Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764

Personal attacks, possible off-wiki dispute

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

---

• Random5555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DiasMi012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Somehow I stumbled on a dispute between these two individuals on articles related to Los Angeles-area public transportation, particularly Los Angeles Metro bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). On 12 July I gave both users a level 4im warning ([1] [2]) as they were making personal attacks on each other's talk pages. In particular, Dias created an attack page on Random's main user page (since deleted so I don't have a diff), and Random has taken to edit summaries ([3] [4] [5]). Dias even placed this comment on my talk page in response to the warning. I haven't had the time to wikistalk these two in the weeks since, but now that I've looked through their contribution histories I see that both have taken to edit summaries to continue their personal attacks ([6] [7] [8] [9]) and some of these edit summaries tell me that these two are continuing an off-wiki dispute ([10] [11]). This is a combination of edit warring, ownership of articles, and personal attacks, and I'd like some admins to take a look to see if blocking is warranted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well. I consider that an EW warning might be the way, and if they continue with it, maybe a severe sanction would be on the way. I have read the diffs and they don't are substantial enough to be considered personal attacks, IMO. In relation to the ownership of articles, this may also apply, but not totally sure, as EW is still the main issue and none of them have created the article nor being the major contributor. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, they seem to have stopped editing on August 11, and as a result, the edit warring issue may be over. Unless the users start edit warring again, i'm afraid it may not still be any problem. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dias stopped editing on August 11, but Random is still active as of today. Kurtis (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't want to jump to conclusions, and I hope neither of the parties take offence at my comments here, but am I the only one who thinks it's a very slight possibility that these two accounts are operated by the same person staging a sock battle on the article? They just seem to have a lot of vitriol directed at each other, and I can't for the life of me figure out what would provoke such bad blood between two people with virtually no interaction outside of Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. DiasMi012 has been editing since April 2011, whereas Random5555 has been here for just over a month; yet many of his edits are antagonistic towards Dias.[12][13] Likewise, Dias has responded with somewhat snarky rebuttals, clearly out of some degree of frustration with Random. I think the best solution in this instance, assuming they are completely different editors (which I still consider likely, despite my sentiments above), is to strongly suggest that these two cease interacting with each other. It's pretty clear that nothing good will come of them having any further direct contact, given how they can't work out their differences in a reasonable manner. I also feel as if Random5555 would be best advised to edit elsewhere, as he obviously has very little control over his emotions while editing the article in question. If he does not prove to be constructive anywhere else, then I actually recommend a block — thus far, he doesn't appear to be able to collaborate effectively with other editors. In DiasMi012's case, I think a stern warning to avoid edit warring and to keep his cool, even when the editing gets tough, will do. If problems persist with him, it might also be best for Dias not to edit Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. Just my $0.02. Kurtis (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'll go ahead and give some more warnings, but Random has been warned about civility already, and I think that this taking to edit summaries to make their jabs at each other is just a backhanded way of evading direct contact (e.g., on a talk page). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

91.74.118.88

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

---

This user 91.74.118.88 has been warned several times regarding using Wikipedia as a soapbox, in response to posting multiple complaints on the Flydubai page. They have also been blanking their own talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amp71 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

IP address blocked following report to WP:AIV Noom _talk ^stalk 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

132.3.29.68

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

---

The user 132.3.29.68 has been warned multiple times from the talk page about vandalism and other things. This IP recently edited Soledad O'Brien twice, both times were vandalism [14]. Before that, editing Brokeback Mountain, here, and then Detroit Pistons, here. I am aware this is a shared IP address but at least we can disable anonymous editing? Toasty (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I don't see enough recent vandalism to justify a block; additionally, most of the warnings on the talk page are stale (>1 month old). I'll issue another warning; if vandalism continues please report this IP at WP:AIV. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP User:64.175.39.242 Legal threat on talk page of User:MarnetteD

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

---

The heading says it all. After escalating trolling and personal attacks on MarnetteD's talk page, the IP user has escalated to a legal threat Time to bit this IP goodbye with prejudice. --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And now, the same IP has left a threat on my talk page as well. I haven't even had time to warn him/her yet! --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? I undid an edit they had made as the earlier USER had made a reasonable edit., changing one word that made more sense. As soon as I had done that, I was called an "IP Hopping Troll" and something about socks was posted to me. A Troll is a vulgar insult and one that I don't see why I have to accept without complaint. Your comments above are highly inflammatory and unnecessary. If the insults to me are not reversed or removed, I see no reason why I should not take legal action to remove this defammation. If you see that as a threat, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what I edited:

(cur | prev) 06:43, 15 August 2012‎ 64.175.39.242 (talk)‎ . . (91,320 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Undid revision 507479719 by MarnetteD (talk) Reviewing the edit, their is nothing disruptive i can see. It is a language improvement. It appears MarnetteD is simply looking to escalate problems.) (undo)

I had seen that MarnetteD and another USER under an IP address were arguing. I looked at the edit and it seemed perfectly reasonable, so I undid it with the above comment. Since then MarnetteD has continually abused me by calling me a 'troll' and accused me of using 'socks' which I don't even understand. Now the same user is saying that the problem is my attitude and insults to other editors. The above edit is the only one I made. This is intolerable. 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

USER Drmargil has now joined in the name calling and abuse. Who is policing these editors and allowing them to abuse in this way? 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To anyone who takes a look at this you will need to take a look at the edit history of this page [15] A series of IPs 216.31.246.114 (talk · contribs), 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs), 85.237.212.195 (talk · contribs) and 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs) - none of whom have an extensive edit history - has been using edits - some innocuous others not so much - to leave edit summaries attacking other editors, especially Redrose64. While most of the IPs are from California at least one has been from England so I fear this is a sock/meat puppet situation. They most likely tie back to the blocked user TVArchivistUK (talk · contribs) who engaged in much socking and personal attacks before being blocked last May. The language used currently is much the same as the blocked editor indulged in. Redrose64 has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with this but I feel that the attacks should stop and either the various IPs should be given some time off or any pages that they edit to continue their attacks should be semiprotected. It is late here so I will probably not be able to respond for several hours. My apologies to anyone who needs my input until then MarnetteD | Talk 07:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think there's a little more to it than that, 64.175.38.242. Since July 12, you've also edited as IP User:216.31.246.114 here, here , User:85.237.212.218 here and here; and User:64.175.39.242 here and here in the first of a string of disruptive edits, always informing editors they cannot make edits not approved by User:Redrose64 (who appears to be an uninvolved party (see this edit). You seem to feel one editor owns the page, and that it's your role to defend that ownership to the point of making legal threats to both MarnetteD and me, while being unresponsive to warnings on your talk page. This is block worthy behavior that will not be tolerated. --Drmargi (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you. I have taken steps to resolve this now. Any editor that does not use an ID is assumed to be the same. I know nothing about technology, so I don't know where your evidence is coming from. But I hope the steps I have taken will be sufficient. To personally insult someone as a 'troll' is defammation. What will you be calling people next on this site? Witches? Crones? Worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

While there are several IP edits to check to get the whole picture of what is going on the most important one regarding 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs) is this [16] where, with only their third edit, they mention Redrose64 by name. Hardly the edit of someone "brand new" to Wikipedia to to editing the List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases article. It reads like a "quack" to me MarnetteD | Talk 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats aside, two IP's who have never edited before, on in Alameda and one in Emeryville (about 10 miles apart) suddenly making the same edits defending the "owner" of a page, both in the manner of a banned editor leaves us in the land of "pull the other one; it has bells on it." --Drmargi (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although accusations of sockpuppetry without filing a formal WP:SPI report are sometimes slightly uncivil, and the word WP:TROLL can also be on the uncivil side, defamation only exists if it directed against a recognizable individual, which does not exist here. Indeed, calling someone an internet troll would never qualify for that. Regardless, the policy on No Legal Threats is clear: you must be indefinitely blocked while the "threat" (as useless as it is in this case) exists. dangerouspanda 08:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Self-promotion only account

Khursheed Khan Facebook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made two edits so far, both removing existing content to insert self-promotion. Both were quickly deleted (though no warnings given till later, by me), but perhaps this account could be blocked now as he is clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, without waiting for three more lots of silly vandalism for him to be warned about? PamD 08:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll be charitable and suggest he could be doing these edits in good faith, and just doesn't understand what Wikipedia's for. I've put a welcome template on his talk page that should get the message through. If he still disrupts pages, put a higher level warning template on and wait for a reply. If he still does it, and doesn't reply to his talk page, then blocking might be acceptable at that point. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough, perhaps I was being a bit light on the WP:AGF - but removing good content to insert "come to my facebook page" stretches it! I usually add a welcoming template, but lack of AGF led me not to in this case. Will watch. PamD 09:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. If you've ever spent time at WP:NPP or WP:AFC you'll know what odd things turn up. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Assume ignorance of the rules :-) dangerouspanda 09:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• But, there's a lot more going on here: a search in User space finds:

• Khursheed Khan Pictures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khursheedkhanactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khursheed Khan Interview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User:Khursheed Khan Interview/sandbox
• Khursheed Khan Actor Picture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:Khursheedkhan2012/sandbox

Ignorance and misunderstanding of what the encyclopedia is about. PamD 09:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And he's been around at least 10 days - see User:Khursheedkhanactor. PamD 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny. Oh my word. However, since most of those accounts aren't blocked, I can't honestly accuse him of outright sockpuppetry - perhaps he's lost his password. Still, competence is required - pick whichever the latest account is, tell him to use that one, and that one alone. I recommend using words of one syllable (although, in fairness, I suspect English is not his native language). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Have left a message on each of his talk pages except User talk:Khursheed Khan Pictures, where I see that username was blocked on 11 August as an unacceptable username - presumably on the assumption it was a film company! Have also, in passing, removed purely self-promotional content from the probably un-related User:Khursheed Khan of Dandoqa Swabi, whose only edit was to create a WP:FAKEARTICLE userpage about himself and his family. Interesting morning. PamD 10:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot and hoax content

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

---

In this edit User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot added hoax content to Larry Storch. In this edit to Talk:Larry Storch he indicates that he did it intentionally, knowing it to be a hoax. It seems to be part of larger experiment to see how long it takes Wikipedians to catch this type of vandalism. However, when an anonymous editor removed the vandalism with this edit, Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot simply reinserted it with this edit. In my mind this behavior is very detrimental to Wikipedia, but I would have been willing to let it drop. However, on several occasions (here, and here) I have asked Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot if he has similarly introduced hoax material into other articles, but he has refused to supply an answer. I have no choice but to conclude that there are other articles out there which still have hoax material in them that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has introduced. I am bringing this here to a wider audience so that others can look at his edits and help identify any other hoaxes/vandalism that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot may have added to Wikipedia articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is really a non-issue. On July 10, I added some information, cited by Kinston.com, about an alleged noise pollution sentence by a Judge to Larry Storch, requiring him to play the teapot song in his car. I originally did not realize that this was satire, so I thought that I was adding valid information. However, a few days later, I realized that it was satire, but I decided to keep it because I wanted to conduct a little experiment to see how long it would take for the material to be reverted. The information was reverted by Gnome de plume on August 13, over one month after the material was added. This actually tells me of a potential weakness in our policies, or our enforcement of them, such that material in WP:BLP articles can appear to be well-cited and sourced yet still not be valid. So we, as editors, must be vigilant and cognizant of this, as well as aware of WP:RS issues. So no, I wasn't "vandalizing". I was just trying to illustrate a point. I apologize if I was seen as a common asshole vandal. WTF? (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. "Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize about that. I didn't realize that my little experiment went against WP:POINT. I'll try to be more careful so that this doesn't happen again. Also, to answer Gnome's question about whether I have inserted hoax material into other articles, I think if you review my edit history, you'll find that the vast majority of my edits are valid and not considered vandalism. WTF? (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't question the vast majority of your edits - I can see that you are quite a productive editor here. However, I think your reply continues to be completely evasive about the direct question of whether you have similarly added hoax content to other articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so to be more direct in answering your question, no, I have not added similar hoax content to other articles. This incident is a one-article incident. WTF? (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How is anyone to trust you on that? Consider this a single and final warning on breaching experiments on the encyclopedia: if any editor notices such again (including existing cases that WTF has not disclosed), ping me and I'll indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has still not accounted for this reversion of an editor removing their hoax insertion. This was done August 12, long after "the couple of days" that Foxtrot claim they had become aware it was a hoax. That edit doesn't really match their explanation about it being a "test to see how long before the material was reverted". --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's worth saying it again: We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. [17] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider the possibility of a one-week block. This would be intended to reduce the frequency of unwanted experiments in the future. "Trying to illustrate a point" is something that our policies strongly frown upon. WTF's last effort in that direction was on August 12 so this isn't a long-ago problem. He was revert warring two days ago to restore information to an article which he knew to be incorrect. Any assumption of good faith faces an uphill struggle here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be punitive. WTF should hopefully now understand our zero-tolerance approach to inserting false material into articles. If not, his next block for the same will be his last. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the previously mentioned edit on August 12, I didn't say anything about that because I didn't see that as that big of a deal. To be honest, it was more of a reflex reversion instead of a hard-and-fast revert -- done before thinking -- and assuming that the anonymous IP in question was vandalizing. Looking back, that was a mistake. I don't think a block is really necessary in this case because I have already learned that this type of editing is wrong and not acceptable. I can assure administrators here that you won't see my username on this side of the fence at this page again. Thank you. WTF? (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I propose an experiment. Block Wiki Tango Foxtrot for a week and see how long it takes him to appeal the block. JOJ ^Hutton 01:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Rather than raise hell and blow this out of proportion. Just make this a one time warning not to disrupt/vandalise to make a point and leave it at that. Assume good faith this time and leave it be. Blackmane (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately AGF is running low when somebody gives themselves a trolling sig. GiantSnowman 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't bright orange, doesn't have a drop shadow and isn't three lines long. I've seen worse. For now, WTF has had the only warning he should need (and the only one he will get) not to do this again, so I think we can close this off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:71.178.108.23 edit warring on multiple articles, strange edit summaries, removing WP:RS citations/POV pushing

71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

User:71.178.108.23, who was recently the subject of an ANI dealt with by User:EdJohnston here [18] after a report by User:Kansas Bear, has been active on numerous pages, edit warring, removing WP:RS citations and using unsourced non-neutral language. They have very recently been warned by User:Bbb23 here [19] and myself here [20], yet have continued to edit war removing WP:RS citations and continual POV pushing. Here are some examples of the type of editing and edit summaries involved- here [21], here [22], here [23] and here [24]. Could we get some admin attention on to this? Thanks very much. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just some brief comments. I posted a final warning on the IP's Talk page, removed here, based on all the problems caused by the IP. It looks like the IP not only removed the warning but has continued their misconduct. However, I have not analyzed the IP's edits subsequent to the warning and don't have time to do so now (I have to eat dinner or I'll be shot). If another admin wishes to look at the events and block the IP, fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking of filing a sock case against this IP. Notice WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit. The IP's main interest is to ensure that certain articles about WW2 Croatian Ustashe figures are sufficiently negative. What is most noticeable is the abuse which he directs against editors who disagree with him. In my opinion a one-month block might be considered. Velebit was also noted for abusing other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh it's Velebit alright. I've been keeping track of his cross-wiki edits here. Osiris (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like here are, in joint action, three "experts" of Ustashe history. A common Wikipedia technique of character assassination is in progress: sock puppet, edit warring (!!), unsourced (!!) non-neutral language (!!) etc etc. Non-neutral language is to call war criminals politicians and intellectuals!! EdJohnston is always on guard when someone tries to "smear" image of his beloved Ustashe. The most hilarious attack posted on my user talk page is a claim, The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content . For this user, the long time dead war criminal Andrija Arukovic is a living person!!
• All above attacks on me are just an excellent confirmation of the prof. Harnad statement about Wikipedia. Professor John Harnad, a world-renown Canadian mathematician, (who was blocked by Wikipedia) summarized his negative view about Wikipedia this way:

Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner “elite” arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted “rulebook” and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

It is truly a “Tyranny of the Ignorant”.

--71.178.108.23 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You've delievered that rant several times before (ahem), on this wiki, and on the strategy wiki. Give it a rest. Osiris (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit to allow action to be considered against 71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs) as a Velebit sock. EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The SPI was closed, but I had another comment... Can the interested admins take a look please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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

---

User:Trasamundo call me "Sockpuppet Santos30" 3 times in the Talk:Spanish_Empire. After I give clear explain in the Administrators notice board he call me another time: "Sockpuppet Santos30".[25]. I feel as a personal attack when he call me Sockpuppet after I give an explanation. It is a long discussion and I'm worried this brokes my Talk. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be a personal attack, yes. But it will not break your talk. pablo 22:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That calms me thanks--Santos30 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Minty10200 continued reverting of Dual Survival article

User:Minty10200 keeps reverting the Dual Survival page to unsourced or information from non reliable sources about Dave Canterbury being fired [26] [27] [28] [29][30][31][32]. These edits involve deletion of fully sourced material. Attempts have been made to engage with Minty10200 in talk and on their personal talk page but user does not appear to understand Wikipedia reliable sourcing policy and instead makes personal attacks, claims I am censoring the "truth" as an argument. I made attempts to locate reliable sources for the information user insisted on and added these to the page but no reliable source could be located that Canterbury was fired, only that he was no longer with the show. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit behavior continues [33] edits involve deletion of three sources and replaced with unsourced information. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the changes based on WP:BLP and WP:OR, and added a BLP warning on the users talk page. Nothing else to do yet, unless edit warring continues. Could possibly block for WP:3RR as well, but lets wait and see how the user reacts to this warning first. Blocking should be last resort. Try discussing on the talk page as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried discussing on the talk page and added what I could find that could be sourced to address their concerns but user seems more concerned that the "truth" is being censored then properly sourcing their information. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And the user was not notified. He has been now. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it looks like JournalScholar and User:Minty10200 have each reverted 4x in 24 hours on Dual Survival. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for move protection at "Men's rights", and other action

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

---

"Executive summary"

[Provided later, at Bishonen's request; see below.–Noetica^Tea? 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)]

An RFC concerning the article Men's rights was closed by admin KillerChihuahua at 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC), with this edit. There are reasons to be concerned about that closure, and about its possible consequences. That controversial article has long been under article probation, with many new editors springing up out of nowhere and behaving badly. Feelings run high. This recently closed RFC was the work of a completely new account, who strangely knew exactly what to do. The notice at WP:RFC was vague and uninformative (deceptive, really); and it made no mention of a move for the article; but that's what it turned out to propose, among other more convoluted "reforms". Everyone at the talkpage knows that the title has been hotly disputed, and indeed there was a failed RM in November 2011 (hidden away in an archive, now; and barely referred to this time around), attempting the very same move. An article under probation must be treated with great care and propriety; but the participants in this recent RFC ignored the established principle in titling policy at WP:TITLE: all moves that are likely to be controversial should be processed through the formal procedures laid out at WP:RM. Well, that process led to "no move", last time; but it may be that someone has tried to sneak a move through without notifying the community. Most editors interested in RMs watch WP:RM; but nothing turned up there about this irregular process. So of course the RFC, started in a suspicious and surreptitious way, drew comments from those who monitored the page itself rather than from a spread of the wider community (as in a legitimate RM, and as happened last time for this page). Most irregular. Worst of all, admin KillerChihuahua closed off the long and fuzzy RFC (apparently within 19 minutes of first encountering it) without attending to what policy demands and what the community expects. I request that the page be move-protected, and that these errors be corrected. Noetica^Tea? 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Background

The RFC had run since 10 July, when it was initiated by newly registered user JasonMacker within the first four edits he ever made under that username (see record of his contributions, and note the three relevant edits, which together add 15KB of well-formatted text to the talkpage: [34], [35], [36]). A bot duly posted the RFC notification at WP:RFC, with this text from JasonMacker's post:

"Trying to address scope of article, as well as issues with the use of sources when it comes to describing the subject. A lot of the sources come from other than the subject of the article, rather than self-declarations, and If feel this is causing problems with the article's tone, as well as WP:SYNTH issues."

