first determine what questions need to be answered by the RfC. For example, "to what degree, if any, should the formatting used by reliable sources influence the title formatting used by Wikipedia?" and "should all the pages (e.g. articles, categories, etc.) related to a single topic (e.g. the Mexican American War) use the same punctuation (e.g. hyphen or dash), or can they vary on a page-by-page basis?" I think a key element to doing this right is for both sides to agree upon a clerk, probably an admin, who is both neutral in the dispute and knowledgeable about the issues (i.e. familiar with style issues and knows what the typographic differences are, why it's Franco-Prussian War but Iran–Iraq War, etc.) Are there any admins you, Pmanderson and the other interested parties consider both neutral and knowledgeable? 28bytes (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from Born2cycle

    • Every now and then when the backlog at WP:RM is particularly out of control, I and several other non-admins try to help out. There is nothing unprecedented about non-admins closing WP:RM discussions, including controversial ones.
    • I've closed numerous WP:RM discussions in the past, many of which were controversial. I've been asked to not close discussions in areas where I have been involved. This hyphen/dash issue is one about which I was neutral, having no opinion on the matter when I first start reading the discussion in question.
    • The guideline advising non-admins to not close controversial discussions does not seem to be especially adhered to or enforced, with the apparent unstated view that non-admins with WP:RM experience and a solid understanding of the underlying policies, guidelines and conventions are generally exempt, with everyone understanding that any controversial non-admin closure is vulnerable to appeal to an admin. But simply reverting the move is taking that to another level, resulting in a move war. The normal course is that, when appealed at WT:RM or here, an uninvolved admin reviews the work of the uninvolved non-admin, and either affirms or reverses the decision, which, as far as I can tell, is what still needs to happen here.
    • I stand by my closing decision [58]. Other arguments have been made on my talk page and above in opposition to the move, but I went by the arguments presented in the discussion that is over a month old, and, of those, I found the support side to be grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions clearly better than the opposition. Since my closing decision has been reverted, this is what I originally wrote:

    The result of the move request was: move. I'm not an admin, but at least one admin has looked at this and refused to deal with it. It has been festering for over a month, I've closed RM decisions before, I've never been involved in a dash-hyphen decision, and, so, I'm boldly going for this one. If anyone thinks this is important enough to appeal to ANI, good luck. So, here it goes... On the support side I am persuaded by these points: 1) consistent with usage in most reliable sources , 2) consistent with other articles, namely Mexican-American War, and 3) per WP:COMMONNAME. On the oppose side the argument, as I understand it, is that the hyphen does not imply the juxtaposition that is supposed to be conveyed, and an n-dash would. I find that argument to be at least mostly hokum. Even if there is some truth to it, it's not consistently reflected in serious reliable sources, so I see no reason for Wikipedia to sweat over it. As to the style guide, there appears to be no consensus to follow the ndash guidance, if that's even what it says to do here. Finding no compelling reason in opposition to the move, and three good reasons to move it, my decision is to move. Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

    --Born2cycle (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I accept that you acted in good faith, but you're clueless on the points being debated. On the points that persuade you, (1) the common usages are not in the context of works that have an MOS similar to ours, so don't provide an input to the style issue; (2) consistent with other articles is only true for the singular; it is inconsistent with all the rest; (3) WP:COMMONNAME is not violated by calling it the Mexican–American War with good typography. You find the argument about how the en dash signifies meaning to be "mostly hokum"; so defer to those who understand en dash usage, rather than those who are out to stamp it out. It IS reflected in reliable sources that were pointed out. Finding "no compelling reason in opposition" is an affront to those who respect the MOS and decent typography, and who are trying to defend the style against the unschooled Visigoths and Huns. Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (1) Our MOS should not be based on WP:OR; if the style it espouses is contrary to that commonly used in reliable sources, well, let's just say that obvious room for improvement in the MOS. (2) This article is a sub-article of a parent article - it should follow the usage in that article. I don't know what you mean by "all the rest". How are they more relevant to this issue than usage in the title of this article's parent? (3) I reject the notion of "good" typography, at least in the context of dash vs. hyphen. There is no good/correct bad/incorrect choice for this issue. There is however more likely to be found in reliable sources, and more likely to typed in the search box; on both counts the hyphen is favored, as far as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request of 1RR and strict WP:BRD at Mexican-American War article