There is no suggestion of any move of the article in that notification. But at the RFC itself (on the talkpage), the text continues like this:

"I'm proposing that this article be renamed to Men's Rights Movement, because the current scope of the article is only dealing with the men's rights movement. ..."

And a great deal more follows that.

Back to the present

KillerChihuahua was called on at her talkpage to close the RFC (by Slp1. See this edit at Talk:Men's rights; and see this edit at KillerChihuahua's own talkpage (22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)), to which KillerChihuahua replied (01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)):

"Sure, I can do it; it may take a bit for me to read through it; I wasn't even aware there was an Rfc there. :-/ So I'm not up to date on it."

19 minutes after making that post (saying she had been unaware of the RFC, and would need time), KillerChihuahua wrapped up the RFC, whose text runs to more than 5,000 words. (That edit again: [37], timestamped 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC).)

That is, on the face of it, 19 minutes to assess a complex and often rambling RFC proposal and discussion. But there is more. For most of that RFC discussion there had been only oblique mention of an RM in November 2011 (duly processed according to WP:RM protocols), which is now archived. The proposed new title was the same as in this RFC, except without capitals: "Men's rights movement". That RM was closed in this edit and the preceding one, without moving:

"The result of the move request was: not moved. The article has changed significantly since the majority of the comments were posted. The majority of the current article is not about the men's rights movement per se. A new move request may be proposed, although a separate article on the movement itself (separate from the rights) would probably be a less contentious undertaking. Aervanath (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"

KillerChihuahua had commented at that RM (but did not vote). She was therefore aware of the genuine RM, and of the closing admin's finding that "a new move request may be proposed"; but this recent RFC was not part of the standard procedures laid out at WP:RM, and was never advertised to the community, in any proper forum that people have on their watchlist, as involving a move. A serious failure to inform the community.

Now, perhaps we must suppose that KillerChihuahua found time in the critical 19 minutes to read the present RFC (5000+ words), check key links in the RFC, review the only genuine RM for the article (8000+ words; making a total, with the present RFC, of roughly 27 A4 pages, single-spaced), check the state of the article itself, formulate a response, type in that response, check it, and close off the RFC.

Important to note also: at 06:30, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC) KillerChihuahua began this article probation page for the article; and article probation remains active.

Despite that article probation, I do not at this stage document anything about the style of KillerChihuahua's recent posts on the article's talkpage, preferring that the more substantive facts be addressed as a priority. I claim that the closure of the RFC was hasty and improper, and that the only legitimate way to determine a move for this article is given unequivocally at the relevant policy page, WP:TITLE:

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made.

It is beyond doubt that Men's rights, under long probation since before a properly conducted but failed RM, is "potentially controversial". It is equally beyond doubt that the initiator of that probation knows full well how controversial it would be. Yet admin KillerChihuahua appears to have ignored a clear ruling in policy, and to have acted precipitately. I raised a complaint about this at the article's talkpage (see Talk:Men's rights#Improper closure of discussion regarding a move of this article), because I am particularly interested in RMs and also in Wikipedia's treatment of gender issues. I had participated in the properly conducted RM of November 2011, and wondered if there might be another one some time. I check the WP:RM lists daily; but no RM was notified. Almost certainly, other interested editors also missed the opportunity to have their say. It is therefore not surprising that a different and smaller cohort of editors, for the most part, took part in this RFC; nor is it surprising that the tendency of opinion was different this time, given that only "locals" knew what was proposed in this RFC.

What happened next?

Kevin Gorman has written (see the section I started, liked just above):

The minor procedural points [sic] that have been brought up are easily covered by WP:NOTBURO. If you disagree, please take this to ANI within the next 24 hours or I will begin to implement the close.

Hence this post, which I make reluctantly. KillerChihuahua does not agree to reverse her extremely poor administrative decision in favour of an unadvertised attempt to move a highly controversial page; so I feel I have little choice.

Proposed remedies

• An immediate move protection of the page, while the matter is discussed here.
• A retraction of the admin action that closed the RFC with a decision that the page be moved.
• Continued move protection of the page, until either a new RM discussion is conducted or the matter is referred to some other appropriate forum for determination.
• An affirmation that clearly stated policy provisions at WP:TITLE are to be respected, in the processing of move requests.
• Consideration of further actions under the terms of the page's article probation (for which I reserve the option of presenting evidence from the article's talkpage).

Notifications of all named editors

• User:KillerChihuahua: diff
• User:JasonMacker: diff
• User:Slp1: diff
• User:Aervanath: diff
• User:Kevin Gorman: diff

Thank you!
☺
Noetica^Tea? 11:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I don't understand how the name question is controversial, could you give an executive summary of that, please, Noetica? Sending people to the discussion on the Men's rights talkpage to find out would be a little cruel, since it is, as you say, very… uh… very full of words. (I gave up in something like despair, myself.) Obviously an article on men's rights is going to be controversial, but what's the big deal about what it's called? Is there a tendentiousness in either of the names — "Men's rights" and "Men's rights movement" — and if so, in what way? That's surely the main point at issue. A pocket version of why it matters would be much appreciated. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. I have now taken the opportunity to explain my concerns more succinctly at the top (see "Executive summary"). I was at pains to get this done before the deadline set by User:Kevin Gorman (see above), and I knew that ANI demands all the diffs and details. So I rushed to give all that, and had no time for highlighting key points early on. In fact the naming issue looms large in its own right for this page, as in most matters of gender politics. But I was most concerned about the abuse of procedure by admin KillerChihuahua, who ought to have acted with probity and caution but did not. She doesn't hesitate to wield the tools against any suspected miscreant, and she set up the special article probation for Men's rights – and uses it, you can be sure. Yet her own behaviour has been appalling here. No doubt she will have support for "political" reasons, at such a political page. But Wikipedia has to rise above such bias, and so must its admins. I respect Wikipedia policy, and I expect to see our admins do the same. When I drew KillerChihuahua's attention to her lapse this time, she did not for a moment stop to consider that I might have a point. But I make my point with reference to due process, and to clear and established policy. That's the bottom line; and any opinion expressed here that ignores the administration of Wikipedia policy by admins seems very odd indeed. To me, at least. What do you think?

Noetica^Tea? 14:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for summarising your previous long post, but I'm no wiser regarding the question I asked. I must have been unclear. I try again: what's the significance of the difference between "Men's rights" and "Men's rights movement"? Is either or both of them tendentious? Politically, ideologically? If not, or if the difference is too subtle to be briefly explained here, why do you care about timestamps or shades and niceties of procedure, and why should we? I have trouble forming an opinion about the administration of policy in response to your challenge ("What do you think?"), as long there is this vacuum in the middle of the room. (Kind of the opposite of an elephant, if you see what I mean.) Bishonen | talk 15:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC).

The difference between the two is not the issue. In fact, I have no time to analyse all the gradations of meaning and connotation in the two competing titles, nor to form a new opinion based on the vague to and fro of the recent RFC, or on developments in the article itself. I did not take part in the RFC. I wasn't alerted to it in a way that would have got me interested. The point is this: many readers do contest the content of Men's rights, and along with that they naturally do contest the title – and even whether the article should exist. Since they do contest all that, and since behaviour has been so reprehensible in editing and on the talkpage, special sanctions were imposed. Article probation, by KillerChihuahua. That places an onus on everyone involved, including especially herself. She has failed in her duty, as I have shown. As I write, I am still waiting for anyone to show any defect in my appeals to policy at WP:TITLE, and in my call for calm, slow, openly declared deliberation toward genuine consensus.

I'm afraid that if my concerns are to be dismissed as to do with "niceties of procedure", then I might as well give up. Is policy at WP:TITLE a mere ornament? Are the duties of an admin to assess a month-long discussion (with its deep and obscure background) properly dispatched in 19 minutes? News to me, at least! ♥

Noetica^Tea? 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to butt in but the difference is this: the men's rights movement can be sourced but there has been significant offsite WP:OWN issues (meatpupetry & personal attacks most of which have been aimed this time at Kevin Gorman) but also attacks on BLPs to prevent renaming because apparently renaming the article effects the movements campaign and we shouldn't be touching "their" article. I can't link to the bad sites but this article from Jezebel covers it--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To try to answer Bishonen's question (and as she says, that talk page is "very full of words"), as far as I have been able to figure out, the difference between "Men's rights" and "Men's rights movement" is that "men's rights", as you might expect, has to do with fatherhood, men breaking gender barriers, changing unreasonable societal expectations, and opposition to media portrayal of men as sex-obsessed womanizers, and incompetent, misogynistic, brutish slobs with few redeeming qualities; whereas the "men's rights movement" is made up of activists like this:[38]. There are several dozen websites more like that one, some specifically about Wikipedia; if you want to see more, just ask.

As far as I can tell, the biggest problem with the "men's rights" article right now is that it is considered to be lacking in reliable sources and full of unsourced, non-NPOV material added by single-issue editors recruited from other websites. Changing the title to "men's rights movement" will open the door to using these sources now considered to be non-RS, since you can reference someone's own blog for information about themselves.

Neotarf (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there is no agreed upon definition of "men's rights". The term doesn't really exist outside of the current men's rights movement. So any article titled "men's rights" is going to have inherent POV, OR, and RS problems. This is why all the regular editors of the article want to move it. If you look at the article's talk pages, it's just the same arguments over and over again, almost all related to lack of sources outside of the men's rights movement. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I participated in the RfC. This RfC ran for over a month and had nearly unanimous consensus to move (7 support, 1 oppose). In my opinion, Noetica's claims that this discussion was somehow irregular are unfounded. The reason it only took KillerChihuahua 19 minutes to close the RfC is because the results were relatively clear. Noetica is welcome to start a new page move discussion after this page move is complete, but I can't see any reason to block the action of this RfC at this point, per WP:NOTBURO. Just my 2 cents. Kaldari (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari, you write: "Noetica's claims that this discussion was somehow irregular are unfounded." But you do not address the concrete points that I make at all. Read them, and answer them. Note the points about the misleading RFC notice; note the hard black-letter statement of policy at WP:TITLE. I look forward to your response to those, rather than your expression of opinion that simply fails to engage with the submission I have made. Noetica^Tea? 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by KillerChihuahua: the Rfc was open for a month, and was publicly listed, so I don't know why Noetica thinks this was "unadvertised." It was open for over 30 days, listed to the community via the Rfc boards. The single oppose in the Rfc agreed with the proposer that all the sources speak of men's rights movement (&activists etc) rather than men's rights, and wanted to rewrite the article to match the title better, rather than moving the article to the desired name. To questions about how to write an article where none of the sources use the term you want to write about, he had no reply. So 7 support, and 1 oppose, with the one oppose granting validity and concurring with the rationale for moving. No, it didn't take as long as I'd feared it would to read that, and it seems quite clear to me that consensus is to move, and the Rfc was sufficient to that. I note Noetica voted NOT to move in the earlier RM, and seems to be relying heavily on "I didn't vote in the Rfc" possibly to give the impression of neutrality. No challenge has been made that consensus is not to move the article; Noetica's complaint is procedural only; that an Rfc is procedurally wrong to decide if an article should be moved to a new name, if that article has ever been at RM in the past. I don't see how any admin would have closed in any other way than I did; there is more than one way to determine consensus, and the Rfc was very well and cleanly done. If there are questions, I will try to answer; but I will be afk off and on for a bit so pls be patient if you ask and I do not immediately answer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[After edit conflict:] KillerChihuahua, you write:

"the Rfc was open for a month, and was publicly listed, so I don't know why Noetica thinks this was 'unadvertised'."

Well, address what I have clearly laid out above. The notice of the RFC was deceptive. You did not address that earlier, in your actions or your hastily assembled comments; you ignore it now. Not good enough: for an admin who expects so much from others, and is ruthless with those who fall short.

"The single oppose in the Rfc ..."

Well, stop to think. There might have been more opposes, if people had known about the move proposal that was smuggled in. I watch for RMs very closely; but I had no way of knowing about this one through any accepted channel. You do not answer this point, so far. Please do.

"I note Noetica voted NOT to move in the earlier RM, and seems to be relying heavily on 'I didn't vote in the Rfc' possibly to give the impression of neutrality."

Well, we all like to give an appearance of neutrality, don't we? ☺ Anyway, as I stated, yes: I voted then. But as I also stated at the talkpage, I have formed no opinion after exposure of the present complex of issues in the present RFC. My reading must be a little slower than yours. In fact, I'm damn sure it is! I am more interested in style matters for Wikipedia, and titling principles, than I am in that truly impossible article. I am close to neutral about how things go there for content, because I think nothing can be done to give it stability. Hey, life's too short.

"No challenge has been made that consensus is not to move the article; ..."

Right. No sufficiently wide consensus has been sought for anything, because the nature of the RFC was not revealed to the community. You failed to pick that up, in your 19 minutes of administrative deliberation.

"Noetica's complaint is procedural only; ..."

Sure. Aren't many of your concerns procedural? Isn't this admin forum deeply concerned with procedure as laid out in policy? Isn't the article probation page you set up for Men's rights concerned with procedure? Don't we require admins especially to safeguard established procedure?

"I don't see how any admin would have closed in any other way than I did; there is more than one way to determine consensus, and the Rfc was very well and cleanly done."

Astonishing. You form that opinion, in less than 19 minutes? And then nothing will persuade you to contemplate an alternative judgement? Well, I won't try any more. But others will determine what to do here. An alternative (once again, and just for the record): an admin could take more than 19 minutes to assess a month of discussion, and could look at the present state of the article, the extent to which relevant policy has been respected or flatly ignored, previous RMs (if any), with previous admins' decisions, and so on. If an admin is too busy to do all that, an admin can hand the matter on to someone better situated. Theoretically.

Noetica^Tea? 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[My comment above was posted after the next comment by KillerChihuahua.–Noetica^Tea? 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)]

TL, DR version: Noetica doesn't say the consensus is not to move. Noetica's complaint is procedure wasn't followed. WP:NOTBURO: Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. ... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ...A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: this is not to be taken that I agree with Noetica that a procedural error was made; I do not. I find a public listed Rfc which runs for 34 days sufficient to determine this. I merely note that even if the complaint is technically correct, that is no reason to ignore clear consensus which follows policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I say that there was no well-founded consensus either way, in a deceptive and irregular process that you failed to diagnose. In the 19 minutes you allocated to the administrative task you took on. There was no "consensus-based discussion"; you failed to see that, and you seem unwilling even to consider that you might have been in error, or that you acted impulsively – despite the hard evidence of timestamped diffs. "A public listed RFC"? You continue to ignore the obvious response to that disingenuous characterisation. Are you as forgiving with those you would block at the drop of a hat as you are with yourself? You cite policy selectively from WP:BURO, as it suits you; but you leave out this part: "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused." And you totally ignore the most relevant policy in this case, at WP:TITLE. See above. You abuse it by ignoring it.

Noetica^Tea? 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-involved comment: I didn't take part in the RFC mainly because I try to stay away from editing in this topic (due to long standing harassment by offsite elements) but notwithstanding that I've contributed to this topic over the years. Noetica's contention is that somehow the RFC is not good enough to determine consensus this is pure wonkery - it's also incorrect. I also have a major problem wit the massive assumptions of bad faith being levelled at KC. IF there is a procedural error say that don't construct an argument based on assumptions of bad faith it's thoroughly unnecessary and does not help a topic that is under community probation due to severe battleground issues--Cailil ^talk 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, assertions. Got an argument to support your contention that the falsely advertised RFC was good enough to determine consensus? How are the rest of us supposed to know about it (as a covert proposal to move the page), in the first place? I have shown the highly questionable way in which it arose; strange that no one else bothered to detect the fact that a new editor came up with so finely tuned an instrument, when detections of sock-puppetry and Satanism of every stripe are the norm at that talkpage.

As for assuming good faith, yes: you might try that. Please do.

Noetica^Tea? 15:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since Noetica has brought it up now twice, I have been tested at 900wpm at 100% accuracy and 100% retention. I was tested once at 1000wpm but retention dropped to 98%. My normal reading speed is between 500 and 700 wpm, and of course I scan much faster than any of those times. I would appreciate it if no one bothers me about this in the future; I have found that once people know they pester me about it and it's a little embarrassing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I confess that I did wonder. I mean, you complained at the talkpage of Men's rights about my "wall of words", when I replied to your c. 100 words with my own c. 100 words (neatly interspersed with quotations from your own 100, for crystal clarity). I also note that you misread an exchange on my own talkpage, which you trawled for to make a personalising point against me when I dared to impugn your administrative actions. So yes: let's not talk any more about that.

Noetica^Tea? 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

for those who are curious, I believe Noetica refers to this edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• My main reaction after reading this thread was "Wow, Noetica really dislikes KillerChihuahua." Which is to say that I pretty much agree with Cailil's statement - if you think there's been a procedural error, that's fair enough to ask about, but you're making some rather astounding leaps of bad faith in how you're describing the situation, and I'm left with the impression that this is about "getting" KC, not about whether the article should be moved or not. I don't believe there's any particular reason an RfC can't reach consensus for an article move, so my feeling is that even the charge of "procedural error" here is weak. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be healthy to move beyond mere reactions and on to hard-headed analysis though, wouldn't it? I have no feelings about KillerChihuahua herself that have any bearing here at all. But I have opinions about her actions, and her responses when those actions are evaluated against the demands of policy. Perhaps you should look at her rather extraordinary assumptions about me, and her attacks on me when I criticise her actions head-on. It seems to me she can give it, but can she take it? I don't dislike her for not being able to, if that is the case. But it doesn't help in the fulfilment of administrative responsibilities. Anyway, if a procedural error has been made, let's just get it undone – and we can all move on. That's all I'm after. Should I not be? ☺?

Noetica^Tea? 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. My "mere reaction" is my analysis of the situation, after reading the evidence available. For whatever reason, you dislike KillerChihuahua and/or her actions at an emotional level, and you are lashing out from that level. Maybe you think you're not, but it's really, really clear that you are (or else that you're doing a fantastic job acting exactly like someone lashing out from an emotional level). We are all here trying to tell you that the issue here is a non-issue. An RfC happened, it went the way you didn't like, it resulted in a move. None of that is something that needs to be reversed in such dire circumstances as to be an emergency action from ANI. There is no evidence of malfeasance - or even an error - here from KillerChihuahua. You need to stop beating that dead horse, because all its doing is making you look like the sort of person who resents horses. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there some pretty basic confusions there. You don't respond to the points I make at all; you respond as if you have some privileged access to my psyche, and you're really sure of what you think you see. Well, don't be. It would be no one's business anyway. Evaluate the claims about admin conduct, read the date-stamped diffs, review WP:TITLE, and respond to all that. The rest is a distraction: and frankly, an insult. What is or is not an issue is not determined by any sort of appeal to groupthink, but by the hard evidence and arguments produced here. If you or anyone fails to grasp, or prefers not to grasp, the issues as they are laid out, then that is a fact to be lived with. I can live with it perfectly well. I have a certain respect for policy; it's not my fault, or ultimately my anguish, if anyone else doesn't do the same. You make declarations about KillerChihuahua's innocence, with no iota of evidence. I think we should beware of such unargued expressions of sentiment as much as of ridiculous distortions like: "An RfC happened, it went the way you didn't like, it resulted in a move." I advise you to pay attention. I would not have wanted that RFC to go any way, set up in any such way, conducted in any such way, or closed in any such way. Yes, I am concerned about gross departure from established procedures that would yield real, durable consensus. Once again, should I not be? ☺?