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Request withdrawn by Avanu

    In an effort to encourage resolution of the dispute over whether to use a dash or hyphen, I would like to request that an Administrator institute a 1-month temporary 1RR and strict WP:BRD rule for the Article and Talk page at Mexican-American War. Please do not do this in an effort to punish any of the editors, as it appears that all are trying to act in Good Faith. As an alternative or addition to this proposal, if an Administrator would like to take an active role in assisting these editors to come to a consensus, it would be helpful. I appreciate your thoughtful attention to this matter. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This was already discussed at length fairly recently on WP:AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute. Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't. I'd really just prefer admin commentary on this, a simple yes or no will suffice, but I really don't want this to turn into another off-topic thread. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly this topic was discussed, although different proposals were made there. A separate thread here, extremely closely related to the previous thread, does not seem wise. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Different proposal, different reasons, different time. Could we please leave this to an admin decision rather than extend this little argument? -- Avanu (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Avanu, you haven't even given a description with diffs of what you think is going on in edits to the article at present. If you expect any administrator to intervene or even comment, please do so. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its about a simple request, this is the place listed for such requests. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." Closing and moving due to off-topic commentary. -- Avanu (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please leave this archiving to somebody uninvolved. Mathsci (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, I have now asked you 4 times to leave it for an admin. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this, but could you please just let this alone so an admin can review and stop micromanaging it? Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody can comment on this noticeboard. I have no idea why you referred to the link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute as being off-topic. Please calm down. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just another of these extremely lame, petty, pedantic debates that have nothing whatsoever to do with helping the wikipedia readers in any way, shape or form. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, Avanu has taken this to WQA too: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mathsci_disruptive_editing_on_AN.2FI William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I didn't, I took the issue of Mathsci's behavior there. The substance of the AN/I request has nothing to do with that, and I *tried* to just close this. I am at a loss at this point. You guys have taken a little request and its really pointless now. -- Avanu (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say here what I've said elsewhere about this topic. Ignore it. If someone wants to move it from a hyphen to an n-dash, let them do it. If they want to move it from an n-dash to a hyphen, let them do it. It doesn't matter. Either way, the readers can find it just as easily in the search window, and that's what matters. Some things are worth fighting about. This isn't. It's a total waste of everyone's time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I really have no view at all on this matter. Whenever I have created an article in mathematics with a hyphenated title, User:Michael Hardy will correct it to whatever it is supposed to be. Slightly more complicated and harder to remember is how to put a minus sign in plain text (the length and the spaces) ... now I hardly dare look at the article on my home town Aix-en-Provence :) Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking at this a week or two ago when the subject last came up, I became aware that the real problem is that the rules are not sufficiently defined. For example, there's usually not much trouble with when to capitalize or not, as that rule is pretty clear. But the hyphens and n-dashes rules are just too vague, too obscure; and that's why there is constant battling over them. I recall there were two different users who interpreted the rules two different ways. How do you fix that? By fixing the rules. If the rules were clear, the amount of debate would be almost zero. In fact, I would say that a significant quantity of the battles at wikipedia are centered on unclear rules and guidelines. That's what needs fixing - not any particular article's hyphens or n-dashes. Fix the rules, and the hyphens and n-dashes will "take care of themselves". Your comment about Michael Hardy, who I assume is a true expert on the matter, gives me an idea: How about having some sort of committee of experts to turn to, on matters of this nature, i.e. "syntax" questions? They could help define the rules better and uniformly, and apply uniform standards. We've got a user named Cuddlyable3 who is an English syntax expert and could probably help on this if he were willing. Not me, for sure. I don't know enough about it. But these battles over technicalities do not serve wikipedia's best interests, as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to help. A "simple" attributive compound is written with a hyphen. A dash is used differently and is not to be confused with Hyphen or Minus sign. Conclusion: Mexican(hyphen)American War is correct English. Comment: the editing summary for this change to en dashes argues for intra-article consistency which is only a circumstantial claim, see WP:OSE. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I would have thought you guys would have been embarrassed enough to have even one AN/I thread on such a lame issue, let alone two AN/I threads and a WQA thread...sheesh.... DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why I didn't want the distracting non-admin comments. My thread (which I would prefer to drop entirely now) is based on a 3 day timeline that we discussed in the Talk page of the Mex-Am War article. It has NO relation to the other thread and really just needs a yes or no from an admin. But really, just drop it, ok? Please. -- Avanu (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    =WP:OWN DeCausa (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OWN applies primarily to articles, this is not a Wikipedia article page, it is a page for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators". I *specifically* asked that this be left to the admins, and rather than simply honor my request in a WP:CIVIL fashion, its turned into this. -- Avanu (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to say who posts messages on an AN/I thread. So drop the ownership (and last word) syndromes. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    {ec} Avanu, just to make it clear - anyone can comment in a thread on this board, and no-one can tell other editors not to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    DeCausa, it seems like circumstances prove you more than right. I was only asking for some courtesy, it is certainly not an obligation on anyone's part to grant that. -- Avanu (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...you've been given good advice from William M. Connelly on the WQA thread. DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I have no idea if an actual admin has commented yet, but you've managed to take a polite, simple request for a gentle, thoughtful intervention and turn it into a war on me. I realize I'm not entitled to ask for cooperation, civility, and courtesy. These things are luxuries at times. But the last thing I wanted was for this to become a messy debate of this sort. In the future, I'll take some time to independently find an admin whose record shows that they are supportive and considerate, and simply avoid this page altogether. I know a lot of my fellow editors try to help, and believe me, I appreciate that, but like it or not, this page is supposed to primarily be for asking Admins to intervene. I don't understand when people *insist* on derailing a request like what has been done here. -- Avanu (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin (and member of ArbCom I believe) has commented. Draw your own conclusions. DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyphen vs. En-Dash

    Where can we go to get the ball rolling on the idea of having a committee to decide these silly battles instead of everybody-and-his-mother getting involved? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When people write articles, they are meant to provide reliable sources - especially for contentious material. Reliable sources concerning correct punctuation are available in the form of (1) good style guides (2) reputable books on how to write English (3) reference to examples of how good quality publishers do it. English language Wikipedia should be written in English, not a new variant of English invented by some editors. On matters of English grammar, it would be better if the Manual of Style were based on reliable sources, rather than the opinions of editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the MOS were clear, we wouldn't be having these debates, now would we? How often do you see a debate about capitalization rules? Almost never, and certainly not here. The trouble is that the MOS rules about hyphens and dashes are clearly not good enough for the average editor to figure out. If we had some expertise in the area, maybe these battles would go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the problem is that even manuals disagree on hyphens vs. dashes, so we're never going to get a definitive answer that way. It'll probably take an ArbCom ruling to get this nonsense stopped. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then this will continue until or if someone decides they've had enough of it. That does not speak well for wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Avanu has withdrawn his request for admin assistance. In the absence of an outstanding request there is no reason to re-litigate the hyphen-dash battle here. 28bytes (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    He doesn't own this section, and neither do you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want the admins to do something, say so. If not, let this die. This is already being discussed, more constructively, in a thread directly above. 28bytes (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer, apparently, is that nothing is going to be done about this ridiculous hyphen/dash issue. So dat's dat. P.S. It was not your place to close this discussion, unless you've suddenly become an admin and didn't tell us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think something will end up being done, hopefully via an RfC. And I'm pretty confident that consensus supports anyone, not just admins, closing threads that have run their course. But if an admin decides to re-open it, I obviously won't revert them. 28bytes (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How will we find out if such an RFC is created? Will it be annnounced here? As far as closing, you weren't even in on the discussion. However, the one user implicitly closed it by expressing that there is no clear solution. I find that astonishing, but whatever. The hyphen/dash fanatics need to figure out ONE SET OF RULES and stick with them. From what I saw the last time, it may be hopeless. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If an RfC is started (see above section), I promise to announce it here if no one beats me to it. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC

    Given the protracted nature of this and similar MOS-related disputes, I have started a RfC on whether Wikipedia should have its own MOS or follow that of its sources instead. I've added it to WP:CENT to get a wider consensus. It may be worthwhile to put it on watchlist notice as well, but let's get some initial feedback before we do that. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone please check this edit?

    Hi, this edit contains two changes, of which at least the upper one looks suspicious. Would someone please check if it's vandalism, and if so, remove it? If it's not vandalism, the [[link]] should probably be shortened/adapted to match an appropriate article. -- 78.43.60.13 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like someone already fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not vandalism, a good faith attempt to disambiguate with two Christian music artists. A quick google search suggests they aren't notable enough to have their own article - although editors with access to christian press sources might be able establish it. Per WP:MOSDAB the redlinks should be removed unless it can be established they exist in some prose article somewhere - which lifebaka has already done. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Early closure of DRV about a User talk page

    Resolved
     – reopened - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 2#User talk:David Tombe

    David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    FDT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Spartaz has closed early a DRV about User talk:David Tombe. I object to the early closure, and would appreciate review by others. DuncanHill (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No. I could see it yesterday but now it is gone. --Diannaa (Talk) 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Try it now after I fixed the page link from Duncan's post (apologies for fiddling with your post Duncan) Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, thank you for fixing my typo. DuncanHill (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking this to DRV is like asking your bumbling local sheriff to tackle international terrorism; sure, he handles crimes too, but it's a bit out of his reach. Talk pages should never be deleted though; anyone, including Tombe, was well aware of that "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" line down next to the save button. If there are passages that need over-sighting, then do so, but wholesale purging was typically bureaucratic, heavy-handed solution. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another idea I had to reduce the sometimes more heat than light situations that sometimes occur here and pile ons etc is to have on each thread opened here a random article for improvement atatched to the thread and anyone wanting to comment in the thread here would first have to make an improvement edit to the random nominated article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the very least, that would clear most of the admins out of here. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We could give administrators an allowance of one comment a thread to record any administrative actions. :) Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
        • (ecx2) It is difficult to assess the contents of the talk page as the diffs can no longer be reviewed in the usual way. There were some 1263 posts to this talk page. Surely (as with Rodhullandemu) even asking the question as to what is being hidden can become an invasion of privacy? Perhaps sometimes it is best to trust those people who are in a position of trust. Tarc's idea is good though: specific discussions or posts could be oversighted. That might have been a better solution. --Diannaa (Talk) 13:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • People in a position of trust who don't allow review of their actions should not be trusted. I did suggest oversight some way above, as I have done in previous similar cases. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoever thinks it needed to be removed from public view must have a legitimate reason for it. (Tombe merely wanting it deleted arbitrarily is NOT a legitimate reason.) I would just like to know, as a lowly peon, what the general explanation is. Was he outed? Did he out someone else? Did he post something that would breach national security? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec)Sometimes it is impossible to review their actions without revealing the material that has been deleted and thus defeating the whole purpose of removing the content. I agree that it makes it impossible to review their actions. The only thing we can do about it is to make sure (when we elect them) that we actually trust those people that we place in positions of trust. --Diannaa (Talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Spartaz is not interested in further discussing this, and since he is basically incorrect in his reason for closing the DRV early, I have reopened it. Per WP:DRV#Deletion of user talk pages, DRV is the policy described place to discuss such deletions: "Any deletion, including deletion by bureaucrats, can be challenged and overturned at deletion review." Fram (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting another editor's comments

    Resolved
     – Relevant comment refactored into main discussion 17:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