Noetica^Tea? 16:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to assume bad faith or sinister ulterior motives of anyone here, but I ended up at the "men's rights" talk page because of this rather confrontational message [39] left on Noetica's talk page. Neotarf (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already addressed what that message was about here and after; once the move discussion closure was protested, then nothing could be done without either (a) Noetica withdrawing his complaint or (b) outside opinion. (In that post "she" and "her" refers to Noetica; I was going by the ending "a" which is usually female, and erred. I have since corrected the gender.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

While we're on Noetica's talk page, it looks like there have been some disagreement over the point of view that the article should take. [40] I notice that there was no response to Noetica's inference that he is not welcome to edit that particular article. Neotarf (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"he is not welcome to edit that particular article" is not how I would summarize that post by Noetica. It reads to me rather differently. As to no response, there was no question, merely a series of complaints and disparaging comments about me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not the only one who did a double take at that message. Another editor found it "unexplained but very possibly WP:POINTY and threatening". [41] Neotarf (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And the comment I link to above was my response to him. I have already asked you on your talk page how "waiting on you" is a threat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• TL;DR (well I did, but I'm still a bit lost). I do have a question. Is it proper for an admin to be contacted on their talk page to resolve an RfC, especially if they've commented in a related area in the past? I imagine anyone would have closed it the same way, but that still seems a bit less-than-ideal. On the main question, a 30-day RfC on the talk page of the article really should be enough for anyone who cares about the topic. That said, the wrong process seemed to have been used. Is there a reason not to now use the RM process since someone has objected _and_ (given the last RM) there is reason to believe such a redo might get a different result? I'm not seeing a reason to rush and I like the idea of there being a fair process. That a sock started the RfC (which is what it has to be) just muddies the process further. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  Slp1 contacted me because I'm sort of the "uninvolved admin of record" - I wrote the probation page and have been active enforcing it in the past, and my comment "Reminding editors of applicable policies is helpful advice, not bullying - and playing the victim does not release you from your obligation to follow the policies." on that thread was in that role, none other. I also around that time made a number of other talk page edits in that role, such as "You are in error. This article is under probation; you will cease such hostile posts or you will be sanctioned, I assure you. Your choice." [42] and I answered a few questions as here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks makes more sense. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  You're welcome. I appreciate the concern, but at no time have I made any comments in any role other than that of uninvolved admin ensuring policy was followed and sanctions enforced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'll confirm that I contacted KC because they have been working as an admin on this article for nearly a year; they are not, and have not, been involved in the article otherwise; I would not have asked them if they had. I don't agree that User:JasonMacker is clearly a sock. There is a real life person of that name who has some related interests to be found the internet, and the long post he made analysing the article [43] shows unfamiliarity with WP policies about WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. More importantly perhaps, voice/content is quite different from other editors who have posted on the talkpage previously.

As others have stated above, I don't see that a "wrong" process was used, or that any rerun is necessary. There are multiple ways of discussing page moves, and it is process wonkery to insist on a rerun especially when the discussion, which included article editors who know the literature and new voices, was pretty much unanimous.

Finally, I am appalled by the multiple bad faith accusations against KC and others that have permeated this discussion. No wonder admins don't want to work in difficult areas such as this, when they are given this treatment. Slp1 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification on KC, sounds like all was perfectly resonable there. Secondly, having 6 wikilinks to guidelines/policies/essays in your second post isn't unthinkable. Nor is starting an RfC in your first 10. But it does certainly look seem highly unusual. Finally, I just don't see the problem with waiting a week or so for an RM. I doubt it will change anything, but I also don't think the delay is harmful and it might get some additional voices. Like I said, I think providing everyone a fair shake on things important to them is good. It helps with editor retention and generally makes people happier. So there is a point to the process wonkery IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• People had a fair shake on this. An appropriate process was used. For a month. A clear consensus was reached. I don't see any reason to reward an editor who takes such a narrow view of consensus decision making, especially when it is done in done in a highly inappropriate, accusatory manner. If Noetica really feels that the page should be moved back, let him start another discussion in a few weeks, on the merits of the move rather than technicalities. Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• An appropriate mechanism (RfC) was used, a clear consensus for move was achieved, KillerChihuahua judged it well, KillerChihuahua did nothing wrong. Nothing to do here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Implied legal threat by "Still-24-45-42-125"

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

---

• Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anyone who has been active on any of the regular notice boards in the past few weeks is probably familiar with User:Still-24-45-42-125, a former editor who claims to have previously edited only as an ip, but three weeks ago created a new account and has racked up over 1600 edits in that time. Thats a large amount of edits in such a small amount of time, even for us high edit guys. But the number of exist is if no concern. It's what "Still-24-45-42-125" has done in three weeks. He has been pushing POV on as many articles as possible, including and not limited to Mitt Romney dog incident, Chick-fil-A, Paul Ryan, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, ect, ect, ect. Most of the edits show a lack of any neutrality at all. Every edit seems one sided and focused toward a particular POV. A few threads on this page have already focused on much of User:Still-24-45-42-125's editing pattern, so I won't go into any more of that here.

What is of concern is a perceived implied legal threat by the user saying, On the advice of council, I'm not going to comment on the above action. If the user has currently retained "council" because of something that is happening on Wikipedia, I think some action needs to be taken, such as a block, until this "legal situation" can be resolved, per policy.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• All due respect to Jojhutton, that statement would not deflect me from weighing in on the matter were I so inclined. Mentioning legal representation in an on-wiki discussion appears to me a waste of pixels, but I wouldn't find the effect "chilling". Tiderolls 23:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not chilling, but they way I read WP:NLT is that if a user has a legal issue on Wikipedia that requires the need for retaining a lawyer, the user account should be blocked until such time the legal issue is resolved.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a legal threat on the same order as pushing a doorbell and running away. However, if the guy's edit-warring, he needs to be stopped. P.S. On the advice of council (namely, the Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga), I will be trying to stay away from election-related articles this year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • (EC)Ya, me too. I'm just siting back and watching all the fireworks this year. No need to get into all that drama, which in the end will amount to nothing.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • One needs to venture a bit beyond "legal issue". The first paragraph of WP:NLT specifies "litigation" and the second refers to "legal action". Tiderolls 23:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not even sure where I should be posting this at. He has a habit of harassing me on my talk page which I've told him to stay off my talk page constantly. For example, 4 of those edits discusses over vandalism issues that I've reverted other users and he felt the need to chime in and intervene on behalf of them although these other users (1 was blocked for a week) did not object to my reverting of their vandalism or changes. If this is the right place, good, if not, please point me in the right direction. ViriiK (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd need to see diffs to help you ViriiK, but that might be better accomplished posting to my user talk. Tiderolls 23:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To Viriik: This is the correct page to report alleged harassment, but maybe another thread, but I imagine that two threads would only be merged in the end anyway. Like Tide rolls said, add some examples of what you considered harassment to help us out.

To Tide rolls: That's just my interpretation of the policy, based on It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, but its just my opinion that it looked like a legal threat. I'm sure when the user sees the message he/she will have a good explanation for the comment.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

JOJ, my "all due respect" was sincere. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just need to see a more overt intent. Tiderolls 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have posted on Tide's talk page. Feel free to look there. ViriiK (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Oh my gosh, I know it was. In fact it brought a small tear to my eye. <sob>, <sniff>, <sob>. No worries and sorry if I sounded combative in my last. Didn't intend to. And respect back at you.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that comment at WP:3RRN and was troubled by it as well. It's one of those kinds of comments that is hard to analyze because it's not really coherent. I left a message on the Talk page of the admin who closed the 3RR report just in case they wanted to do anything. I don't suppose we can block the editor until he learns how to spell counsel properly?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's getting wikipedia editing advice from his city council? In any case, as legal threats go, it's pretty much a bluff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was meant as a joke in reference to Viriditas trying to help him here Arkon (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the third attempt of a bad joke then. "Have you beaten your wife today?", "kill", and now this? ViriiK (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this kind of verbage is not a good idea and perhaps the user should be warned, but as a threat I don't see it even boarderline as the statement has no intent of any kind of action. He doesn't state he intends or might take an action of some kind. The use of the term "on the advise of council" could really just mean he has been advised by another or counsled with advise. It does give the impression that some sort of legality is at hand and that does make some uncomfortable but i don't see it rising to the level of threat. I would suggest he be "counseled" and advised of the rule and the perception he may have inadvertantly created.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

He's clearly referring to the conversation with Viriditas on his talkpage. There's nothing for an admin to do here, so I am closing this. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Misha B & Misha B

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

---

I have requested a WP:NPOV/N partly over the issues following an earlier DRN that did not get a response.

Background Misha Bryan (born 10 February 1992), known as Misha B, is a British singer-songwriter who came to national attention in 2011 when she was a contestant in the eighth series of the The X Factor (UK), during the series the was a controversy, on live TV in front of 11 million viewers, where she was accused of being a bully. This was taken up the tabloid press, gossip mags and internet forums in a heavy media circus kind of way and the are many folks who hate Misha Bryan for it. The Accusations themselves where without verified evidence and most likely groundless.

1. Talk:Misha B Should these be removed. This relates to lots of unsupported bully accusations on this artists talk page, it has not been affected by revision history. Bias about bullying

DRN Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article? Too much information and way too biased

2. Misha B

My general feeling, as it was most likely a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. Relevant for the article about that particular series of The X Factor (where it is included), but not for her biographical article.

But because majority insisted, I added the conspiracy section, because I had a good knowledge of the sources and if it had to be there then I wanted to make sure the whole truth was there.

To briefly mention a strongly believed/but false allogation would merely gives the false accusation UNDUE WEIGHT and open to interpretation (espicially considering the exposure the accusations had on prime time TV and the Gutter Press/Gossip Mag/internet circus that followed) if its not covered and supported by verifiable evidence.

But does it conflict with BLP.

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken

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

---

I'd like to report the following PA and BITE by User:Beyond My Ken: [44]. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a personal attack. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DJSasso, are you saying that because you believe that if A says to B that "it is interesting to ask if B has DNA that shows the signs of recombination under a trade of earthly pleasure for monetary gain" then this is not a PA, or are you saying that because you think that until we know that B is not indeed the son of a prostitute and a client, anyone can get away with talking to him this way? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that comment. Please just proceed doing good things and show there is no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, would you be surprised to learn that I believe that asking the community to inform BMK that he is expected to apologize, is a good thing, mostly for BMK, but also for Wikipedia? You and I know how easy it is to apologize when learn you hurt someone. BMK needs to learn that too. All I ask is that you do not stand in his way. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, you need to be informed that BMK did not make a personal attack against you. --Rschen7754 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you really think that then he was able to administer an insult right over your head. Intelligent people tend to use that trick to get away with talking dirty, and derive quite a bit of fun from it. I do not know BMK, but his user page suggests that he is very intelligent and a guy I would probably like quite a bit, if he bothered to be nice to me. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Three other editors have now agreed that there was no personal attack. This sounds like a case of WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I yield. Case closed. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Abuse of process by Lionelt and Belchfire

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

---

I apologize for not having all my ducks and diffs lined up, but this report is a product of frustration, not planning. As you may be aware, Lionelt admitted openly that he plans to pester me with reports until I get blocked repeatedly and give up.[45]

I don't have a full list, but along with his buddies from WikiProject Conservatism (Belchfire, ViriiK and Collect), he's lodged false reports against me for 3RR, SPI, ANI and more. You can see Belchfire's most recent attempt above this. Lionelt has gotten me blocked once, but only by miscounting reverts.

I'd like you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&pe=1&#User:Still-24-45-42-125_reported_by_User:Belchfire_.28Result:_.29 and tell me this isn't the most obviously false report you've ever seen.

I'm asking for administrators to intercede, not on the bogus 3RR, but on their admitted vendetta against me. In specific, I suggest an interaction ban, but I'm open to whatever will actually keep them from harassing me in the future. I am absolutely sick of this. Their actions -- quite intentionally -- have made it difficult for me to contribute to Wikipedia. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but you've brought it on yourself. You've received a ton of advice and you've neither listened to or followed any of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully responsible for their behavior. I also make the sun rise in the morning, but when it rains, that's also me. Let's always blame the victim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You should read WP:NOTTHEM. You may need it soon. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And I, in turn, suggest WP:MYOB. I'm hatting you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The linked comment from Lionelt is basically just an exposition of WP:ROPE. It's not very nice when editors are that candid, sometimes, but nor is there anything actually wrong with it. The only way to get out of this particular trap is to behave yourself. Trust me when I say that if an editor repeatedly leaves bogus warnings on someone's talk, or cries wolf at ANI, then it is the antagonist who usually finds himself subject to scrutiny. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be, except that he and his friends have actively followed up on this with false reports. I trust you when you say it ought to boomerang, but it hasn't. It's impossible to actually contribute to an article like Paul Ryan while dealing with multiple false reports on a given day. The last time I wasn't able to respond (because I was sleeping), I got blocked despite a provably false claim. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battlefield. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're taken to 3RR by this group of editors again for a claim which is provably false (i.e. as bad as the one linked above), let me know. (incidentally, ANI's conflict detector has been on crack the last couple of days. attempt #5 here.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I think you're going to lose an editor at this rate, because I'm not willing to put up with this BS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I personally believe you're clearly edit-warring, as per the definition, here's my idea: there's millions of articles. Go edit ones that will cause you less grief for awhile, and take the hotbed ones right off your watchlist. WP:BATTLE can go both ways. dangerouspanda 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's make a deal. From now on, you'll only get to edit articles that don't matter, that you care nothing about, on topics you know nothing about. In return, people will stop gaming the system to get you blocked. Sound like a good deal? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a deal. Feel free to compare my contribs from this account, to those from my User:Bwilkins account - none of the articles on my main account are even on my current watchlist. So, now we can move on, yaaaaay. dangerouspanda 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't control other people, only yourself. So focus on what you can do to help end the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All good advice, but when groups of editors coordinate to hound good editors off certain articles, that's a double-plus ungood for Wikipedia. I'm sure it contributes to the gradual reduction in the numbers of regular editors we've seen. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It contributes to the systematic bias of articles. For example, Ron Paul is a virtual hagiography. The way you get there is to team up against editors who are active and effective at enforcing WP:NPOV. Get rid of them and you've got it made. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24-45-42-125, you give as good as you get. Is WikiProject Conservatism coordinating in order to immanentize the eschaton? Probably, but what WikiProject isn't coordinating? When I brought this up earlier on the council page, the consensus was they aren't doing anything wrong. So it seems like a waste of time to rehash that when the community already looked into it (at my personal request) and found nothing out of the ordinary. Best to work it out like colleagues on the talk page in a calm manner rather than calling for blood. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Coordinating to improve the articles within a project is a good thing. It is, after all, what projects are designed to do; however, coordinating to get rid of good editors just because they don't have the same ideology is most definitely not good. Editors who do this should be advised by administrators that such activities are inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I obvious agree with you, but the community does not. I also think you would have a hard time proving your case. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The abuse of process is continuing. A 3RR report is supposed to be about demonstrating evidence of edit-warring. Instead, Lionelt and Collect are spreading dirt. It doesn't matter that it ranges from blatantly false to desperately misleading. It just has to bias admins against me so that they overlook the details, such as the lack of edit warring. There's a saying about this: "Don't wrestle a pig. You'll both get muddy but the pig likes it." Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try shaving with Occam's razor. A more prosaic explanation is that Lionelt etc. don't really understand the policies and guidelines, many of which are intentionally esoteric. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's totally what happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, they understand them well enough to abuse them. I'm a noob here yet I know that ANI/EW is not where you complain about civility or whatever. Occam's razor says they know what they're doing. I'm not the first editor they've "assassinated". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I have diffs from recent discussions on my talk page indicating that both Lionelt and Belchfire don't understand the policies, so yes, ignorance is one part of it and a contributing factor involving the bogus 3RR report. Are they intentionally filing false reports to silence their opponents? That is what Still-24-45-42-125 is trying to argue, but there isn't enough evidence at this point. Best to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Panda, the result of granting WP:AGF is taking away WP:COMPETENCE. In the end, it doesn't matter why they're abusing the system, only that they are. And, yes, since nobody's going to stop them from abusing the system, this discussion is pointless. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In a way, it's a libertarian paradise (i.e. street battles in Somalia). Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My name is bandied again? Mo notice from the OP even? I would suggest to Scjesey that his post at [46] etc. with edit summaries of Temporary break from the fuckwittery was the only reason I did not file a WQA on him after I asked him to delete personal attacks at [47] on 14 Aug for such posts as [48] And yes, I said you are deluded. And your recent comments also demonstrate that you're a dick as well with the edit summary of replies to assholery <--- more ammo for Mr Purer-Than-Driven-Snow and similar gross and egregious personal attacks on me and others, as noted many times (including a finding by ArbCom Scjessey (talk · contribs) has helped create the battleground atmosphere with a string of bellicose, polemic and uncivil comments in the run up to this case which shows an ongoing civility problem for the irascible Scjessey himself. So when I asked politely that he redact his attack, he "retired" for only enough hours to post an attack on me here, of all places! Scjessey, when you take a break, it meand to take a break and not to appear instantly to make further attacks. Really. And yes -- I find but when groups of editors coordinate to hound good editors off certain articles to be a direct accusation of meatpuppetry made not only without foundation, but egrreegiously so. I find however, coordinating to get rid of good editors just because they don't have the same ideology is most definitely not good. to be an egregious violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is getting ludicrous when an editor makes such accusations repeatedly, egregiously, without foundation, takes a "wikibreak" which is not even a "wikibreak" and then continues his attacks. Wikibreaks are not intended to allow such behaviour. Cheers. (BTW, I am not a member of any Wikiproject to the best of my knowledge, nor am I "buddies" with anyone - I watchlist well over 2500 articles, covering a very wide range, and I am not a meatpuppet, sockpuppet or any kind of puppet whatsoever! Nor have I "lodge false complaints" against Still24. I find this report sullying my name to be itself egregious behaviour on Still24's part. Collect (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of anything in this thread, Collect, although it doesn't surprise me that you've showed up to attack me in this new forum and repeat your trumped-up charges. My "wikibreak" is a break from my watchlist. I can define my wikibreak in any way I see fit, as they are not part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I respectfully suggest you dial back your mock outrage. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You showed up in this thread. I showed up afer being notified by an editor other than the OP who did not notify me as required at all. Your wikibreak had an edit summary noted above -- and was quite blatantly in response to my polite request that you redact your attacks. You showed up here and made comments - while you were on a "wikibreak" on a topic where the OP bandied my name. That you view this as Wow. This guy follows me everywhere is another blatant and egregious personal attack. All good advice, but when groups of editors coordinate to hound good editors off certain articles, that's a double-plus ungood for Wikipedia. I'm sure it contributes to the gradual reduction in the numbers of regular editors we've seen from you damn well seemed to refer to the cabal averred by Still24, and seemed to say that such a cabal exists. It does not exist. Period. So much for your comments accusing anyong of "stalking" here, and so much for your "faux wikibreak". (I request you redact your attacks on me which violate WP:NPA on their face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC) seems polite IMHO) Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're making yourself look a little silly and hysterical, dude. Especially with your blatant and egregious overuse of the words "blatant" and "egregious" in most of your discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Does Collect look a little silly and hysterical? Maybe. Is he overusing the word "blatant"? Most definitely. Was he lumped in with a group of "buddies" to be tarred and feathered for something he wasn't involved in? Looks like a big yes to me. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of "guilt by association" myself, and I can tell you, there is no merit to this kind of approach. If and when Collect errs (and he does) feel free to bring that up. But do not lump him in with others merely because he belongs to the same Wikiproject, or has the same POV. You've done two things wrong with that; you've not only inappropriately added him to a complaint about which he had nothing to do, you have now weakened your own case by distracting from your real complaint. Puppy's heartfelt advice; don't do this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And since I do not belong to "the same Wikiproject" I found the claims that I do to be a teensy bit errant. And I still do not like having an OP not notify me when he inserts my name into the mix at the start. Collect (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hence my use of "or" - I probably should have used "perceived" for the POV as well. I believe the point is clear enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, This wasn't Scjessey's complaint. --Onorem♠Dil 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Apolgiesm I was adressng Still-24-45-42-125; I regret any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• slightly off topic Can someone uninvolved please look at Still's recent (and frequent) use of hats on discussion boards? Little green rosetta (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[49] is interesting as it clearly shows Still24's aims here, there's nothing I can do now to stop the WikiProject Conservatism posse from continuing to file false reports until I'm blocked unless they are prevented from doing so. Which is a blatant misuse of the noticeboards, is contrary to the Five Pillars, is opposed to collegial editing, etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice to All editors in conflict with this thread WP:DROPIT Back away from the dead horse. For each thread I've seen and thought about banging your heads together like 2 empty halves of a coconut I've held my tounge. No longer. Still-24, in some cases a cadre of editors is going to form a mafia around a topic space. Try editing other topics similar, but not directly in their line of fire. Be fastidious in your observation of the rules/guidelines/essays of Wikipedia. If their behavior is so out of line other editors will see it and call them on it. Scjesey and Collect, please don't use annother person's complaint thread to re-ignite your flamefest with each other. Advice has been given, let's move on from this locus of drama and get back to improving the Encyclopedia as a whole. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there are serious issues at the core here, but this thread isn't going to help deal with them. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request close: if anyone wants to bring a well-formed RfC against WikiProject Conservatism, I would be happy to co-sign (provided it is relevant and cogent to the issues I previously raised at the Council talk page linked above) but this isn't the place. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for unprotection

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

---

82.132.249.193 (talk · contribs · 82.132.249.193 WHOIS) has requested that User talk:DeFacto be unprotected on my talk page. I protected DeFacto's talk page a few months ago after the second of his/her many socks edited that talk page. Rather than summarily declining the request because I can't see how unprotecting the page would benefit the project, I'll bring the issue here for community resolution.

Please note that several IPs in this IP's range were recently named in the latest edition of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto, and this appears to be the same editor[50]. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:BOOMERANG. CityOfSilver 20:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• 3rd time isn't charm This makes the third time I've piped in on this topic. At WP:RFPP, I refused. On Toddst1's page, I made it known I was against it. I'm still against it as the IP hasn't provided a valid reason why he needs to edit the user page of another user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note Looking at it, this IP geolocates in the same area as other socks, and their grammar and style is extremely ducky. I'm going to dig, if someone doesn't beat me to a rangeblock first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, consider a two-week rangeblock of 82.132.249.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). See the recent contribs from that range. It seems likely that this could be DeFacto evading their block. See another charming remark here. It defies belief that 82.132.* is going to acquire any credibility the way he is going now. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 82.132.249.193/25 (that is half the size and I think will get the job done), and I was already looking at two weeks, via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto, as I'm convinced that the IP is Defacto. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Goatse

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

---

Phidippus (talk · contribs) has me suspect — user's first edit was nominating Goatse.cx for Good Article. I really doubt that a first-time editor would know how to successfuly file a GAN, and given the site's notoreity, I have a feeling that shenanigans are afoot. Any suggestions? Checkuser perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Goatse as a GA? That would be quite a stretch. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And the boy wins a cigar, for best punning situation of the day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

_{I couldn't resist... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)}

Well, to play devil's advocate there, WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows the creation of a second account for privacy to avoid having one's real name associated with highly controversial topics. In any case, the user hasn't edited for 10 days or so. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a sock. Blocked by Ironholds. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Advice on a failed RTV

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

---

Please see [51]

Short summary:

• • I see a user page on my watchlist deleted as a G6, but mostly as enforcement of a RTV
  • I ask Magog about the deletion
  • After discussion Magog restores the user page, though it stays protected (totally ok with that)
  • I also notice that the contributions are missing
  • Neither Magog or I know the proper thing to do/request
  • I come here

My preferred outcome would be to either link the contributions with the failed RTV account, or to the current account.

Opinions? Arkon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't necessarily thrilled with this whole vanish and start over thing, but this particular situation has really been talked to death about a dozen times, at ArbCom, at WP:BN, I'm sure at ANI... and I can't understand why we need to discuss it yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you could link me to those that would be great. -Removed previous bad reading on my part- Arkon (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  And by the way, this needn't be user specific. I tried to not mention names for that reason. In similar situations (SA), the contributions remain. Arkon (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The initial account was re-named to User:Vanished user 03, and that is where you will find the contribs (October 2003 to August 2010). -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah [52], I found that when I went looking for the SA situation. It's in one of my self reverted edits to this section actually. Arkon (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was just hatted. I reverted that. The rational given is that 'there is nothing to do'. I proposed 'something to do'. I'd appreciate comments. Arkon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. So, what administrative action exactly do you want here? Regards, — Moe ε 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's in the original report, right above you.

I quote: "My preferred outcome would be to either link the contribs with the failed RTV account, or to the current account."

I (or any non-admin) can't do this. Arkon (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for prior conversation about Prioryman and his RTV, there are discusssions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 9#Official Comment requested and a couple threads at the top of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 10 from a year ago, along with other threads at different boards I haven't been able to find yet. Like I said, ArbCom is already fully aware of who Prioryman is (as well as several other parts of community). Again, what is it exactly you intend to accomplish by restarting this conversation? Why is it necessary to have a link between the two or have the contributions moved? Regards, — Moe ε 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the links, I hadn't read any of that previously. Arbcom being aware or not aware isn't the issue. The issue at this point is the linking of the contributions. I see no discussion related to the issue in your links, but admit to not reading them fully at this time (will do tomorrow.) Just because the failed RTV has been discussed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to come to a consensus of what to do when RTV fails. The fail I've personally seen was SA, and contributions are fully available. Get back to you tomorrow on the details :) Arkon (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, several things need to be done to normalise the situation:

• User:ChrisO should be marked as indefinitely blocked, and redirect to User:Prioryman.
• The contributions history currently attributed to User:Vanished user 03 should be reattributed to User:ChrisO (or User:Prioryman, whichever he prefers).
• User:L'ecrivant should be marked as an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:ChrisO.
• Prioryman should tell the community and/or the arbitration committee whether or not he authored the material contributed to Wikipedia by User:Helatrobus (which, in case anyone is wondering, was not an arbcom-approved sock). JN466 13:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • More or less, that seems to be consistent with WP:RTV and would make sense, and I would support that. Vanishing should never be maintained by Wikipedia unless it is maintained by the user. I have no problem with Prioryman being here, but clarity and honesty as to the past should be required, as I would expect it to be for any user that unvanished themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why indefinitely block ChrisO? As long as the person running the account has done nothing to deserve such a block for all his accounts, couldn't it be marked as an alternate account? As far as I can see, the only situations when an indef should be applied to one account but not the other are (1) compromised password, or (2) disruptive socking or other problems that would result in a prohibition on Prioryman from editing as any other account name. Obviously the first isn't true, and I don't see a reason for the prohibition in the second to be enacted. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • User:ChrisO is indef-blocked already, per his block log. JN466 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing should be done here, because of the history of previous ArbCom cases that involved a lot of secret horse tradings. People have made compromizes and if we now want to do things according to the book, then you end up undermining these informal agreements. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't really grasp your argument here. "It's super secret, so hey, look over there"? Dennis and JN have hit the nail in their previous comments, I'd say. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are "informal, secret agreements" that contradict the book then they absolutely need to be undermined. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In an ArbCom cases, you can always propose some compromize, you can get off with a lighter sanction in exchange for a volunatry editing restriction. In some cases, off site harassment may have been an issue and that can count as a mitigating factor. Such issues can be discussed privately with ArbCom and you can get a reasonable deal that works. However, to outsider things are not so transparant. What we really need to focus on is creating an environment that both Prioryman and Jayen466 feel happy to work in; continuing to fight old battles for which the ArbCom sanctions have long expired is not a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

ChrisO invoked the right to vanish just before the conclusion of the climate change arbitration case, while sanctions were being considered against him. He then registered a sock, User:L'ecrivant, within hours of invoking the right to vanish. The sock was spotted a few weeks later by a steward, User:Avraham, who indef-blocked both the ChrisO account and the L'ecrivant account for abusing RTV. ChrisO then registered User:Prioryman; that account too was spotted by Avraham and blocked as a sock, but unblocked by an arbitrator (Roger Davies) after ChrisO came to an understanding with them about his continued participation. All that was discussed on-wiki at some length last year. The community did not learn that Prioryman was ChrisO returned until the summer of the year after that, when he began to involve himself in old conflicts (while pretending to be new to them). So the deal that got Prioryman back into the project was not part of any arbitration case. I don't have any problem with Prioryman working here at all; he has written some outstanding content. But the history should be transparent, if only for such cases where Prioryman argues that another editor should be site-banned on account of his block log, or other perceived infractions. Prioryman himself has a lengthy block log, and three indef blocks against his name, and he should not be able to pass himself off as a squeaky clean editor when proposing sanctions for others, which he is unfortunately fond of doing. Again, nothing against his content work, much of which is first rate. --JN466 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would put this to a vote at WP:AN (or move this over there) as a proposal to unvanish, and point to (and protect if needed). At least that is what I did with SA, the last (only?) unvanishing I am aware of. It requires a 'crat to do the actual unvanishing, and is easy to do but takes a bit to filter through the process. I haven't seen Prioryman comment yet and prefer to hear from him first. I assume he was notified, which is a little confusing for him not to pipe in. My interactions with him have always been positive, but I agree about transparency, consistency in policy and how it might look like avoiding scrutiny if we didn't link them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, notified him here. Arkon (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The CC ArbCom case was a big horse trade session where the Arbs did not consider the relevant facts and instead declared everyone who had a significant editing history in the controversial topics to be guilty. You could only propose a voluntary topic ban (like e.g. KimDabbelsteinPetersen did), or else you would be topic banned. The fundamental problem was that lacking good policies for that sort of topic area, the majority of editors by consensus decided how the topic should be edited, which amounts to enforcing policies that do not exist. The editors who didn't like that considered that to be "tag team reversions".

ArbCom failed to identify the underlying cause of the problems (the lack of good policies), and faulted the editors who did their best to keep the articles in an acceptable shape. This was too much for some editors like ChrisO and Polargeo. If ArbCom ends up to topic banning a scientist who works at ESA who is an expert at Earth observation from climate science articles because they don't want to get into the relevant editing issues, then the whole ruling is worthless. Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, none of that is relevant to the question. Arkon (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been tied up with some more pressing things.

The status of my former contributions has already been addressed and resolved by agreement with Arbcom. It would be highly inadvisable for editors to unilaterally seek to overturn arbitrators' decisions - they don't seem to like that for some reason.

However, I don't have any objections if someone wants to redirect my old username to my present one. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, the community cannot overturn an ArbCom decision, but there's absolutely no reason why it cannot impose a more severe sanction than ArbCom considered appropriate, or one that runs in parallel with it. Your "warning" in this context is quite inapppropriate and, considering the totality of your history, you'd be best advised to hold your peace and not make any more veiled threats. If ArbCom wants to warn admins against taking a certain action, they're quite capable of speaking for themselves without you chiming in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever agreement you had with ArbCom became moot when you revealed your identity by returning to areas of prior dispute, rather than avoiding them. And you never clarified whether or not the contributions made by User:Helatrobus were authored by you or not. Neither the arbitration committee nor the community were ever given a clear answer. Could you answer the question now? JN466 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that the appropriate route to resolve this would be through Arbcom. It would be inappropriate to try to use a community process to overturn arbitrators' decisions. Their decisions are not usually subject to amendment by community processes. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If it were a clear and specific decision made by ArbCom, you would have a point. "Horse trades" madeby ArbCom are not, howeverm in that category. ArbCom, for example, does not have the power to say "Editor X is exempted from Policy Y because we made a deal and for no other reasons" which is the case at hand. This is not an "amendment" to an ArbCom decision, and thus is properly discussed here, whether one likes it or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the community may now feel entitled to take Prioryman's continued refusal to answer the question whether or not they authored the contributions of User:Helatrobus as an admission that he did, and that this was yet another account he operated after the RTV. The Helatrobus account stopped editing a while ago, but should probably be indeffed as well. JN466 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Take to AN and Vote?

Dennis made a suggestion for the next course of action. Unless there are significant objections, I'd appreciate an admin taking the lead on this. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I second the motion to take this to AN for an admin vote. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Significant objection. See above. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As the subject of the potential action, you would be expected to object, so your comment is irrelevant. You do not control here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also second this motion. --JN466 01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much benefit here. We are interested primarily in what editors are doing now and in the future. If there was contested behaviour in the past that is documented a Arbcom case, then the additional benefit of spending admin time on attributing every single edit seems slim to none. Seems like something where we can usefully move forward, rather than living in the past. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Apparently the effort involved is minimal according to Dennis above. I don't really see the rest of your comment as an argument against correcting this. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't personal, and I'm not beating a drum over the issue, but unless there is a specific reason that Arbcom has to handle this, then it would be a function of WP:AN, not Arbcom. The policy clearly says it can be reversed by the community, not by ArbCom. Again, it has been a slow process, to allow plenty of time for someone from ArbCom to come in and present a reason, assuming you would ask them to. If not, an editor has asked for it to go to a vote, and I've just said that WP:AN is the proper venue, based on the fact that the last unvanishing was done there. That doesn't mean it will be unvanished, but there is a policy based reason why the editor would like to start the process, and regardless of how I feel about it, I don't see any policy based reason to deny it. Once again, no one has rushed here, and we are all ears as to how this is counter to some previous agreement, even though it is doubtful that an ArbCom agreement has the authority to bypass policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours, to allow ArbCom to respond if they choose. My understanding is that they have been informed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. JN466 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't help but feel that this AN issue has been initiated due to some other cases that may be under discussion elsewhere involving Prioryman's participation. In the interests of getting on with other stuff, I don't believe there is anything to be gained at this stage by revisiting the RTV issue at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Feel as you wish, but I posted the diff of the reason I brought this here at the very top. Arkon (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Again, if we can just wait a day, I'm told there is an ongoing discussion and I'm always for a simple, peaceful resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  I feel like I'm being a pest, but the innuendo of secrecy is supremely annoying. So:

• "...I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours..." - 2¢ © Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Again, if we can just wait a day..." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• May I ask what super secret conversation could be ongoing that override a community granted courtesy? There has been no comment from this group of cigarette smoking men. This should be elementary. Arkon (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear about two things: AN (or AN/I) doesn't have the authority to override Arbcom, and as Kudpung suggests, bringing this issue up now is quite blatant retaliation by individuals involved in the Youreallycan RfC/RFAR. However, I agree that at this stage there probably is not much point in maintaining the RTV. I've therefore asked Arbcom to agree to amend the earlier agreement to permit unvanishing. They have said that although they do not feel this is purely necessary, they have no objections to it, and the unvanishing has been carried out at my request. I think that resolves the matter. Prioryman (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unvanished

After consulting with Prioryman and receiving input from ArbCom, I have unvanished the ChrisO account. The user contributions that had been attributed to User:Vanished user 03 have now been re-attributed to User:ChrisO. As part of the unvanishing, I have unblocked the ChrisO account (the entry for the block, "Vanished users do not need to edit", being no longer applicable), and have redirected both User:ChrisO and User:Vanished user 03 to Prioryman's current account. I will defer any action regarding any other accounts to ArbCom.

I hope this is sufficient to allow all parties to put this behind them and move forward. Feel free to ping me on my talk page with any questions or concerns related to this. Thank you to everyone for your patience while this was being sorted out. 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Viktoria Bolonina

Viktoria Bolonina has just been deleted without any debate taking place. It was originally tagged as lacking references, but this was rectified. Now I find it has been deleted without being nominated for deletion or without any discussion taking place.