    Could an independent admin please assess whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [59] [60] [61] [62] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not again, TT your presence at multiple such locations and similar situations is clearly a pattern of little benefit to the content of the project and something that multiple users have recently been pointing out to you to give up. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Do you have anything to say relevant to the question of whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [63] [64] [65] [66] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 14:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not again indeed...it's been looking like every time TT gets involved in a thread it becomes about his conduct rather than the original subject. drama. drama. DeCausa (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Do you have anything to say relevant to the question of whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [67] [68] [69] [70] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I know I promised to stay away from you but I'll keep this brief. An uninvolved administrator (User:Casliber)did assess whether the comment should be included or not and they concluded it should not. [71] Bob House 884 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think it met any of the criteria, Bob? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I figure that the editors reverting here don't feel it fits under TPO as it's a POV editorial at the top of the heading rather than a bog standard talk page comment, Avanu's point might be relevant to the discussion section but to put it in the 'resolved' box gives the impression it was the consensus reached in the discussion. Perhaps this is an issue you should take up with one of the two uninvolved administrators who have already reverted you. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to have answered the question, but since you're not an uninvolved administrator, it matters not. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't answer your loaded question, I did give a perfectly valid response though which you have chosen to ignore. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    [ECs]To me, it doesn't seem to fit the criteria and therefore wouldn't need to be deleted. However, I think that both sides on this issue are pushing too hard seeing as this is a marginal comment that is neither needed, nor does it detract from the conversation. I could live with it either way and it seems that the editors involved are fighing over nothing. It's best to just ignore this.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, an edit war over the "resolved" comment on a WQA thread about a user's comments on a now-withdrawn AN/I request for intervention on the Mexican American War hyphen-dash battles. I don't think it can get much lamer than this. If Avanu agrees to withdraw the "resolved" comment that people are fighting over, I think this can go away quietly, can't it? Avanu, you want to help everyone out and do that? 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's done it's gone. Avanu closed it and two admins (not just Casliber) closed it. TT's just digging for drama. DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to add more drama by making multiple accusations of drama on one discussion. Once should be enough, thank you.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) DeCausa, I guess you already know this, but each time three or four people pile into every thread I start and say, "You're just creating drama" – that's the drama. If there weren't allegations flying round, and fingerpointing fingers being pointed, there would be significantly less of a problem. Well that's what I think, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean like every time you accuse me of creating unnecessary drama by actually making you back up your image speedies in an FFD?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to intentionally disrupt this thread with irrelevant crap then I'm obviously not going to engage with you, other than to ask how you feel the FfD you refer to is going? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 14:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TT, You mean like going close to but not technically over the 3RR rule and hoping an admin will not interpret the reverting literally? And this showing you're fully mindful of calling 3RR on others. Looks like gaming the system. Just like borderline comments. All this teetering around but not crossing bright lines needs to stop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is fucking ridiculous. If I went round inserting irrelevant needling drivel into threads, I'd be warned and reverted the whole time. Why do you feel you can and have to do it? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, um, actually, you do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) My view was that the comment could be seen as a veiled or not so veiled negative reference to the outcome of the discussion. Given the ongoing bickering, it could be construed that a comment might lead to a continuation of bickering elsewhere. Hence it could be seen as disruptive/tendentious. Hence removing it would facilitate folks ending the thread. We need to be more proactive in removing borderline comments in situations of ongoing acrimony, which can (in the circumstances) be seen as disruptive, with folks keen on getting the Last Word in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I initially had a "where would this stuff wind up" concern at the MfD, later weighing in to delete, and now even more convinced now that WQA is a frivolous dumping ground for petty squabbles. Someone files a complaint, it doesn't get much traction, so filer closes with a "I'm taking my ball and going home!" style msg? No... Tarc (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously, having seen him over the last few weeks at various venues, TT is now going beyond being just an opinionated editor, and is simply becoming an out and out source of constant griefing - far beyond what is warranted in any of the actual specific situations, descending into completely off topic TT-focused drama in every case (and yes, I do see the irony, but enough is enough). This disruption's been been toleratd for far too long, if he's ever been the subject of attempted corrective action it's clearly not worked. Normally the correct procedure would be to file a user Rfc, but, that's a voluntary process where there needs to be willingess on the part of the user to listen and self reflect, and in all honesty, who here thinks that would be anything more than a giant patented TT-syle wikilawyering clusterfuck? Come on TT, just knock it the fuck off and start acting like a normal person. I honeslty think you won't even be able to help yourself from responding even to this comment with some form of condescending wikilawyering side-stepping bullshit. Wikipedia is not therapy, and whatever it is you get from all this, it's not benefitting the project one bit, so I for one would rather you were given a temporary relief of your ability to do so, until you can come to some sort of self realisation, or permanent if you can't. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And what's your opinion about the deletion of the comment? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fair to say no one (or few) give(s) a fuck but there is significantly greatrer concern about you. DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well rather than grumbling in an irrelevant thread, could I suggest that you either start a new thread here, open an RfC, file for arbitration or just plain cope. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, I can honestly say I couldn't give a fuck about it. Had I given a fuck about it or considered it remotely relevant, I might have included something about it in my post, because, and here's the deal TT, I'm not a fucking moron, and when you ask the same question to what? four different people in this very thread, you can safely assume it's been logged in my brain as a concern of yours. As said, if I remotely thought it was worthwhile, I'd start an Rfc myself. But even now with this 'cope' crap, you make it screamingly obvious what a pointless exercise that would be. But, as you say, if you want me to go through the formalities just so we can get to a venue where such behaviour doesn't go over so well, I probably would, in return for said correction. It's not like I'd have a long wait for a certifier, or even need to look anywhere beyond the ANI archives for evidence, and as long as I switch my monitor to monochrome to avoid the deliberate choice of colour scheme, your talk pages too. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I apparently started this drama [[72]], I'll say that my AGF reading of the Avanu's closing tag didn't interpret it as snarky. 1) WQA is voluntary and 2) nothing good was coming out of the thread. Gerardw (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am unsure what this report is really about. I removed the coment because it seems obvious that while an editor posting to Ani is allowed to close his own thread when the issue is resolved, that doe snot mean that he is allowed to take this as an opportunity to take the last word. I removed the comment once, two other admins also removed it. I don't see what the basis for any further action or discussion here is.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the original filer and some other editors don't see a problem with the language you removed.LedRush (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes that an issue? If three independent admins found it to be problematic, it cannot be said to be obviously unproblematic and the decision to keep or remove would be a judgment call. Of course if a larger consensus determines that the comment should be reinserted then that can be done, but honestly don't we have better stuff to do than make a large scale discussion out of this tiny issue? ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromise?

    Does this [[73]] work for everyone? (Anyone?) Gerardw (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good to me. I'm presumably not allowed to mark this thread resolved even though I started it (!) so if someone else would care to do the honours? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have no problems with that solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (sigh) better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bahamut0013 using admin tools as an involved user

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Resolved
     – WP:TROUT for dinner washed down with a cup of WP:TEA is a good prescription for moving forward. Bahamut0013 has learned a lesson. Nothing else to do here except make people get defensive and then get offensive. --Jayron32 20:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bahamut0013, an administrator and member of the Audit Subcommittee, has got himself into a bit of a pickle in an editing dispute on List of characters of 8-Bit Theater with User:Δ (Delta). Delta removed a series of fair use images from the article, with a rationale that involved WP:NFLISTS, part of the fair use guideline based on the 2007 Board licensing resolution. Amongst other things, this resolution emphasises the smallest possible use of such images, with the associated policy particularly noting that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Given that the article in question contained multiple images illustrating the same or similar things, Delta's actions seem fairly reasonable; Bahamut, however, did not think so, and the two proceeded to edit war over the question of including the images. This edit-war was finally brought to an end when Bahamut fully protected the article, preventing anyone except admins from editing it. This seems, to me, to be completely inappropriate; Bahamut has used his admin tools in a dispute he was involved in, edit-warred (although this is a relatively minor concern) and prevented almost all users from editing an article in order, apparently, to prevent disruption from one specific user, something our policy advises against.

    I proceeded to revert this protection, and warn Bahamut that his behaviour was inappropriate. He chose to follow up by informing me that I could "take that self-righteousness and shove it...I won't be talked down to by a man who defends a bully". This is not the first occurence of him making questionable comments during this dispute - he also argues that he's a "well-respected editor, not some floozy, and you shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with an admin like this", which to me smacks of using adminship as a club and as something which implies some superior role in the community - two things the tools are specifically not to be used for. Following my unprotection and his rather blunt message to me, he was repeatedly told by several other users that his actions were problematic; despite this, he refuses to accept that any of his actions were incorrect, instead defending himself by saying that he didn't even investigate whether Delta had legitimate concerns before edit-warring and protecting the page.

    Note that this matter is also under discussion at WP:AN/EW; I don't see this as a conflict, in that that entry discusses the edit-warring on its own and isn't tasked towards the wider issues. I would instead like ANI to take a look at this, and in particular confirm whether:

    1. Bahamut's actions were inappropriate given his involvement with the article;
    2. Bahamut's actions and comments were not to the standard we should expect from administrators.

    Ideally I'd just like him to accept, if consensus turns out the way it has so far, that his actions were utterly wrong, and to agree not to do such arbitrary and inappropriate things in the future. Given how "I'm in the right, whatever you say" he's been so far, however, I accept that this may not happen, and am prepared to press for voluntary or forcibly removing his userrights if this sort of lack of clue continues. Ironholds (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I've also just discovered that despite his claims that he's completely uninvolved, he uploaded the files under dispute. I honestly can't see how claims of uninvolvement can be taken seriously at this stage. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly agree that Bahamut's actions in this in so far as using his administrator tools and his reaction to people's commenting on their inappropriate use needs to be considered separately from the edit war in which he was involved with Δ. I think it very likely that this thread will devolve into a dispute regarding all of it, but it must if at all possible remain focused only on Bahamut's administrator actions and response. With that said, I am not troubled that Bahamut made a mistake. Administrators are not expected to be perfect. I am deeply troubled that Bahamut refuse to acknowledge that (a) he was directly involved, (b) used his administrator privileges in an inappropriate way and (c) continues to defend his actions as just. The last is what makes this the most troubling of all. If he can not and will not accede that he made a mistake and affirms that he will not abuse his tools in this manner again, I see little choice but to strip him of his tools. I don't WANT that outcome. I would prefer that Bahamut walk away from the dispute for a while, cool down, and then see the logic behind what multiple people have been telling him and return to being a normal productive contributor here. So far, that isn't happening. I am deeply troubled. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I've been following this closely, but haven't actually commented anywhere yet. I feel it's worth noting (very briefly) that I agree with the above (Ironhold's comment, as well as the various comments by Dirk and Hammersoft), and believe that Bahamut0013's actions have been in clear violation of what we expect from administrators and, indeed, users. He has been uncivil, edit warred, used the tools where he is involved, used protection incorrectly, used his admin status and ability to block to threaten others, and broken our NFC guidelines - and despite all this, still insists that what he's doing is ~"dealing with a disruptive user." - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked Bahamut to take a step back and give himself some time to cool down, in hopes that he can look at the situation more objectively. I think article-wise the issue has been resolved, so it's really a matter of the dispute here between the two users and Bahamut's use of admin tools. I agree with all above that Baha was involved. I've tried to explain this in clear terms to him and I hope he comes to understand. I also want to say that I believe Delta/Betacommand should have handled the removal of the images in a more productive manner by utilizing the talk page before this escalated into an edit war. Preferably explaining the removals on the talk page before or after the first edit. That very well may have prevented this entire SNAFU. Hopefully this can be resolved without the customary multiple venues and pages of commentary. Lara 15:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Bahamut0013 keeps defining Delta's edits as 'disruptive', and is using that argument as a reason for repeatedly reverting Delta. However, Delta's actions are, albeit unclear, part of policy and guideline, they do not fall in any form under any form of disruptive editing, vandalism or similar. In fact, it is the way similar situations are handled, strongly disputed inclusions are first removed, then discussed and may, eventually, return (that goes for unreferenced material, that goes for possible copyvio material, it goes for disputed external links and similar). The fact whether Bahamut0013 was the original uploader of the images, or did edit the article in question in the past is not even in question. Using admin tools in such a conflict was inappropriate, even reverting Delta repeatedly was inappropriate, and several editors, friends and others, have asked Bahamut0013 to reconsider his actions. That was met with more strong words from Bahamut0013. It should be noted, that several other editors have performed similar actions, reverting Delta's edits where Delta was removing excessive (I know that is just the word which causes this dispute) multiple instances of non free media - I note here that also those actions are inappropriate.
    I agree with what Ironholds, Kingpin, Hammersoft, Jennavecia and others have said in this regard, and also here I ask again Bahamut0013 to reconsider his actions and words. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging from the article's edit history, I don't think either editor is blameless; both were edit warring. But Delta really got things off on the wrong foot by removing all of the article's images,[74] which isn't what his edit summary said he was doing (he said he was removing "overuse," not all use) nor is that even arguably supported by any guideline, policy, or essay here from what I can tell. That Delta believes (whether right or wrong) that his interpretation was correct obviously doesn't entitle him to act as if he's more of an authority than anyone else on the matter. As he has in the past with NFC, he took a more extreme step than was necessary, a step that happened to be the easy way out (removing all images rather than discussing, or determining himself, which ones actually constituted overuse). He then should have discussed it instead of repeatedly reverting the restoration without further comment, when Bahamut's edit summaries were expressly calling for discussion. There was no urgency here, so why couldn't Delta have taken it to a talk page?