Sardaka (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged for CSD A7, 16 minutes after the last time you edited the article. It appears to have remained tagged for about 6 hours uncontested before being deleted. Nothing amiss here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should have at least put a {{Db-notability-notice}} message on your talk page, or if they thought they didn't want to patronise you per WP:DTR, give you a two line notice saying they added {{db-a7}} tag to it. You can probably get an admin to move it back into your userspace so you can have a look at it, and someone can check the references. If an article has references, then unless it's blank or saying something like "This is my cat. Isn't he cool" with a Facebook page as a reference, I would challenge it being a valid CSD-A7. I rant about this occasionally, but I've come across enough people who've said "Hey, I was looking at this page on Wikipedia a few months back and I can't find it now - where's it gone?" (yes, it went to Articles for Deletion, which they'll never see) to know that speedy deletes unless they really are blindingly obvious drivel can bite more people than you think. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The author of the article was properly informed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The author's new and might not even have read the CSD template, or possibly even understood what it meant. Policy may have been followed, and for all I know it may have been a totally valid A7, but it's rare I see anyone except the author complaining about them, and usually indicates it's worth at least somebody explaining exactly why the speedy took place. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It was referenced, but not well-referenced. Two of the four references were to facebook, one to Youtube and one I didn't recognize, so at best, it had one reference. That said, I'll repeat what has already been noted, if you want it userfied (copied to a usersubpage, where it can be improved in peace), just say so, I'll be happy to.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a Wikilawyer, but while that sounds like a "snow delete" for AfD, it doesn't sound like an A7. We've got to get them right according to policy otherwise it can seriously irritate newbies (and FWIW, I can make bad calls on a speedy as well). Up to Sardaka if they want it to be userfied really. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

At best this should be a redirect to The Voice (Australia). GiantSnowman 14:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ritchie333. None of the references are independent (the fourth goes to the TV show's website), so I can't see this existing as a stand-alone article. However, the article did assert notability ("She rose to prominence as being a contestant of the first season of 'The Voice Australia'"), so A7 does not apply. This should have gone to AFD, or a talk-page discussion for a redirect. Resolute 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, of course, Sardaka, are you aware of any decent coverage of Bolonina in independent media? That would help any assertion that this article can exist as a stand alone. Resolute 15:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just redirected it, didn't restore the page history. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Elephant in the room: The question of the presence and quality of sources is irrelevant, as sources are not required to avoid A7 - all that is needed is a credible claim of importance. And "She rose to prominence as being a contestant of the first season of 'The Voice Australia'" looks like a credible claim to me. As it stood, it wouldn't have had a chance of surviving AfD, but that doesn't make it eligible for A7. I suggest the most practical way forward is to userfy it, and explain the need for reliable sources in order to avoid AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Boing! is right - it is a common mistake, though. I've had to remove numerous A7 tags for that reason - because a claim was made, and that's all that is needed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with Boing about this one. Granted, A7 does not require sources, but it does require a "credible claim of significance or importance." Reality show contestants are ten a penny, and just saying she "rose to prominence" by being one doesn't make it true. JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed not, however that's a job for the verifiability of the article to sort that out via its references, and, by extension, taking it to AfD. My personal feeling is after reading a genuine candidate for A7, the foremost thought in your mind should be "So what?" It should be totally and utterly unsalvageable, even as a redirect (which, as we've seen suggested, could have been a possible outcome for this one at AfD). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't likely stand a snowball's chance at AFD, but it does appear to have a credible claim, which is the standard for A7, so likely the CSD was hasty. Still, userfying may be the best solution, allow it to get worked up a bit and then moved back into main space, to give it a fair chance of avoiding AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

While you're all having a meta-debate, notice that before this incident was started, Sardaka started User talk:Anthony Bradbury#Viktoria Bolonina, which is the correct course of action, but didn't wait a reasonable length of time for a reply and then came here, which is an incorrect course of action. Xe has since received a reply at User talk:Sardaka#Viktoria Bolonina. The next step as far as the article itself is concerned, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, still doesn't involve this noticeboard. We now return you to your scheduled meta-discussion of CSD criterion #A7. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Bah, we aren't bureaucrats, we do everything at ANI, even windows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• He should have gone to Articles for Creation, the page would have sat there getting declined again and again until either it was properly sourced to survive an AfD or the author gave up. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• A7 is one of those CSD criteria that often leads to disputes. The point of that particular CSD rationale is to help us easily and quickly get rid of articles that don't even try to show why the subject merits inclusion. An article that says "Fred Smith is a tax lawyer from Alabama" has no place in Wikipedia and shouldn't have to go through AfD or even the wait of proposed deletion. Also, outlandish claims of importance like "Fred Smith is a tax lawyer from Alabama who has saved the world from destruction by extra-terrestrials on four separate occasions" don't fly. Hence why the policy states that they must be credible claims of importance. The problem is that the phrase "credible" is open to interpretation and is totally subjective. Some people insist that nothing that isn't verifiable is credible (and so expect to see sources) while others insist that any claim that's somewhat plausible can pass the bar we set. I lean more toward the latter than the former, but ultimately without a clear definition of what is meant by credible, this is always going to come down to administrator discretion. -- Atama頭 21:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• At WP:Csd#Articles under A7 it states "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" and "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Thus anyone who thinks verifiability, notability, or reliable sources are required is clearly wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• After undergoing 3 months of CSD mentoring post-RfA and subjecting myself to the inspections of both Boing! and DGG regarding dozens of A7'ed articles in particular, I'm quite confident anything that makes any kind of credible claim to fame must go to AFD instead. CSD isn't about convenience, it is about the absolute, most obvious cases only. Deleting was in good faith, but it was in error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Contaldo80

I tagged the Pope Julius III and Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte articles with nuetrality and undue weight tags because a good half of the articles quotes rumours and writings from the pontiff's political enemies. Contaldo80 continually removes the tags, without discussion, because he declares my concerns are void and not valid.

He makes comments like "it's fairly likely that a high proportion of popes in history have been homosexual", which is not based on any fact and seems to show some sort of bias towards the pontiffs and personal agenda labeling every pope as a homosexual. When referring to the gossip entered in the article, he suggests that we "not see this in terms of 'enemies' and 'rumours' but rather accounts given by contemporaries"; that's like suggesting that the Obama article include his the president's Kenyan birth, communist leanings and socialist agenda because we shouldn't see such talk as rumours from enemies but more as contemporarary sources.

He goes on to say all the gossip and rumours "will not definitively tell us what is true and what is not, but it tells us what people perceived to be going on". This is an encyclopedia, we are suppsoed to focus only what is true, not what we thinkis happening, rumours, libel, slander, gossip, truthiness or gut feelings. It is a ridiculous argument.

For those that read the articles or are familiar with the scandals of Julius III, I did not edit out the whole affair but focused on the nepotism and made a mention about the rumours and their effect. I believe this is a more appropriate response than using half the space for gossip. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like something that needs to go to WP:DRN since it is content related, and not so much an "incident" (the I in ANI). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm happy for it to go to WP:DRN or wherever is best placed. With regards to the article an unregistered user tagged the article referring to unspecified 'aims at a political cause against the Church', and to exaggerate old rumours to 'serve a cause'. I asked for discussion on talkpage to understand whether these claims had any grounds (feeling that this risked turning into a polemic exercise), and explained the need to present the information in a neutral and balanced way - citing contemporary perceptions and why this was notable in terms of historical effect. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin add t tags back at least? And inform the editor that the tags are not supposed to be removed until the issue is resolved. And that resolved doesn't mean he dismisses people's concerns and declares himself correct on the subject. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:82.6.15.97 Vandalism - Request block

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

---

Since this user's previous blocks in July, further vandalism has occurred in August. A further block is requested. JMcC (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks. Normally, WP:AIV is the better venue to report vandalism, for future reference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)\

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

Persistent vandalism of Ray King article.

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

---

From a check of the article history, this page has been persistently vandalized since at least 2007.. apparently by the same anonymous user using several different IP addresses. Once one is blocked he gets another one... Either this page needs permanent protection to prevent IP vandalism or this user needs to be dealt with in such a way as he cant get a new IP address, if thats even possible. Spanneraol (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Since he's a Comcast user, he's able to get a new IP address easily since all one has to do is powercycle their modem off for at most 8 hours and Comcast releases the IP address assigned to the user which he'll get a new one on the next assignment. ViriiK (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked IP and 1 month semi-protection. Let us know if more is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Balph Eubank deleting a sourced author because he isn't notable enough to have an article.

This is the justification I'm being given at Burt Wonderstone for his repeated removal of Chad Kultgen who, as far as the sources I have acquired say, wrote the films original script which was then bought and rewritten by others. Balph Eubank is under the impression he can delete Kultgens name from the entire article, effectively concealing his contribution because he isn't notable enough to have his own article, and he refuses to stop. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably need to take that to the article Talk page, not AN/I. Or if you want, you could take it to the Edit Warring Noticeboard (AN3), but you guys look like you've both gotten into an edit war at this point. I guess a polite warning to User:Balph Eubank would be in order to get him to take it to Talk, same goes for you, Darkwarriorblake. By, the way, a line about the guy in the body of the article doesn't need to meet the Notability guidelines, that really applies to the creation of an entire article, not individual edits. Move to close this AN/I thread. -- Avanu (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That;s what I thought. Hard to go to 3RR without violating it myself though so I don't know other alternatives I have when someone refuses to listen and keeps reverting. I've started a section on the talk page so his actions are public and recorded in regard to the article. You can close the ANI then.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Try the dispute resolution processes dangerouspanda 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Using rollback in a content dispute isn't helpful though. - SudoGhost 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Now using rollback again in a content dispute, which is a misuse of the privilege. - SudoGhost 17:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, you're both well over WP:3RR at this point. The problem though is that from what I can see of sources such as MovieWeb, this Kultgen guy wrote the original draft, which has since been rewritten by Daley and Goldstein. Whether or not that counts for the Writers Guild-required credit, I'm not sure. I also note you reverting a page move, but what is listed at IMDB appears to support the other guy's move. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:IMDB is not typically a reliable source, seeing as how you can edit the contents of the page (if you're logged into an account at IMDB the "Edit" button appears at the top of every section) - SudoGhost 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is true for plot details, trivia, etc...but can anyone change film titles there? I always assumed that aspect of imdb was more restricted. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything including the title can be edited, which is why I have stuck to what the major movie reporting sites have called it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not as obvious as the other options to edit, but at the very bottom there's an "Edit Page" yellow button, and "Title Correction" is one of the options at the very end of a set of things anyone can change. I'm looking at that page right now, all I'd have to do it type something in and hit submit (with an edit summary), and this is from an account that has never edited a single thing on IMDB. - SudoGhost 17:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am happy to see this content dispute brought to the drama boards. Darkwarriorblake is mad because he isn't getting his way, plain and simple. And I'm also happy to see someone else has noticed his other ownership issues of this article. I'm saddened that someone who has apparently contributed to good articles seems to have WP:OWN issues, not to mention issues with using profane language on my talk page and engaging me in sterile revert wars over his preferred version. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see him citing OWN, I see Avanu saying that the information is not removable by the guideline you are citing but you've gone and done it again violating 3RR massively. Dunno if anyone wants to take that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just blocked Balph Eubank for edit warring for this reversion which occurred after they were notified about this discussion and after they were reminded about edit warring on their talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My edits and additions to an article keep getting reverted by a under accusing me of being banned

Further information: [[:../IncidentArchive633#Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels|../IncidentArchive633 § Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels]]

I've been adding some new info to one of the articles titled Jason Leopold and I also left some comments on the talk page. A user named Bonewah has been scrubbing my stuff and then saying I am banned, which isn't true. The stuff I added is legitimate and follows all Wikipedia guidelines. Please check it out. This is an article that is always biased and no one tries to add new stuff and there's a lot of new stuff on the internet that will make this more balanced. Why isn't the new stuff being used if the article has so many watchers? Shouldn't new stuff be included? Isn't that what makes the article current? I added a new section on the FOIA lawsuit and please review it cause I think that one is important for the article. Here's the section on the FOIA I added. Can someone tell me if they think there's anything wrong with it? Bonewah keeps reverting it and making changes and accusing me of being banned and that's wrong. He won't allow new stuff to be added. Can someone help?

This is the new stuff:

==Freedom of Information Act==

Leopold and the group National Security Counselors sued the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration and other government agencies and that they violated a section of the FOIA law for five years by refusing to give people who file FOIA requests a date as to when their requests will be ready as the law requires.[10] In June, in response to Leopold's lawsuit, the FBI and the National Archives and the Office of Director of National Intelligence issued new policy guidelines to their staff and told them to comply with requests about giving estimated dates of completion regarding FOIAs when they're asked for it. FBI's FOIA head David Hardy explained the new policy guidelines in a declaration. RT said, "It might be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless." [11] RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Bonewah notified. In the future, please notifiy any editors who are the subject of the thread, as per the very clear instructions on this page and on the edit notice. Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment It appears the relevant thread to this discussion is Talk:Jason Leopold#Request action to stop the bias and allow for new material, where this matter is currently being discussed. It appears from the thread that a few users there are accused the OP of being a sock of banned user Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if a sockpuppet investigation has been initiated by any of the other parties... The rest of this dispute seems to be a content dispute, and the talk page discussion should be allowed to continue (possibly with the sock accusations being resolved one way or another to allow the discussion to take place without all of the accusations.) Singularity42 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• The sock investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimmy McDaniels was started, and closed, and RavenThePackIsBack has been blocked, by me at SPI. This thread is now moot. Anyone that wants to review the block, by all means, feel free to. He is complaining on his talk page, but his contribs and the recent IPs vs. past IPs, etc. make it as ducky as they come. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Jimmy McDaniels was topic-banned, not community banned, just so it's clear. That said, this is a good block - it's obvious that RTPIB was created to try and evade the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD accusations

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

---

Despite all the accusations and the smug lies posted by MarnetteD, I wish to go on the record and state categorically that user 64.175.39.242 has NOTHING to do with me. Nada. I did not make those edits. Nor do I have any kind of UK IP address to use which is their other accusation. Alas, the spiteful, hate filled editors RedRose64 & MarnetteD have let themselves down with their investigations and bogus statements. No wonder they're being threatened with legal repurcussions. Once again: I have NOTHING to do with those edits. 216.31.246.114 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For everyone's info this is related to this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#IP User:64.175.39.242 Legal threat on talk page of User:MarnetteD. The SPI report has been filed here [53]. As one would suspect I was not notified of this thread nor was Redrose64. MarnetteD | Talk 23:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is in relation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#IP User:64.175.39.242 Legal threat on talk page of User:MarnetteD. I would like it placed on record that the IP has accused me of being a sockpuppet of MarnetteD (talk · contribs) - laughable, since we are on different continents - see [54] [55], [56], [57], [58]. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what I believe MarnetteD calls a "Meat Socket". Claiming to be on two different continents is laughable to RedRose64, but is perfectly acceptable as an accusation by MarnetteD. Regardless of the laughable denials, it is now "on the record" too that I have nothing whatsoever to do with USER 64.175.39.242 or their edits. 216.31.246.114 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

OBSIDIAN†SOUL "I hope Jesus admits liars" & accusations of tag teaming

Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user had an issue with a story that occurred today regarding the Family Research Council shooting at their headquarters. He moved the story down to the controversy section which it is not a controversy at all nor is it controversial at all. I reverted his actions and brought it back up to history section. He wasn't too pleased with that change back so he decided to use personal attacks against 3 editors (one was not involved) [59] He accused myself, Belchfire, and Lionelt of propagandizing although Lionelt had not been involved at all whatsoever. Then he used another personal attack against us "I hope Jesus admits liars". I replied saying "See: WP:NPA" and proceeded to hat his personal attack comment. He then reverted that and took out the "I hope Jesus admits liars" comment with a reason of "censoring more like" here [60] even though NPA allows for editors to remove these comments when I used the {{hat}} instead of deleting it. Also [61] he accused us of tag teaming when it did not happen since in this case I was the only one that reverted his edit to keep it in the appropriate section and I did propose the question that we could make it like the Luby's article and have a fork detailing the incident on a separate page. ViriiK (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think this would be better dealt with at WP:WQA. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand but the personal attacks is not warranted. ViriiK (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Really? I took the BAIT, because no one else seems to be standing up to what you guys are blatantly doing. Your talk pages are filled with backslapping cheer at successfully sterilizing the articles on Christian lobbying groups. An activity I've been observing for a while though I've never taken action against until now. In my naivety, I still never really realized how much of an organized effort it really was. The fact that Wikipedia allows this kind of circumvention of consensus, and one of them an administrator too, and still expect us to AGF without losing temper is asking too much. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, somebody should stand up to blatantly adding well-sourced facts to an article. Please. Belchfire-TALK 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My talk page is filled with Christian lobbying group efforts? I'm looking at it and I don't see any. So this makes it news to me. IIRC, the only related articles I've worked on is Family Research Council, which I've reverted your change since it was in the wrong section and not a controversial issue at all and you took that personally, Focus on the Family which had POV issues constantly being put in, and Chick-fil-A if you consider that a Christian lobbying organization. Other than that, I work on efforts against vandalism, and election-related articles. ViriiK (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's the chicken sammie. Is there a cross on it somewhere? Belchfire-TALK 01:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding? You mean removing, and rewording for the best possible saintly image depicted. The chicken sammie which you incidentally removed from the FRC article despite its notability as proven by the recent shooting. The SPLC listing you hid way down until it became advantageous to bring it up to the main body for the maximum sympathy garnered after the shooting. Even gleefully anticipating that SPLC will be blamed. That said, I'm fucking off. Have fun! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh. Look what I found. Apologies, I didn't notice sooner, as I don't really pay attention to AN/I stuff. This doesn't seem to be a first time thing, eh? I'm a bit mollified I'm not alone, nor the first to notice it. All makes sense now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've been seeing a whole lot of strong arming and finger pointing lately. Not just from the participants of this particular discussion, but from a whole lot of editors on a whole range of articles. I would hope that this disagreement can become civil again, as it looks as if many of the comments from both sides tend to be less about the content of the discussion, and more on the motives of the other side. This is the type of word play that needs to end. Focus on the topic and not on each other. I suggest you guys take this back to the talk page, because all you have done here is continue your accusations and arguments. That's not what this page is designed to do. I don't really see a need for any serious intervention by an admin, yet, but if the incivility continues and the focus of the debate doesn't get back on topic, there may be some, on both sides.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm probably going to get sniped at for daring to stick my nose here, but this and several other sections above are evidence of and really part of a WP:BATTLE over a range of American social conservatism articles which was apparently reawakened by the recent Chick-Fil-A flap, but which goes a very long way back. Depending upon your point of view, you may see an effort on the part of various liberals and liberal institutions to reframe discussion of conservatives and their institutions as malevolent by nature. Or you may not. Therefore there is a long-standing conflict at Family Research Council (and it's not the only case; it's just the one in the news at the moment, and the one I happened to catch) over how prominently to place the Southern Poverty Law Center's denunciation of it as a "hate group"; there was an RFC a year or so ago which can be seen in the article's talk page archives, and there is another RFC underway now to reverse the outcome of the last one. But this conflict goes much further back in time: recently I filed a COI/N issue concerning right-wing authoritarianism, in which the section on dissenting views was written by someone who has in fact published extensively on the subject and therefore effectively wrote in defense of his own work. That user has since retired from Wikipedia, but the battle continues.

There's a lot of bad faith going on here. I'm trying to hew down the middle, but it seems that on the conservative side there is something of an effort to minimize negative material, and on the liberal side a tendency to assert that their are conservatives, and then there are reasonable people. (IMO some of the subject material takes the same attitude, but be that as it may....) There is a lot of pushing the reversion envelope, gaming the system, and accusations of bad faith, some of the latter directed at me. In truth I don't see a lot in the events of the past month that justifies radical shifts in the tone of these articles, although a lot of them have been pretty lousy for a long time; what I see instead is that the news has set off a round of attention which in turn has reactivated the old efforts of the various sides to WP:OWN the articles on behalf their various political positions.

Editors need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not here to endorse one side or the other. As I said earlier in this, I get a strong sense from the conservative side that the cause must be defended; from the other side I get the sense that they feel that anyone who is reasonable is ipso facto not a conservative. Neither of these attitudes is constructive. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet endorsements you see, with these articles becoming positively glowing after multiple removals of the dirt by WP:Conservatism editors on arbitrary reasons like the source used being too partisan, which basically just means they're "liberal", and yet leaving biased conservative sources in place. I am not neutral on these issues, I know that and have never claimed to be such. But neither have I edited these articles extensively. That's more than can be said for these editors who've been sanitizing these articles through organized effort for months with nary a squeak from anyone. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As Mangoe points out, this happens on both sides of the issue. Everybody removes the dirt from their own side's people, while tossing it at the other side's after applying glue to make sure the maximum amount sticks. I think even Superman would say "a pox on both their houses"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, I've never engaged in such an activity. Would that make me naive and liable to lose in content disputes against editors with strong-arming tactics? Or should I just stop tiptoeing around with due process and adopt a more aggressive editing philosophy? Mangoe himself defended the removal of a sentence in the Family Research Council that would make it virtually devoid of any mentions of its actual activities. That was the edit that finally got me pulled into that article after months of silent observation. Though I appreciate the fact that he reinstated it and worded it more appropriately after a discussion. That said, this discussion here is pointless. My PA was an expression of frustration. I doubt Viriik and Belchfire are that thin-skinned. I apologize for the Jesus comment, but I will not withdraw the tag-teaming accusation per WP:SPADE. Notice how Belchfire did it again in the American Family Association reported below. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

gargoyle111

this person keeps vandalizing the 'the glass house' pages and there's no way to contact them cuz they don't have an active link to do so. move to completely lock down the page and ban their ip from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.34.174 (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No way to contact them? What's wrong with using User talk:Gargoyle111? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

says 'page does not exist' for me but it's over now so no big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.34.174 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, a user talk page will not exist until someone first says something on it. But as you have discovered, you just enter what you want to say and Save it, and the page will then exist - and the user will receive a notification. But I should warn you that "get a life" is not an acceptable comment to leave for another editor - insulting or abusive comments can get you blocked. I have now deleted the page you created. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

76.189.121.5 continuously making personal attacks

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

---

IP had been involved in an edit war on Hotel Hell, as seen here. He was warned for edit warring multiple times by different users here, but persisted. It was brought to the 3RR noticeboard, and the page was protected. IP then posted a talk message to TBrandley here, saying that he can't warn the IP about EW because of his block history. Ryan Vesey reminded IP that the past is the past here, and then IP compared TBrandley's blocks to a DWI here. AussieLegend defended TBrandley and reprimanded IP here, but IP continued to go on about the block history. After a short convo with AussieLegend about blaming, IP started the personal attacks here. I posted in the discussion here, asking IP to go over some of WP's key policies. IP then brought up my block history from last year here, and I tried to explain to him/her that people recover from mistakes here. IP then told me I have no credibility and to "get a life" here, and added "bring it on" here. Tito Dutta reminded IP that my block history has nothing to do with his current behavior here, and told IP to stop making personal attacks. Drmargi commented here that IP is doing the same thing to her. IP replied with this saying we are "ten-year olds" and to "wake up and get a life". IP continued on about my block history, and then told me I should talk to myself because no one will listen here. I told IP of all my accomplishments since my blocks last year here, and IP mocked me here. IP then commented at the 3RR thread here, telling me to get a life. His/her behavior is hurtful, disruptive, and unacceptable. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, they want to defend their disruptive edits by pointing that the other editor was blocked for some reason few months ago. And the same illogical thing again and again. That's why I did not post back there. They told we are 10 years/6 years old. Another mistake. Real age is not a big issue in Wikipedia. If they are talking about our Wikipedia age (we have been editing for last 10 or 6 years in Wikipedia), then we are quite experienced now. Is not it? :) --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, IP just posted this really nice message to me. So, what is to be done? WP:AGF? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Faster than me! I also came to post about that message. If they apologize and promise not to do that again, we should accept it and shake hands, I think. Could you ask them to post the same message here? --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

TRLIJC19, I posted the following comment on TBrandley's talk page before I saw this report. But I'll post it here in case you didn't see it...

"You know what, TRLIJC19. After listening to you for awhile, and reading your user page, I've decided to stop giving you, and others, a hard time. You actually seem like an extremely nice guy. I have no doubt that you have learned from your mistakes on here and are doing an excellent job in helping this project. And there are a lot of things that are much worse than edit-warring on some website. I was just yanking your chain anyway about the blocks. Don't worry, you have plenty of credibility. Good luck on your road to becoming a psychiatrist. I'm sure you'll be a great one. Please accept my apologies. I was just kidding around with you. All the best."

Anyway, keep up the good work! Wikipedia needs more good-hearted editors like you.

Btw... Tito, you also seem like a very friendly person. My apologies to you, also. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! With my good wishes --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the kind words 76.189.121.5; it seems like you learned why personal attacks can be hurtful. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this can be archived if no one has a problem with that. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• The blind are leading the blind. In the blue corner, a bunch of relatively friendly editors who insist on keeping a bunch of irrelevant detail in an encyclopedic article; in the red corner, an editor who did some cleanup and then resorted to edit-warring (why they weren't blocked I don't know yet) and patronizing the hell out of everybody. How about ignore? (And yes, other editors, that info on scheduling and all that was not important). BTW, I will archive this, yes. Drmies (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:BLP policies in our 'left wing terrorism' article

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

---

Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per this discussion I started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Attempted WP:BLP violation in our left-wing terrorism article, a new editor has been repeatedly adding material regarding a shooting incident at the Family Research Council offices in Washington DC into an article on "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes". Given that the suspect has as yet not been found guilty, and has not been described as 'left wing', and given also that there isn't the slightest evidence that anyone involved is attempting to bring about "the overthrow of capitalist governments" or anything else, I have reverted this repeatedly: to no avail. Note that I consider such gross violation of WP:BLP policy to come within the exemptions to WP:3RR, as I have already made clear. Can I ask that this be promptly looked into, and appropriate action be taken. Either full page protection, or a block on the account, might be appropriate - though I'd suggest that both may well be needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinion not valid. All sources documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djjamz340 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a source that states that the suspect was engaged in "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes"? That is what the article is about. Ignoring all the other policy violations, without a source that asserts this, your edit is entirely contrary to both Wikipedia policy and common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious new-account (cough - throwaway) edit warrior blocked 24 hrs for edit warring.

That said - Andy, you removed a lot more than the identifying bits that made it a BLP a bunch of times. I'm not sure the 3RR exception covers all of that, though I can see how one can come to believe that the totality of the situation was disruptive. Minnow-slap? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the fish if required - but I think the article that the material was being added to is the key point here. Then again, if we didn't have such ridiculous articles in the first place, such problems wouldn't arise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a term of art in the terrorism analysis field. The article is not great, but it's also on point to the term of art. Shrug. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

89.94.23.111 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Frédéric Bourdin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Out of an abundance of caution, please look at this threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it crossed the line to an actual threat, and another editor's already working on the BLPish thing that the alleged subject says was wrong - I think we can let it go. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an attempt to intimidate by referencing courts and defamation and such. It definitely qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur, and have blocked (for three months, as it's an IP but appears to be semi-static). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Please change redirect

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

---

I think that "extropism" should redirect to that specific section under the extropianism article, instead of just redirecting to the beginning of that article (I typed this: [[64]], to no avail). I tried to change it myself but didn't realize that only administrators have this power. Thanks. Shanoman (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require an admin -- I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Minty10200 continued reverting of Dual Survival article

User:Minty10200 keeps reverting the Dual Survival page to unsourced or information from non reliable sources about Dave Canterbury being fired [65] [66] [67] [68][69][70][71]. These edits involve deletion of fully sourced material. Attempts have been made to engage with Minty10200 in talk and on their personal talk page but user does not appear to understand Wikipedia reliable sourcing policy and instead makes personal attacks, claims I am censoring the "truth" as an argument. I made attempts to locate reliable sources for the information user insisted on and added these to the page but no reliable source could be located that Canterbury was fired, only that he was no longer with the show. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit behavior continues [72] edits involve deletion of three sources and replaced with unsourced information. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the changes based on WP:BLP and WP:OR, and added a BLP warning on the users talk page. Nothing else to do yet, unless edit warring continues. Could possibly block for WP:3RR as well, but lets wait and see how the user reacts to this warning first. Blocking should be last resort. Try discussing on the talk page as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried discussing on the talk page and added what I could find that could be sourced to address their concerns but user seems more concerned that the "truth" is being censored then properly sourcing their information. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And the user was not notified. He has been now. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it looks like JournalScholar and User:Minty10200 have each reverted 4x in 24 hours on Dual Survival. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The following IP address 198.60.121.1 continues to make the same edits [73], I suspect it is the same user as they have made the same edit in the past [74]. Another user has restored the page but I am concerned of the behavior continuing. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day

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

---

User Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) is a user who has made some valuable contributions. He is an expert on Pink Floyd and has established a local Wikipedia group. However he also been at the centre of a number of conflicts and has an extensive block history including an Arbcom ban of one year.

Recently he has been displaying some very pointy behaviour regarding featured articles of the day. On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day, reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source beign substandard for an FA and claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

On 25 July, he inserted an infobox into the FA of the day. By the following week he was again making accusations of WP:OWN. There has been a long-running and boring dispute regarding the use of infoboxes in classical music articles. Andy's contribution to this dispute has led to some of his blocks. It was obvious that there could be no consensus reached to make such a change during the day that the article was FA of the day.

I think the attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day can only have a negative impact. The author of the first featured article mentioned is no stranger to robust argumentation, but that is not the case for all content creators. Spoiling an editor's pleasure of being on the front page can easilly affect their willingness to work on another FA.

I think a topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day is appropriate. Perhaps also a topic ban from all classical-music related article would be useful. I shall post a notice of this thread on AM's talk page imminently.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Andy inserted an infobox that was clearly within policy so you brought him to ANI? If having someone's article improved "spoils their pleasure" that's their problem, not the problem of the person who inserted the content. Ryan Vesey 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am sayign that an editor with an extensive history of disruptive editing and a block history to match is making WP:POINTy edits to the FAs of the day thus stirring things up when things should be kept as quiet as possible when somethign is FA of the day. There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware and he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Ryan, I see you are a member of WP:ER... I'm not sure if you fully understand the significance of your last post. Or, for that matter, of the "sniping" – to use Tim riley's exact word – that was going on in that discussion: including repeated idiolect digs from another editor at teh brilliant prose (Tim riley is surely among the best stylists and most capable copyeditors that Wikipedia has had). —MistyMORN 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Had. He retired today. Citing sniping. Very bad news for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post re Ian Fleming and it's referring to the whole focus of FA being intent on the original term for FAs and failing to deal appropriately with structural issues. I too am sad to see Tim withdraw his skills from the project and have said so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post ... Did I really read that right? —MistyMORN 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I take this accuation of trolling by User:Br'er Rabbit to be a completely unprovoked personal attack. —MistyMORN 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And this edit summary alluding to wankery the delights of self citation? isn't trolling? Or the badgering on my talk, yesterday? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a serious comment. And yesterday I politely let you know that I'd started a serious thread on Jimbo's page about the principle, not the participants. Since then, you have regaled me with multiple edit summaries of goaway and Bzzzt (whatever that's supposed to mean). —MistyMORN 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer, please try again. No good comes from starting threads on "principles" on teh Jimbo's talk. That's about inflaming disputes, as is this fucking page. This is all toxic snipping and drama-mongering. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I leave it to others to pursue this thread. I feel physically sick. —MistyMORN 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim's one of the few people who doesn't gush about my articles but gets into the bones of it and tells me what's wrong. This is very demotivating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm on good terms with Tim; believe I'm one of those he was referring to with and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above. It's quite unseemly for others to seek to use this as a weapon, as is on display just above. That is the sort of snipping that Tim's distressed over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? [75]. I don't think you have any right to put words or interpretations into Tim's mouth. —MistyMORN 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that I wasn't clear on this and have stricken my comment. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a total disregard for WP:CONSENSUS is the problem here, and when it comes to coordinates, Andy has a bully approach - anyone who disagrees with his view that they should be displayed as full DMS coords and linked within prose or added into tables is accused of ownership issues. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 4#RFC on coordinates in highway articles, Talk:Manchester Ship Canal, Talk:Ontario Highway 401#Coordinates and many more that I haven't witnessed or been involved in first-hand. It appears the insertion of infobox into TFAs is just another arm on the octopus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would a topic ban or weekly 1rr be appropriate from this in line with what I suggested re classical music articles?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Astute readers will note that one of the above refers to a case where Floydian added coordinates to an article to overcome an issue raised at its FAR, only to remove them as soon as it passed FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing placed on probation, Andy is still on indefinite probation even though no actions have been taken under it for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have now found Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing where this was confirmed earlier this year.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, he was given a year ban in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I think a lot of Wikipedians don't realize how stressful "TFA day" can be for the people who have put a ton of work into the TFA article. It's not a bad idea to wait until the article's off the main page to propose potentially controversial changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  This editor doesn't propose though. They just implement their controversial change (often having made a similarly controversial change recently), then argue vehemently against numerous editors that they were in the right to make the change, and accuse those numerous editors of OWNership issues or trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy just determines what consensus is, and implements it matter-of-factly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That is exactly what I was thinking, Mark. The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. I have no idea why it couldn't wait, and allow the article, as it was approved, to be left more or less free of major changes while it is on the front page. That just seems a bit of courtesy and a way of gaining good faith from fellow editors. And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not mandatory, not required and generally all of this page-by-page debate is doing nothing more than stirring up a lot of trouble and pushing people away. To see this brought up at the Village Pump is absurd. Really. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• A simple topic ban from TFA for Pigsonthewing would appear to be the simple and easy solution here. It still leaves him 4,000,000+ articles to edit. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could look at the ownership issues, or the inappropriate local consensus issues. TFAs get a lot of edits from a lot of regulars. There's talk of an RfC re infoboxes on my talk. That's a better option. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, but for the one day that the article is on the Main Page, we don't need those issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the ban should be from the moment an article is proposed for a particular day or scheduled for that day until it has either completed its time as TFA or been replaced in the schedule for the proposed day. Otherwise we'll have the disruption merely pushed forward.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's it's "disruptive" is not established. I have good faith that Andy believes what he is seeking is for the best of the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to be bold and there is considerable support for the infoboxes (millions of them). Dunno about that table, though. This issue need a wider discussion (and a calm, reasoned one), not reflexive feeding of those churning up drama. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. Regardless of what the consensus is on infoboxes (or the other issues for that matter), making a WP:POINT on the article's one day on the front page is simply obvious attention-seeking. The wider discussion can take place when the article isn't the first thing that millions of people see when they log in. Especially when you're sourcing your POINTY edit to someone's TescoNet homepage. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Skipping right past that dead TescoNet hompage link, the infoboxes are quite arguably widely accepted improvements. I agree that these various infobox discussion are not productive. Part of the problem is that they're held on the home turf of the opponents of infoboxes. Everyone should mellow out and agree to a wide participation RfC. I will escort Andy there myself. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Except editors are not supposed to be bold when they know they don't have consensus to be so. He is clearly making a WP:POINT edit. Whether he thinks he is benefiting the project or not, when you don't have consensus or when something is controversial you stop and discuss first. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The infoboxes question is a red herring; he does this with coordinates too. --Rschen7754 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too, except its associated with a set of templates and not with articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Peter's comments. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

see: {{TFA-editnotice}}. "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}} on talk for FAs says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen it, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to make edits you know will be controversial without discussing them first. He was well aware the edits were controversial. Be bold only applies when you don't know prior to your edit that they will be controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• zOMG censorship. Although the whole thread is still probably going to be a train wreck, I think it took a *severe* turn for the worse starting here. I've simply removed comments from several editors, putting me in direct violation of numerous guidelines and policies I'm sure. If this pisses you off and you simply must restore them, please at least think of one single benefit to the encyclopedia for doing so. In the process I also removed a couple of harmless comments that no longer make sense once the silly ones are removed; no offense intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no benefit to any of this, it was train wreck much before it got here, but suppressing comments without linking to them simply allows more comments like the one below to pile up. The best thing to do would be to archive the "discussion". Truthkeeper (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But there's nothing wrong with the comment below; you may agree with it or disagree with it, but Disagreement is OK. I was just trying to nip in the bud the devolution into 100% snark, not stifle a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The snark has been going since last November with no end in sight. Would you mind at least linking to bit you snipped? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But that would defeat the purpose of snipping it. I might as well hat it, then. The whole point is, I think those comments should just go down the memory hole. If snark has been going on since November, what possible benefit is there to restoring more here? However, I am not going to try to prevent anyone from linking, or restoring, or anything. Just be convinced you're improving the encyclopedia by doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. This has value. The rest has none, but it is important to remember that editors write these pages and only so much snark can go so far. Unwatching here now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy's contribution to classical music discussion pages is to be welcomed, not supressed. The classical music wikiprojects are very insular, with their own special rules about infoboxes, and they need to encourage outside criticism. If we ban Andy from classical music discussions it would at least have the appearance of stifling good-faith criticism of the projects. On the broader issue of making stylistically-controversial changes to featured articles while they are on the main page, I have no opinion. ThemFromSpace 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing is a great editor, with good intentions, but he's terrible at explaining things once confusion or disagreement has arisen (eg, and more, unrelated to infoboxes).

However, This really isn't (or shouldn't be, despite the page it's in) about the particular tempest.

It's about writer's voice. It's about knowing-your-audience, and grokking the context and background and nuances of a dispute. It's about personality archetypes smashing into each other, and not seeing the fallout. It's about retirees arguing with youngsters arguing with 'foreigners' (humans with entirely different mental intonations and landscapes). It's about empathy and insight. The only thing we have to encourage/enforce empathy is wp:Civility (and an entire navbox full of bitter&hilarious essays). And nothing can 'enforce' insight. But we do, desperately, need better ways to communicate with editors who are completely missing a point in a dispute. Like some of the consistently sarcastic afd nominators. It's acidic, and exhausting to others, in a subtle but influential way. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter cohen's original proposal, "topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". The infobox question (despite the insistence of some here) IMO is still open, and so too is the issue of coordinates. I don't find the argument that uniformity and metadata should override the preferences and consensus of those actually building the articles particularly persuasive. Especially in the situations presented here, Andy seems to be deliberately sowing dissension in pursuit of his aims. I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it. As a fallback to get consensus for a restriction, I'll also go for Black Kite's option, topic ban from TFA. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the original proposal because it's based on little substance and insufficient attempts to find common ground. If you want to ban folks who disagree with you, you need to be a lot more convincing. The core of the disagreement is Andy's belief that particular articles benefit from infoboxes versus Peter's assertion that Andy's view may be dismissed without consideration because a WikiProject has predetermined the rules for infoboxes for all of its articles. That brings us to the secondary complaint: that Andy has accused others of WP:OWN. The assumption there is that he is mistaken, but Peter's own second statement gives the game away. This statement, "he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article", is the clearest exposition of OWN that could be made. Nobody has the authority to give instructions of that kind - just look at what OWN says on the issue: Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain—perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. - and that is policy. I recommend Peter takes the time to read through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and and try to judge dispassionately if Andy actually has substance to his view. I'd particularly draw his attention to the section On revert, as it does have many echoes of the arguments I've observed here.