    That said, the article didn't need to be in Bahamut's preferred state for him to start discussing it either, and he certainly shouldn't have protected a page that he was involved in (yes, he did upload at least some of the images that were removed). But I do see Delta as having first done the wrong thing, and it's symptomatic of an enforcer mentality, one contrary to a collaborative environment, that has been commented upon at ANI many times in the past. I don't know whether Bahamut's conduct is part of a larger pattern with him or unique to this incident. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Postdlf; Δ's actions in so far as removing non-free content may or may not have been wrong. I would be happy to debate that elsewhere. Same goes for his actions in continuing an edit war. But again, I think it very important that we focus this thread only on the use by Bahamut of administrator privileges and his subsequent response to multiple parties who admonished him on inappropriate use. That is the point in discussion here. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)@Postdlf, I suggested that if material (of whichever form) is under dispute, that it than first gets removed, then discussed - Delta can not be expected to examine all these situations and decide what to leave, he would need to discuss the disputable inclusions .. as he could not discuss which ones to remove (leaving the overuse for quite some time), the proper action is to remove all, and notify interested editors to start a discussion which could lead to re-inclusion. Hence, IMHO, there is nothing wrong in initially removing all when an editor can not make the decisions which to leave. This now is again NFC, for copyvio we do the same, we do not try and see whether maybe some pieces are fine, we delete all and then after discussion include what is appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that Delta should have posted a message to the talk page explaining his removal of the images. Of course, BlackKite already went through this with Bahamut over a year and a half ago. Lara 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yay, my first controversy... I'm so enthused. </sarcasm>
    Look, I got ahead of myself, but the case in point is that even though people will disagree, I didn't consider myself an involved editor. I've said it several times now, and it seems that people won't believe me if I say it again, but I feel the need to do so anyway, if only to keep my name a little less muddy than it has been. I saw it as an admin matter, not an editorial one, and I took actions that I thought would deter a troll from disruptive behavior. I was wrong in that perception, but I still want to make it clear that abuse was never my intent at all. My anger level was negligable until I got that reprimand from Ironholds, whom I still consider a friend, and it was starting to peak until Lara made an appeal a few minutes ago. I'm still angry at what I consider other editors defending a troll and bully, and disregarding what I said to do so, but I'm calm enough to be civil now that I see that appearances don't look good for me. I thought I was defusing an altercation, and while I realize now that I'm not going to get any supporters, I still maintain that I acted upon good faith. So go on, ANI, judge away, just be quick. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Do I here read correctly that you consider Delta a 'troll and bully'? a) did you read what I wrote in full during this incident, and b) have you read WP:NPA? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bahamut, to me the most important questions here are 1: Do you understand you made an error in protecting the article because you were involved (regardless of what version it was protected in)? 2: What would you do in future similar disputes? If someone were involved in an edit war with you (or, really, anyone else) on Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps, would you protect the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling Delta "an evil troll" (on your talk page) and a bully really isn't helping your case, Baha. Also considering him editing an article that you have been involved with to remove images you uploaded (a situation that you've already been informed was a problem before) to be an admin matter is also a serious reason for us to be concerned. It's really unfortunate, but you seem to be incapable of understanding when it's inappropriate for you to use your admin rights. Lara 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment having had a look over this. Yes, I think Bahamut was involved and shouldn't have used admin tools, and a few unwise words were slung around. But it looks like it was done in good faith, though in response to getting a bit stressed and reacting rather angrily. But people get stressed and over-react, and Bahamut is no more superhuman than the rest of us, and I see he's listened to words from people who have offered advice and is calming down. I think the important thing now is for all to calm down and don't stomp on him too hard for having made an honest mistake while trying to help the project, and move forward constructively -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammersoft's note on my talk page took me aback. Suddenly, I realize that I was the one who looked like a bully. So, yes, I apologize for going overboard. I got caught up in the feeling that I was defending the wiki and righting wrongs, when it seems that I had overstepped my bounds. I still want to fight the good fight, but I don't that fight is with anyone here (try not to interprete that literally, I don't like fighting much at all, despite my profession). I'll try a softer touch the next time anything seems out of kosher. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, yes, Bahamut0013 is going to get royally burned here, and probably rightly so. But let's get a few things straight - NFLISTS is not the word of the Foundation or of our EDP. It is the supposed en.wiki community wide consensus on usage of non-free content in lists. Although if you'll believe that you'll believe anything. Frankly, I'd rather attemp to consensus build in a nationalist dispute than debate it with the tiny cabal holding sway over NFC, most of whom are not shy about their true beliefs - Wikipeda should contain no fair use whatsoever, and the name of the game is how to 'interpret' the EDP to achieve this. No, let's not pretend anyone in the wider community has ever been able to debate NFLISTS against any sort of logic or primary EDP reasoning - anyone that tries will be succesfully eliminated by attrition through some frankly very artfull and well rehearsed WP:TE. Anyone who sticks around, will soon observe there is an NFCC playbook in action. If people want to know who's 'right', or at least who might be close to being right as far as a wide consensus goes, forget NFLISTS, go