I'll make a counter-proposal: If anyone believes Andy is deliberately focussing on TFA to make a point, try going to his talk page and politely explaining your concern to him. Peter certainly doesn't seem to have engaged with Andy in that way within the last 1,000 edits to that talk page. If Andy doesn't discuss the concerns, then you'll have convinced me to change my position. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence and you will see that people have been discussing Andy's WP:POINTy behaviour, his abuse of accusations of WP:OWNership and his edit warring over infoboxes for years. That Arbcom case resulted in the second of Andy's one year bans. It's not something that someone needs to go to raise on his page afresh. That's why Arbcom have left him on indefinite probation.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at that five year old case, and I see no sign of you discussing anything there. If you find a problem with another editor's behaviour, yes, you had better go to their talk page and discuss it with them rationally. I find it repugnant that you seem to think that you can instigate an ANI case questioning an editor's behaviour without having made any effort whatsoever to discuss that behaviour in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The only discussion of my referring to WP:OWN on that five-year-old page is about this, where I responded to a comment including "the editors... have discussed it" and "the primary editor's plan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter's proposal that Andy stay away from FAs once its announced they will be on the main page, until they're no longer linked from the main page. That can be a stressful time for FA writers, and no one else should be choosing that time to make major changes. It's a question of respect, not OWN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose all of this. The proper outcome here is an RfC, as is being discussed on my talk. Frankly, the meta issue in play here isn't infoboxes or metadata (or coords), it's about the project having a coherency across topics. There are endless local prefs that groups assert over subsets of articles and little of it is helpful. Another desirable outcome would be to persuade Tim to return. Please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion is expanding very fast. It is impossible to read the whole discussion and understand where the problem is. Why the discussion whether to use a table or not was not discussed in the talk page of the article and the subject came to ANI? I am sure that the talk of TFA gets a lot of attention anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is Andy's repeatedly showing up at TFAs to make a style change, then insisting he has a right to because of [BOLD] and [OWN] and sophistry in quoting from P'sNG's. The issue is not the underlying merits of each discussion on which exact way of (prettying up / meta-fying) articles. I can see both sides of tables and boxes, but that doesn't matter. This is about gate-crashing done systematically, why in particular is WP:TFA being targeted? Hence the very simple suggestion of a topic ban, which does not prevent any of the underlying content discussions from proceeding. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

gate-crashing: "the act of attending an invite-only event without invitation". That sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of WP:OWN. The whole world is invited to edit the TFAs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense Br'er. It is obviously not constructive to show up and demand style changes after and article has been through a review process with involvement by multiple editors. You can assume that there is a solid consensus for any style issues in an FA and the only way that should be change is by trying amicably to form a new consensus on the talkpage - not by trying to strongarm your ideas into something that others have spent hundreds of hours working on. If Andy cannot understand such a basic example of collaboration he has no business editing here at all. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding and infobox is not a "style" change, it is a structural change and an addition of content. Style is italics; ephemeral stuff. The FA review process is *flawed*, it misses all kinds of stuff. I find problems in most articles appearing on the main page (most common is duplicate named refs). The whole process is focused on too narrow a criteria of our best. Andy is participating in a fair number of talk discussions about these issues; certainly far more than he is editing TFAs. ↓↓ FA "stewardship" can be a good thing (I've invoked it, at Brian's suggestion). I've not looked at just when that got added to OWN; it's a wiki, so someone drove a truck sized hole through OWN. Anyway, it's often abused. ↓↓↓ The FA regulars may have had a prior shot at most TFA, but most of the ones that go by are articles I've never heard of. I expect it's the same for Andy and most other regulars. TFA is often no party for the primary author. See the whole mess discussed on Wehwalt's talk re the immediately prior TFA Gregorian mission. No party for Ealdgyth: "My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)" Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant. Andy has to collaborate with those who reviewed it and wrote it not antagonize them. Making major structural or stylistic changes to a recently reviewed article on the day that it is on the mainpage without prior discussion or consensus on the talkpage is antagonistic in the extreme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. I'll usually work on them a day or two before (if possible;) as day-of is too edit-conflict-rich. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know we're not discussing you behavior here, but Andy Mabbet's. That suggests there is a qualitative different between how you approach editing the TFA and he does. Even so I do know that you have also gotten into conflicts because you have been to quick top restructure other people's work without involving them in the process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/double sigh/. Maybe its time you begin then? You apparently also "fix" things that are not considered problems. And apparently you do so knowing that others don't consider them problems. That is not helpful but antagonistic and disruptive. It should be obvious to anyone that the lack of an infobox in a recently reviewed article is not a problem but a decision. Pleading ignorance in this case just makes you look...ignorant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And where, do you imagine, did I plead ignorance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

When you tried to excuse your antagonistic and confrontational behavior by saying that you didn't look at who had edited or reviewed the article before editing it and therefore presumedly didn't know against whom you antagonism was directed. It amounts to saying "its not personal" - when you ought to know very well that doesn't matter one whit to those who've worked on the article and decided not to include those features you want to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who is able to read can see you doing so two comments above this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree the review process is flawed, perhaps for different reasons. I would think that a great many of the huge blunders in FA-rated articles are picked up on their TFA day.

Take for example this correction on TFA day of a wildly erroneous statement in an FA promoted only just last year. The date that's more than a decade wrong was cited to a single foreign-language source when the article was promoted to FA, accepted without question by nominator, reviewers and promoter alike. It's also a key fact (perhaps the key fact) in the "Reaction and aftermath" section, establishing the significance of the entire case itself. One of the most important facts in the article.

Some might think the 1990s are a long time ago. Ten to fifteen years doesn't make much difference? To compare great things with small, what if an article about segregated education said that it was still legal in the USA in 1981? Would it matter?

Now why do I think that so many errors are picked up on TFA day? Well because the genuine errors that are picked up, like the one I just mentioned, stand a very good chance of getting reverted right back like this, and then again without even looking at the edit summary for the first change, by the owner of the article.

Most of those making the correction, be they registered, unregistered, administrators or something else, wouldn't be back to check after the first "cleanup" restore of the error. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Br'er, that's the attitude that's causing writers to leave the project. OWN makes the point here that FA stewardship isn't considered OWNership in the negative sense, and that applies even more when it's on the main page. It's one thing for a new editor to turn up to fix punctuation, but an experienced editor making substantive changes to a TFA knows that it's likely to upset someone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What it actually says is "Featured articles ... are open for editing like any other... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership". It certainly does not say what others have claimed is the case, for the two articles in question, that (I paraphrase) "the editor who puts an article through FA review gets a veto over others' edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured someone might question that aspect of my link, but it was the best I could come up with for my intended concept. Congrats Jack on ferreting out the worst possible interpretation. Yes of course the entire world is invited, early and always - but here you show the sophistry I mentioned above. For Wikipedians who are already here, you, me, Andy, Slim, Maunus, whoever - we ALREADY HAD our kick at the can. Every single one of us knows the score and we all know damn well that if there are issues, then we need to discuss them well in advance. It's quite disingenuous for you to resort to wide-eyed innocence, that edits can be made to TFA context-free as though we are all newborn. So formally: NO, not at all and no-one OWNs anything. But FFS, on the day the TFA appears, yeah this should be a party for the people who made it happen, and this should be an occasion for all the rest of us to celebrate the editors who go that far. Even if you think it's a flawed process, take that up elsewhere, TFA is special. And deity knows that I've taken mucho satisfaction in correcting featured content typogrammos myself. ;) But to start up a war over a style issue like an infobox or microformat? I'm not saying your ideas aren't important, but why are they so important within that context? Franamax (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support peter's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support the topic ban, though I won't formally cast a vote that way simply because I've gone around with him more than once with the same problems. I can certainly relate to the frustrations, and if he is driving good editors away from the project, then I am finding it difficult to see why we should accept his continued presence here. Resolute 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support TFA topic ban. We are here for the encyclopedia, and that requires a collaborative community helping the content builders. Even if SOMEONE IS RIGHT, they need to avoid actions that drive away good content builders, and harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption (obscenities, vandalism and POV warring are relatively easy to handle—it is the drip drip drip of relentless sniping that damages good editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Johnuniq is right on one point: "harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption". If those who have only a narrow view of the full range of skills needed to build this project can't (or won't) understand the importance of technical aspects, like accessibility, functionality and re-usability, they need to step out of the way of those good editors that do. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Peter Cohen's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --JN466 13:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also support a topic ban. There is a competence issue here: if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project, he is per se incompetent to edit, and must be restricted from an area in which he is likely to offend such editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project" Since I have driven no top editors off the project, your point is moot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is your attitude, then move me to a formal support of this topic ban. Resolute 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The guy has already received two year-long blocks from ArbCom for this kind of behaviour. He's also apparently on indefinite probation. Maybe take this to Arbitration enforcement if necessary? --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per the comments above. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Wehwalt. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above...Modernist (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban No, a site ban. I'm sick of these uncouth bullies. Get rid of him.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Struck 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I take it back. I'd much prefer that you stay. You clearly have the best interests of the project in mind. It is important to you and you have a lot to contribute. What I want is behaviour change. That table you inserted into a TFA totally munted the page on my laptop. I ended up with a narrow string of words squeezed between it and another graphic. It was thoughtless, inconsiderate behaviour; utterly disrespectful of the writers who had created it. I want you to see that and recognise that that behaviour style is deprecated here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Peter cohen and Wehwalt's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the way to handle this. Secretlondon (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• So we juist continue to hand more rope? Life is too damn short for that. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Disagreeing with others is good. People can disagree in good faith about infobox usage. The way one disagrees makes a difference, and Andy consistently disagrees in a way that is not conducive to collaborative editing environment. Frankly, there probably needs to be further discussion about the usage of infoboxes (actually, I've never really gotten why we can't just drop it, but it's clear enough that we can't), but this editor doesn't need to involved, at least not when the article are on the main page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as Heimstern explains quite nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous observation that there is a proper time and way to disagree, and if you can't figure that out, you need to not be around it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ban'. Andy's approach is poision, and he knows it, I suspect gleefully, and shame that its gone on for so long and shredded so many others nerves. I see him as a net negative, in every respect. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ceoil's comment follows this edit (edit summary: "go pleasure your lazy self, seriouslyu"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • He has a point - if you shotgun {{cn}}s all over an article, instead of say using {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} on a section, it could be interpreted as laziness to find the sources yourself. I found a few sources myself and added them to the article in question. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support (and nodding at user:Anthonyhcole). I edit ANI maybe once a year, but I can't stay away from this one. The user in question seems driven too much by an agenda not formally acknowledged as part of the goals of Wikipedia, as far as I know. The whole business of "making articles more 'semantic web'-friendly" is, in my estimation, a pet project with a little value but not when pushed relentlessly and rudely and to the detriment of other editors. We need formal policy on the degree to which people who are now referring to the (technical) "structure" of articles as some kind of pinnacle of achievement for an encyclopedia are allowed to make idiosyncratic changes to wikitext through templates or otherwise—implying some invented convention or precedent—that scarcely change the reader's experience while making editing sometimes more difficult; as they defend the practice with reference to hypothetical software-mediated "re-users" rather than the basic textual re-use which is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind the project. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Don't be silly: hypothetical software-mediated "re-users"

  Try maps.google.com and turn on the Wikipedia layer. Amazon has all the books. They download the whole database, over and over again. That includes all the structure, templates, /everything/. Get with the information age, pls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  Or Dbpedia. Or the BBC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from TFAs, and would be willing to expand it to articles in the que for TFA. Andy seems to have a bit of a fixation with these articles, as per comments above, and it seems that his conduct of himself in the process is far less than acceptable. One does get the impression that these edits may be motivated more by an urge to get attention than anything else. And I think common sense would indicate that making substantive potentially controversial edits to FAs, on the day when they are most visible, is a very bad idea. WP:COMMONSENSE would seem to apply here. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Since when did single edits to just two articles, with one reversion, amount to a "fixation"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

Sadly, several editors commenting above have chosen to take Peter Cohen's asertions at face value; so it's useful to analyse them:

On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day,

I replaced a table which had previously been in the article for many months four years, but which was removed for no apparent reason prior to the FA review, and misleadingly, as "ridiculously sourced".

reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source being substandard for an FA

the reason given for the subsequent removal of the table was "anyone who wants this table included needs to find a better source than Tesco". The source given was not Tesco (it was a dead link, which now redirects to Tesco, and an archive version of the original has since been found). Further that source is used (as attribution, not citation) for only one column of the table. If it was a bad source then that column could have been removed, or a better source requested; it did not require removal of the whole table, most of which comprises features cited elsewhere in the article and coordinates which do not require individual sourcing per a prior RfC. Finally, after discussion in the article's talk page, consensus appears to show that the table should indeed be in the article.

claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

In the cited diff I did not claim there were "problems with ownership". I asked the editor who said: "Malleus and PoD were the main contributors who got this article up to FA and John and myself also made some contributions along the way. You have made one drive-by edit that changes the whole look of the article on the day it appears on the front page. As far as I'm concerned If Malleus doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and PoD otherwise" to "please read WP:OWN". The claim that I had only made "one drive by edit" to the article was false; I've made many eidts, adding content to the article.

again making accusations of WP:OWN

No; I said "We have a policy for this. Please see [{WP:OWN]]" in response to a reference to "consensus among those who work on articles in this category" (I removed the quote of "as the most frequent toiler in this particular vineyard", seen in the diff mischievously cited, within seconds, as I realised I had taken it out of context). The correct diff is this one.

attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day

No evidence is offered to support this false accusation regarding my supposed intentions. I have calmly discussed and justified my edits on the talk pages of the articles concerned. in the case of the ship canal, I made one singe revert of the removal of encyclopedic content, which is not otherwise available in the article, for reasons explained above. In the case of Solti, I made no reverts.

things should be kept as quiet as possible when something is FA of the day

I'd be interested to see the policy which enshrines this dictum.

There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware

Bunkum. There is no such "agreement", other than among a limited and self-selecting subset of editors. I am though, aware of the wishes of that group of editors; but the RfC which they initiated found no such consensus, as its conclusion makes clear. I made this point to Peter on the Solti talk page, but he chooses to ignore it.

he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article

Rexxs has addressed this point already. But really: an instruction!? Surely, it is the people who place such messages, or seek to enforce them, in contravention of their own RfC and wider policy, who should be facing sanction?

the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too

If this is intended to refer to me, then, again, no evidence is offered for this unwarranated slur.

Finally, for now, this page says at its head: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Where did Peter do this?

I'm out of time now; I may comment further later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I might agree with you conclusion about infoboxes, but I find your timing to be incredibly bad. That is my problem, that you couldn't wait until it came off the front page. You can quote all the policies and pillars you want, I'm relying solely on common sense here, which dictates that if it is controversial, just wait a couple of days and discuss it. It almost seems perfectly timed to create the maximum amount of drama, instead of being timed to create the maximum chance of your perspective being considered. As to policy regarding the day FA articles hit the page, no policy should be needed. Common courtesy and common sense should be sufficient, and that is what makes your timing look intentionally disruptive, and pushes the boundaries of good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There were over 50 edits to Gregorian mission during its time as yesterday's TFA. While a few were vandaism and reversions thereof, most were not. There is clearly no policy (explicit or de facto; "common sense" or not) against working to improve an artice while it is a TFA. Further, as already pointed out above, {{TFA-editnotice}} says "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}}, on the talk page of FAs, says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". One or both of those also link to WP:BOLD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the changes are controversial, they're not constructive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite untrue. People make a fuss over constructive edits all the time. For example: diff; that fixed diffs for users of the secure server. It was reverted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we by that statement supposed to infer that ownership digs which eventually end with the departure of FA writers are "constructive changes"? Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

quit trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we supposed to infer that "FA writers" are somehow different from ordinary writers? I'm an "FA writer", but I don't demand special privileges as a result. If you want a policy saying that no established editor may edit TFA (other than vandalism reverts) go and propose it at WP:VP and see how far you get. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record: To my knowledge, Tim didn't ask for any privileges either. But eventually he simply voted with his feet. —MistyMORN 13:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, your motives on the day, I feel, were not to "improve" but to enforce your weird ideology that all articles should adopt your preferred format. An infobox, IMO is not an improvement. Also, your timing was completely inappropriate and may or may not have been a primary factor in WP loosing one of its greatest ever contributors. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted: your feelings; your opinion; "may or may not". Nothing substantive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes, and if you would have read this novel you would have known what happens when you sabotage the individuals who create something. I'm not sure whether the departure of Tim riley was the intended goal for Andy & Jack, but their subsequent unapologetic behaviour does indeed give me the impression that they thereby have gotten a feeling of mastery. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

your bad faith is appalling: diff of User talk:Tim riley. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean to switch off your brain. That post of yours at his page was simply a politically correct message, so that you could continue in the same vein as before. Why didn't you simply apologise for your sniping at Talk:Georg Solti and Talk:Peter Sellers? Tim's last edit before the day of retirement was the addition of a comment to the former talk page; you ought to be somewhat more compunctious and not put the blame on MistyMorn. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not sniping. You and MistyMorn are not acquitting yourselves well here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So you mean that Tim was wrong in citing the relentless sniping/trolling of yours as a reason for his departure? Or that somebody else sniped him? Just curious. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

you're trolling; goway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Eisfbnore, the belief that Rand's fiction bears any resemblance to real human endeavour makes clear your disconnection with the reality of editing Wikipedia. This is a profoundly collaborative endeavour, not a pastime for divas who want to elevate themselves above their fellows. Tim was the very opposite of the model of "FA writer" that you are trying to promote. Indeed he most recently spend an entire day helping other editors as well as academics at the WWI Editathon – along with Andy as it happens. If you ever come to understand that content writers and the technicians who create and maintain the framework for that content depend on each other, you'll understand what Wikipedia is actually about. I see you're already familiar with Canoe River train crash; do you think that would be such a great article without the different contributions of multiple editors? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

diff of Canoe River train crash && diff of Canoe River train crash. nb: teh Randian stuff flies well with teh Jimbo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that page was really nice before it was transformed into a mess of load time-expensive citation templates. Also, it would be great if both of you could have a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Then you'll perhaps realise that von Mises was right when he said to the Russian radical that "you have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." NB that I'm actually a Rothbardian and despise everything about the Ayn Rand cult; however, she, along with Schumpeter, understood that it is the innovative spirit of a few individuals that changes the world. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that Wehwalt asked me to fix the citations on that page (and many others;). And {{sfn}} is really fast ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, your lack of knowledge really makes the point. The 40 {{sfn}} templates increase the rendering time from 6.1 sec to 7.3 sec and you call that "a mess of load time-expensive citation templates". And 95% of our readers don't even see that slowdown because they get the page from the cache. It's depressing for anybody trying to improve articles to have such blind hatred of anything technical used as weapon, as is happening here. If you really don't understand what you're talking about, you need to take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To anyone who's been here awhile, this should be obvious: Don't screw around with the Featured Article of the Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been editing TFAs for some time; and often. This is the first time it's been an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's something obviously wrong with a TFA, such as gross misspelling (or vandalism), you should leave it alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That fallacy has already been addressed above. Though you're welcome to lobby for a policy change (and a corresponding change to the boilerplate in the relevant templates) to that effect, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "policy changes", I'm talking about "using your head for something besides a hat-rack." Why is there any need to muck around with the TFA? Is every other article absolutely perfect already, leaving only the TFA to require "improvement"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether you admit it or not, you're advocating a stance which is diametrically opposed to current policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that there is other important aspects of current policy that you are not really in touch with - not to mention basic principles of collegiality and sociality. Yes you have a right to edit the TFA - that does not mean that you must do so when you should be able to foresee that others might disagree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy Mabbett is technically correct: other people's feelings don't matter, and anyone can edit, and TFAs often get good edits on the day they are on the main page. Since Andy is relying on that techincal argument, I agree with the comments above that a full site ban is required as it obvious that Andy will never let an opportunity pass to force his view, and will argue indefinitely that HE IS RIGHT. There is not sufficient proof to convince a court of law that such behavior drives away good editors, but this is not a court of law—we can rely on commonsense and consensus. Looking at the situation shows what Andy is doing, and it is not helping the encyclopedia. The community has a choice: remove troublemakers and support content builders, or enable troublemakers and spit in the face of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is beyond shortsighted to suggest that the dichotomy is between "content builders" and "troublemakers", and outright insulting to exclude an editor with 45,000 articlespace contributions from the former on the basis of that dichotomy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think what a lot of folks here want, and are not seeing anywhere, is for Andy to acknowledge that he made a bad judgment call - [in that: he choose to raise the issue of infoboxes in a classical-music article (which he knows is in a tense stalemate based on his many past participations and readings) on the day of TFA. Whether he did it through lack-of-foresight, or wp:pointy intent, is almost irrelevant. But does he recognize and understand why we all think it is a problem? why we're discussing it at length.
  If he refuses to acknowledge that, then it points towards a fundamental inability to work with others-of-opposing-viewpoints, and I'd support some sort of strong repercussions. If he does acknowledge that he made a poorly-timed decision, then I think it would demonstrate the empathy that is currently missing.
  I.e. the mistakes that are being made, are entirely based on (1) timing that he should have known was bad, and (2) the-specific-words-chosen-by-him-in-explanations (which often inflame a situation, eg regularly dismissing people's comments as, "straw man", which can often come across as arrogant and hostile). [tl;dr: His goals are good, but his tactics are sometimes very flawed, which he needs to acknowledge] -- Quiddity (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Andy? Any chance of a reply to this? I really do believe it would help the situation, for all of us... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm loathe to stick my oar into this too much, but I just want to pick up on this point. I don't really know Andy particularly well, I haven't seen any form of edit warring or any edits he's done that haven't improved the encyclopaedia from at least some angle, and his enthusiasm for the place is a great asset. I see his point of view that you should be bold and improve stuff if you have a sincere belief it will result in an overall benefit. What I am seeing a lack of is not so much that he made a bad judgement call (I'm sure he'd argue otherwise - remorselessly) but an acceptance of the other point of view. Something like "I believe my actions were correct, but you know what, I see why you'd be annoyed. It's not the end of the world, after all. Sorry about that." Exactly what we can do about that, who knows. Probably nothing. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Both: I told Quiddity in email I'd post a reply on Tues, but in the light of Georgewilliamherbert's request, below, I'm going to hold off for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question According to Wikipedia:Probation#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee, it states "Pigsonthewing may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." It has an indefinite expiry date. Does that mean we don't actually require a full consensus for a topic ban, and hence can quickly resolve this before this discussion goes on and on and on even more? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My reading is that the probation allows banning from individual pages as and when problems arise on those individual pages. A topic ban can be preventative. I also think thta we are getting consensus for the topic ban. SOme people want to go further but I think thta they will regard the topic ban as at least a start.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Close request

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

---

This has been running for 55 hours as I post here. I am and have always been a firm advocate of a two day running time for most long-term sanction discussions, to give everyone one turn of the planet to think about it, then another turn to give an opinion. Most discussions here attract a closer before that time, but I'm happy with this - and now it's time for someone uninvolved to step up and close it. I'm counting about 20 opinions above supporting an editing restriction, at least 3 opposes, and some comments that could be interpreted either way. The various policy bases are also laid out clearly. Obviously I prefer one outcome, but I really think the task of the closer here will just be to set the scope of the outcome I prefer. So who is willing to step up here? Thanks! :) Franamax (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not the right venue for the introduction of complicated editing sanctions at the behest of a mob (whose suggestions run the gamut from a ban on editing TFA to a full site ban). It's not at all clear that there is a consensus here, and it's absurd to suggest that this has somehow met some sort of upper threshold on desired community input (twenty editors, most of whom are either long-term advocates or opponents of Andy, chipping in over a weekend). This needs a formal resolution and not an arbitrary close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Close it. Clear consensus here merely confirms the findings of two Requests for Arbitration. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Thumper, while there are clearly related issues that need resolving, there is no consensus that there is an "Incident" here that needs admin action.