read the EDP and then compare the article versions. Clear your mind of any ideological pre-conceptions, and simply read and look. Barely half what has been removed could be considered to have violated the actual EDP by any reasonable interpretation. NFLISTS and anything else decided by 'consensus' in this area contains the sort of logical fallacies you don't see in any other widely and properly crafted policy or guideline, e.g. an article with 2 non-free images is 'twice' as non-free as one, and thus 'twice' as bad - which is just nonsense frankly. An article with 1 non-free image is non-free, period. Further use is an issue of contextual justification within the EDP, not simplistic notions such as a numbers game. NFCC is not BLP, for the interpretive portions at least, the non-black and white lines, not one single person on this project has any right whatsoever to even think about chucking around block threats, 'I am right', and edit warring, and calling that anything other than pure disruption when it concerns the graduated interpretation of something like NFLIST. Pure disruption. In the face of the tag teams and meat puppets, it's frankly the holy grail for most normals to even reach the stage of actually getting to discuss the actual content of the actual images and the actual article. You'll be lucky if you can disentangle yourself from the condescension, threats and other BS, in time to beat the 7 day 'orphan' clock, which is dutifully started at the beginning of each 'cleanup' incident. As ever, past 'discussions' are held up as evidence of wrong doing - discussions never closed or reviewed independently for their, shall we say, independence. As it was decreed before, it shall be decreed again. Not consensus. Not even collaboration tbh. We're only here at this stage because many people understandably think that the only way to fight disruption and arrogance is with disruption and arrogance. I for one don't blame the guy for using his tools as a weapon, and there's hundreds if not thousands of other users who don't even have that option, and who are now either game-blocked, or have left the project all together. MickMacNee (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One you are topic banned already from making comments about me, two I will stand right behind you defending the usage of appropriate Non-free content, (example cover of Virgin Killer), I am however a strong supporter in our m:mission, which is to provide a 'free' encyclopedia. And to that extent over usage of said content is not needed. So do not attempt to portray me as something I am not. ΔT The only constant 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Δ is a bully and has been a troll. That doesn't make Bahamut's actions right; they would only right if Δ's actions were intentionally against consensus. Δ has been shown incapable of recognizing consensus, so it couldn't be intentionally acting against consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One, you're flat wrong. Two, I never said you wouldn't (you can take a look at the user pages of some of your closest supporters though, to see who I was referring to). Three, you can keep pretending you are the only defender of the mission all you want, it's the normal uncollaborative and anti-wikipedia stance which has come to be expected, and is completely and utterly irrelevant to the consensus view of the finer en.wiki policies as regards how much is too much, where you have to justify your position a little bit better and more cluefully than picking arbitrary numbers out of thin air, and declaring that's the consensus. I sometimes wonder if you really do actually realise that pages like the one you've just cleaned up with all the attendant drama, are no more or less 'free' or disseminable in the public domain now than they were before you even arrived to cause disruption and grief in the name of the Foundation. I also wonder if you realise what damage some of the arbitrary consequences of your approach actually has for the total number of non-free pages we actually have here. There must be quite a few pages that exist now solely because through the way you approach the issue, you have by necessity found it less easy to game the concept of simple identification, over more nuanced ideas of significance/critical commentary, upon which some of the views about what is and is not important are often completely incredible, if certain people intend to be invoking the EDP and the mission. That's certainly one measure of 'how free' Wikipedia is that is quantifiable. Yet your approach more often than not leads editors down paths which make Wikipedia less free by that standard. In these finer judgement calls in things like the finer wording of NFLIST, neither the Mission or The Foundation or even our own EDP are particulalry relevent beyond the obvious parts, except of course to remind you that they are value based, and not remotely supportive of made up arbitrary limits based on rather indefensible and illogical ideas about how you measure over-use. Feel free to get anyone in a position to do so, to contradict me. The Foundation has never, ever, spoken up in your defence over the years you've been making these pronouncements, as far as I can recall. If it were remotely possible, which it isn't, I know for sure the consensus of the wide community wouldn't, even in full posession of the facts and mission statement and EDP etc. It's your continual obsession with denouncing others as Mission denyers that shows your completely irredeemable non-collaborative nature as far as en.wiki consensus building goes. If you want to disagree with however I portray you, then we can have the much much needed arbitration case on the behaviours and tactics of certain editors, who make up a tiny tiny tiny proportion of the entire community, that influence the environment that is the finer point NFCC interpretation consensus building areas here, which lead to this ongoing situation where you really do seem to think you are entitled to make some of the more outrageous policy statements and demands that others comply with your interpretations, as you've been doing in this latest incident on your talk page and elsewhere, and have been doing for years now, irregardles of how many times you've been requested to change your approach. It's beyond obvious all prior options to get you to modify your behaviour have been well and truly exhausted, and we're now getting to a level of farce where you even get to play the victim in case of disputes with other editors who have never even heard of your previous incarnation or reputation, where it's clear, as if any more proof were needed, that you are the root cause, and those most frequently by your side who always take a rather less than whole view of events and matters regarding what's good for the community and the project. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Was Bahamut0013 an involved editor?

    Separating out this single question for more analysis. Bahamut continues to claim that he was not an involved editor. I conducted a review of the article, it's talk page, and the images that were removed. I found;

    1. Of the ten images removed, Bahamut0013 uploaded six of them (1,2,3,4,5,6).
    2. Bahamut0013 has made more than 100 edits to the article ([75] see "Top 50 editors").
    3. Bahamut0013 is the second most active contributor to the talk page of the article ([76] again see "Top 50 editors").
    4. Bahamut0013 undertook four reversions [77][78][79][80] within 20 minutes prior to his protecting [81] the article.
    5. (adding on) The article in question is Bahamut0013's 5th most edited article ([82] see "Top edited pages")

    --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Almost all of teh edits I've made to that page were the reversion of vandalism or inappropriate edits. I's been months since I've done anything of substance to that page. Like I said, I don't really expect anyone to believe me anymore, but I'm wondering why you feel the need to try to pick me apart. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • clearly involved - user should not have used his mop here at all, I support stripping him of it if he continues to carry on this way and assert he was correct. The user also appears to think its funny and to be making personal attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, his conduct can be discussed in the section above I think. Mainly, I'm wanting to see what the consensus is on whether he was involved or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's fair to say he's doing it because he "thinks it's funny" though, he seems to believe he's doing the right thing - I find it hard to comprehend why - but one way or another he's acting in good faith - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment was in relational to the users comment above - Ow my first controversy how droll or words to that effect. Personally I didn't understand users supporting his adminship anyways, he didn't need it, is not really gonna use it apart from in situations like this where he is involved (user log) and users seemed to support him because he was promoted to the audit committee and was supposed to be an administrator. Looking at his RFA this comment was quite insightful - "Oppose I'm afraid this editor has such a strong bias that his possible involvement as an administrator in articles pertaining to right-wing politics, US military, and the like, would not be subject to an impartial evaluation. The candidate already has expanded editing powers, and at this point I don't really see any need for giving him even more." - Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me, the question if you are involved due to previous edits or uploaded images or not is mainly futile. You paint Delta as a 'bully' and a 'troll', and decided to repeatedly revert his edits as 'disruptive', while in fact these edits are not disruptive, but, as I said unclearly, in line with policy and guideline. Those actions, reverting Delta because you define him as a 'troll' and 'bully' makes you (personally?) involved with Delta, making you unsuitable to use your admin tools in a dispute with him. Sure, that you actually were a contributor to the page and uploaded 6 of the images is not going to help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Clearly involved - Based on previous editing of the article, specifically with the images, many of which he uploaded and which he previously discussed the appropriateness of more than a year and a half ago; as well as his edit-warring with Delta. That, specifically, was the incident he ended with his own tools instead of calling for an uninvolved admin. Lara 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Clearly involved. The article appears to be a long-term project of his, which is made especially clear by his extensive participation on the talk page. In addition, I find it hard to think of a situation where I wouldn't consider a user involved when they were warring over images they themselves uploaded/added. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close

    It's obvious we can spin this for days here and write a massive amount of commentary on this incident. I don't think that serves our purposes very well. We're trying to resolve the issue, not have a talk show about it. To resolve it, I feel it is important that Bahamut0013 understand that what he did was wrong, that he was involved, and that future incidents won't be repeated. Administrators are not expected to be perfect. Making mistakes is ok. Repeating them, or defending mistakes to leave us with a belief they will be repeated is not acceptable. However, given this post from Bahamut, and his response to my query at User_talk:Bahamut0013#One_last_sticking_point, I think it's safe to say we've achieved the ends that serve the project and we can move to close this dispute in so far as Bahamut's administrator actions as resolved. Agreed? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sanity check - Francis E Williams

    I've just blocked User:Francis E Williams for a week for carrying on baiting User:24.177.120.138 while the IP was blocked, after an acrimonious argument that has just been archived here, and I'd just like a sanity check if you wouldn't mind.

    • He did this at the IP talk page, which was clearly deliberate baiting while he's blocked.
    • The he did this at his own Talk page, which was clearly more baiting.
    • I removed it and warned him here
    • He responded by re-adding the baiting here
    • I removed the baiting again and blocked him
    • Back at the IP talk page he reverted my removal of his first baiting as a IP User:86.156.183.157, here
    • I've also blocked the IP for 48 hours

    Any thoughts? (PS: I'll notify User:Francis E Williams, but I don't see any need to aggravate User:24.177.120.138 further as he probably never saw it and this isn't about him - though I'll notify him too if anyone thinks I should). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And now I just got this on my Talk page - clearly the same person using multiple IP addresses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking, you look sane. :) In all seriousness someone's socking there it appears. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider your sanity checked. It all looks good to me.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are all still not reading what has been written!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.234.182 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I read it all but nevertheless concur with Boing! said Zebedee. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all, his Talk page and archives are very confusing, so your assistance is appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    86.156.183.157 = BT, Southsea
    217.43.161.176 = BT, Oxted, South of London
    109.144.234.182 = BT Openzone (public access), London
    80.225.199.69 = Tiscali dynamic IP, Hull
    (Note I'm disclosing nothing that isn't easily publicly accessible - I used http://cqcounter.com/whois/) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You`re still all missing the point - have a look at the botton of the accused`s page about what he is up to now. There is a message that is pretty plain and simple. Maybe it`s going over the top of your heads guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.199.69 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    80.225.199.69 now blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, for repeated trolling and block evasion, I have reblocked User:Francis E Williams indefinitely - I think we'll need to see some commitment to stop this tendentious behaviour before he can be unblocked. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to adjust the block accordingly. As he clearly has access to a range of dynamic IPs, I have also temporarily semi-protected the IP Talk page he was trolling -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking seems futile, I don`t think he is coming back.

    Levineps and yet another violation of his editing restrictions

    Deja vu. Anyway, I just noticed Levineps (talk · contribs) recently violated his editing restrictions, which include, inter alia, a complete ban from performing any page moves. He violated this twice since his last block, on February 22, 2011 and again on April 19, 2011.

    The last incident for which he was blocked was also a page move violation, in January 2011: ANI report here. The full restrictions, as well as the enforcement log, are documented in a collapsed box on his user page. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bizovne reloaded

    Some of your might already remember Bizovne from my previous report. He was the one who started posting me some (un)kind notes on my talk in Slovak. Since some editors were dying to learn its content, I took the pains of translating it. This translation also includes the post Bizovne has made via his IP account since. IIRC he was warned (and blocked for 48 hours) for breaking WP:NPA before, but obviously he doesn't seem to be bothered by it at all. Also, since his IP account has been blocked for a month, he has obtained another one by going to a public library in Košice. Though the IP is completely different, the user's obviously the same, evidenced by the fact that he not only replied to his old discussion with the new IP address, but also posted a brand new thread on my talk page. Let me translate it for you in a hurry:

    Hungarian fascist CoolKoon
    Hi CoolKoon, I think that the English Wikipedia isn't the right place for pursuing your fascist, irredentist, revisionist and Great-Hungarian opinions. Stop propagating the cooperation of Hungary and Hitler's Germany during WWII. You fascism has no place on Wikipedia.

    I think that he really DID show a LOT that he doesn't want to be civil with Hungarian editors (especially myself) and that he doesn't regard them high either (evidenced by his edit logs: [83], [84] and [85]). He also seems to be a master of the Good hand, bad hand sockpuppetry. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=427303711"