Propose the section is simply hatted and we move on. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Yeah. See Secretlondon's comment: "This is not the way to handle this." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban from TFA has broad support above, and it's not such a big deal as to require another arbitration case. 99.99% of editors wouldn't even notice being topic-banned from TFA ... JN466 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

99.99% of editors don't work on editing TFA. That means that the 0.01% who do (and that estimate is still several of orders of magnitude too high) are precious. They shouldn't be shed lightly on the basis of straw polls in which the majority of the participants have significant reasons to either support or exclude Andy's efforts on the project outwith the rather narrow domain of TFA. By and large straw polls on user conduct don't work after an editor reaches a certain threshold of fame / notoriety. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should Andy be allowed to continue editing TFA if his editing there is disruptive? I'd understand the need for an exemption if a Featured Article he had been a significant contributor to was at TFA, but as far as I can see, he's never written one. JN466 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

People who judge contributions to FAs on the basis of accumulated stars are why we shouldn't have a star-accumulation system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just assume that anyone who makes a nuisance of himself at TFA is someone who has made unknown but nevertheless vital contributions to Wikipedia's featured content, far more vital than the contributions of those who actually wrote that content. That makes a lot of sense. JN466 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that perpetuating the false dichotomy between "nuisances" and "those who actually wrote that content" indicates that you understand the point being made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misjudging the arguments. They aren't saying we should judge Andy based on his abundance or lack of stars; rather, they are stating that his lack of involvement in the process highlights the disruptive nature of his edits at TFA, and that he is not a "precious" editor to the TFA process by any means. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As ArbCom has ruled: Mabbett "disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation." Nothing has changed. He's still on probation (see ArbCom list here). This should be a routine matter of enforcement, despite what a small minority of his sympathisers claim. An editor who can't or won't moderate his behaviour despite repeated sanctions has to be reined in (again). Plus, we don't have vested contributors. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That essay describes ("long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority") not my behaviour, but the behaviour of your fellow classical music colleagues in regard to one ("consensus among those who work on articles in this category"; not to mention repeated references to a bogus instruction; see above), and others in regard to the second ("the main contributors who got this article up to FA... You have made one drive-by edit... As far as I'm concerned If [X] doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and [Y] otherwise"") of the two single TFAs mentioned at the top of this sorry thread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And that ArbCom statement describes your behaviour in this and other areas. --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If this were genuinely a "routine matter of enforcement" then it wouldn't be generating this level of heat. Rather, the matter is complicated by a) the significant period of time between the sanctions and the present and b) the quite obvious desire for certain notoriously insular wikienclaves to rid themselves of a perceived pest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

For the record, my tally (ending with Riggr) was, reading from my envelope, 5 +PC, 13 +TB, 3 +cmt, 3 +opp, 2 +ban. The range of solutions is not all that complex to analyze. Also I need to pay an instalment on my contents insurance. :) Franamax (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin (that does not include the admin who hatted the discussion) please close the discussion and implement any sanction which the community may have decided on?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Exhaustion of community patience?

Reading the specifics of the close request discussion above, I think that I have to restate this in terms of a "exhaustion of community patience" case. This is an established, if relatively rare, sanction basis. The specific incident that precipitated this seems not to rise to the level of actionable, by itself (though an argument is being made that the pattern of prior action and probation might make it so). It and Andy's response do seem to have raised a high degree of ire in a wide swath of the community.

We have been bad about setting up better criteria for when someone has exhausted community patience. Exhausting one users' patience doesn't count; exhausting a bunch of users' patience also doesn't count, though at some point a bunch becomes enough. Andy does have an extensive history of various sanctions, but also extensive good editing. It's clear both that the number of upset people is in the tens (at least); it's not clear if that represents a consensus across those who pay attention to these matters.

With this in mind, I would like to request that previously uninvolved editors and administrators get involved and read up on this and comment. Please look at Andy's edit history as well as prior sanctions and the current situation. A consensus of otherwise uninvolved users would be far superior to an attempt to find consensus of ones who largely seem involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Statement of history. I know nothing about any of this. I haven't even been following the discussion above. For my own benefit and for the benefit of any other uninvolved editor, I thought I'd try to list Andy's "bad" history:

1. Andy's block log. Note that it shows the largest number of blocks in 2005, decreasing over time but still robust, and then a large gap between 2009 and 2012. Other gaps may be partly explained by bans listed below.
2. At the end of 2005, Andy was placed on indefinite probation. According to the Remedies section, Andy could be "banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." On January 25, 2006, he was banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. There are other "remedies". Andy is still on probation.
3. On August 19, 2007, Andy was again banned for one year.
4. According to the block log, on March 22, 2012, Andy was indeffed because of "BLP concerns" and until he "agrees to leave Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) alone." On the same day, the block was lifted because of a "clear emerging consensus for topic ban; block hopefully no longer needed". On April 2, 2012, a Hawkins topic ban was proposed. On April 7, the discussion was closed as no consensus for the ban.

That's all I'm doing for now. The next step would be for me to figure out what's happened more recently. But at least this history might help some other uninvolved editors who want to comment on the proposed topic ban. (If I've left out anything relevant, please let me know.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no topic ban regarding Jim Hawkins (nor idneed anything else), as a result of or connected to the March 2012 block either, and the blocking admin was criticised by others for his actions (Example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In this connection, I do note that Jimbo said "At least in terms of what has been presented, it is clear to me that a couple of people should be topic-banned from the article for being annoying for no encyclopedic purpose, and it should be indefinitely semi-protected." and also said "I already asked with kindness for Pigsonthewing to steer clear of the article. The mind boggles at the poor judgment of him getting involved anyway. ... Both of them [Pigsonthewing and another editor] should at a minimum be topic banned for being annoying to the subject." --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There were at least three topic ban threads, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive233#Topic_ban, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic_ban_request and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Pigsonthewing, . They carried on for weeks and eventually petered out. Also related are [76], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Jim_Hawkins, [77]. In this section Jimbo Wales, Fæ, Kim Dent-Brown, Errant and Skyring pleaded with Andy to stop editing the article; he refused. --JN466 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Again, invoking my status as uninvolved, I have to say that Andy's comments about the blocking admin being criticized (and reiterating that there was no topic ban, even though I updated that in the history) and Jay's comments generally aren't helpful for this editor. I can read those kinds of comments in the discussion above. I can't stop you from commenting in this section, but I sure wish you wouldn't and that you'd remove them. They will no doubt provoke more of the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the editorialising, but left the links I researched in response to your earlier query about the topic ban history. JN466 00:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I regret to say that I find Georgewilliamherbert's comments to be rather unfortunate. He repeatedly characterizes those who have called for a sanction against Andy as emotional (and accordingly, not as clear-thinking as he sets himself up to be) by referring to "ire" and people who are "upset", and at the end is rather dismissive in terming them as "largely ... involved". Plainly Gwh doesn't agree with action being taken against Andy, but I wish he would not make characterizations about the positions of other editors in that manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that "largely ... involved" is an unbiased description of the activity above. If you want to break it down commenter by commenter in toto and that disproves the generalization, I will accept a correction.

I do not disagree with action being taken in the sense of registering an OPPOSE (either publicly or privately concluding such) - I have not been involved, and we want un-involved admins to assess and engage on problem discussions and community action proposals. My assessment is that a large group who largely are involved want Andy banned, in general and for an incident. My assessment of the incident - personal admin assessment, not overriding either the community writ large or another admin's judgement - is that the incident showed misbehavior (slightly disruptive disregard for other parts of the community) but not bannable behavior, even for someone under sanctions already and with an extensive record. My assessment of "in general" is that - as always - the community writ large can exhaust patience but a pool of involved editors cannot.

I understand where your and Jayen's frustrations are coming from. But we really, really need uninvolved input to determine community exhaustion of patience. Please. I am disregarding people because I see what appears to be involvement, yes, but that's the point: exhaustion of community patience needs that separation.

Again, if you want to identify specific people who commented earlier who aren't involved, if that stands up, their input is back in consideration. I would very much like to see additional input by others as well.

I'm not "in charge" of this - but I care about how the community sanctions process works and have been very involved with developing it over the years. I can't override other admins who may chose to do something, but I believe I'm doing the right thing here with this request and framing the question this way. If you think I'm being biased against action, the process is biased against action - by design, and explicitly. Enough uninvolved people need to comment strongly enough to establish whether the wider community really does want a severe sanction or not. Please respect the process. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add to it by referring to "your and Jayen's frustrations". It's the same style of argument. You're setting yourself up as the reasonable person and suggesting that those who don't agree with you are acting in an emotional manner. Very regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c w. GWH) Speaking as someone who you would have to invoke a multiverse with wormhole travel and time-distortion fields to consider involved in any way, yeah I'm not happy with the precise wording. But I do think that the previous commenters should back off, and that includes Andy, and let some more people chime in. Otherwise we're going to wind up with a "no result" as the same participants regurgitate, which isn't going to help anything. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• While you folk duke this out, I propose a topic ban for Franamax for articles related to wormhole travel, narrowly construed to only those articles on another Wikipedia on a different Internet far far away.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is community support for banning Andy from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day. Would an uninvolved admin please close this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The situation is more complicated than that. If I were as desperate to "get rid" of "uncouth bullies" as you in this case, I'd actually be keener on a formal resolution which might enact that than on the quickest punitive action that could be flung together at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it is more complicated than that or no, I think the community has spoken, and that a closing admin will bar Andy from the TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment As the original poster, I wish to popint out that the only other place I have posted about this thread is on Andy's talk page where I was obliged to give notice. I have not been to any of the classical music projects, the featured article project, to Wikipediocracy or to anywhere else to drum up support nor have I sent messages to anyone who had not already contributed to this discussion. Therefore the suggestion that this discussion involves more involved people than any other ANI ban discussion needs some justification.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would join with that. I found the comments referred to condescending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether editors were canvassed into commenting here or not (and let's point out that nobody has suggested any impropriety on behalf of Peter Cohen or anyone else in that regard), the overrepresentation of comments here by editors who have previously had some sort of major dispute with Andy certainly makes it less clear-cut that the current input represents the consensus of the general community. The classical music project, for instance, is plainly overrepresented, including one commentator who described himself as only coming to ANI once a year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And techies are overrepresented among Mabbett's defenders. --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But not in this discussion, which is the most important aspect of determining whether this represents the consensus of the community as a whole. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FA process

What FlyingPigs said earlier has merit, as follows: Rather than targeting some overly-"helpful" individual, it should be a matter of etiquette, and of "not harming wikipedia", if not outright policy, to act as follows: "Once an article is a Featured Article, don't modify it without consultation. It has gone through the FA process and been seen by many eyes. Don't take it upon yourself to subvert that consensus." Or words to that effect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA team have made clear that they explicitly consider the use of an infobox (or coordinates), or not, to be outside the FAC process's consideration. Surely, therefore, the fact that an article is an FA does not mean that that issue has been considered, or decided by the community, or has consensus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, I think you wrote "many" where you meant to write "at least three or four".

Also, as per the example I gave earlier, where I see something wrong in a Featured Article, I boldly fix it - I don't go looking for "consultation" first - unless the fix is likely to be controversial. All editors are encouraged to do the same. The original incident under discussion here, allegedly has factors making it a bit different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixing something wrong, such as an obvious misspelling or some such, is fine. Screwing around with actual content should be done with something resembling consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The example I was discussing was fixing a major factual error in the article. That certainly is "screwing around with actual content". But "don't modify it without consultation" is a non-starter here. Wikipedia policy hasn't changed on that, and I don't see a consensus to change it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A ghastly thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting the readers ahead of egoistic editors - yes, what a ghastly thought. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a better way of putting what Bugs tried to say is that you shouldn't make major alterations to a FA without discussion, or should not object to a reversion and be willing to talk it out. The lack of an infobox was not the same thing as a misspelling or a misused dash. And TFA day is difficult enough (especially since Raul's gone to a "just-in-time" scheduling practice) without having to deal with such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's already codified (1e in the FA criteria). This is a stronger proposal. I'm not even getting into the discussion about whether the addition of an infobox—routinely applied to every biography on the project without anyone batting an eyelid, unless the person in question wrote classical music for a living—counts as a major upheaval. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"be willing to talk it out" In both (yes, there are just two) of the examples given at the top of this "Incident", I was involved in the talk page discussion; I started one of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Surely the whole point of the FA process is to attract people to editing articles, isn't it? For example, we take pains to avoid protecting the day's FA so that we don't stifle new interest in editing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

... it seems that some editors, who have “bust a gut” producing an FA, even several years ago, get a little 'uneasy' when editors who are “too ignorant and lazy” to direct their attention elsewhere, try to improve it. Even when they open a discussion on the Talk Page to do just that. Perhaps what is needed, once an article has achieved FA, is a big permanent banner proclaiming who still owns the article – a whole new exciting direction for WP:OWN? I’m sure this would be welcomed by some editors. Although not by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Write one, and we'll talk again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're obviously mature enough not to be so flippant on ANI, so are you honestly suggesting that input into this proposal (made by another editor who hasn't any successful FA noms AFAICS) should be limited to people with stars on their user pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Read what I replied to.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I had thought the process was meant to be collaborative and not quite so exclusively competitive. But then, I used to have that view about the whole project. Still, good job we can't talk again, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sarcastic comments directed at those who write FAs are uncalled for, and as I pointed out, uninformed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Uninformed by the recent personal experience that has prompted my decision to consider leaving the project? Apologies for using direct quotes there, Wehwalt. And apologies to all the other, perfectly reasonable, FA writers. I do hope Andy is treated reasonably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. Let's all take a deep breath, relax, and wait for a closing admin. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think that while some such idea would have merit, this particular proposal might not. I haven't been that heavily involved in FA process, but there do seem to be, and perhaps have been, several articles which have been promoted only to be rather quickly demoted again later. This might be because few people were involved initially, or that there was a "trend" in the field which later faded, or whatever. I would myself favor having the FA process explicitly involve reviewing the content of similar published reference articles on the subjects, which I think would help reduce the percentage of demotions. But, without that, yeah, academic opinions do change over time, sometimes quickly, and I think it is reasonable to make allowances for them. Particular concerns might be about politicians who see a major scandal in the brewing who might want to get their pointmen to write their bio up to FA level without any indications of the scandal in the offing. If we could make review of extant reference sources more of a factor in the FA process, then maybe instituting a later step like this might be a good idea, but we should probably try to get things done in the right order. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolution: that User:Pigsonthewing be banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day

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

---

Above, Thumperward (talk · contribs) recommended a formal resolution be put regarding Andy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Based on the above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Same basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's not the time to start edit wars when something is TFA. The focus needs to be on fixing any errors or vandalism not on controversial cosmetic issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comment1 Should the header for this vote be changed to level 3 not level 2?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment2 There were some people above who voted for a ban. If they wish to do so again, could they consider doing this as a separate motion with a separate header so that !votes don't get split 3 ways which makes it harder tor each a consensus? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per previous comments (based on ArbCom findings). --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two instances of Andy making policy-compliant edits that the folks who WP:OWN the articles don't like. Despite Andy engaging on the talk pages, he's still pilloried. It's just a convenient means of silencing those who have different opinions. Additionally, it is now proposed that he be banned from editing any article scheduled as FA of the day. There has been absolutely no evidence brought forward showing any problems with Andy editing articles scheduled as TFA. If the TB is to be broadened that far, then it had better be debated first - rather than tacked on like a pork bill. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When I said "formal resolution" I meant ArbCom, not all the same people as the above section bold wording their opinions again just in case anyone had missed the bold text behind the original (bonus points for Peter Cohen doing it thrice). Lord knows how this was misconstrued. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I misunderstood. Shall we close this thread and take it to Arbitration, or let it run and see if this makes the consensus any clearer? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be best, lest some naive admin count heads here and be embroiled in what would seem to be the inevitable future ArbCom discussion on accounts on enacting a controversial topic ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it rather annoying that you would characterize an admin who closed this on the same side as the numbers are as automatically "naive", as I do your suggestion above that I'm part of some mob. You've basically tried to set this up as some "no reasonable person would close this with a ban result", and that's just plain rubbish and insulting to those who are just tired of Andy's behaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So you would suggest that counting heads is a sensible option here? I notice that you're semi-retired yourself, and that you've made less than a dozen articlespace edits since the start of the year. That doesn't do much to shift the notion that this is a petition rather than an assessment of consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, of course. If you can't discredit people's arguments, discredit the people themselves. Great idea. And no, I do not suggest counting heads, I suggest weighing arguments. If someone closes against a ban based on arguments, OK; as I'm OK with a close against me if there's an actual policy-based reason. Unsubstantiated mob accusations and insinuations that semi-retired (burnt-out, actually) users ought not to have suffrage are not policy-based. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out your lack of recent articlespace edits was not meant to disparage you, or suggest you are no longer allowed to have an opinion: it does, however, lend credence to the idea that the perceived support for sanctions here should not be taken on a naive (there's that word again) head count given that so much of it comes from editors who have long histories with Andy and that therefore less resembles a community weather vane as it does a petition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support it, as it seems to me to be within the bounds of the existing ArbCom ruling of the editor in question. But, if others wish to, I could see that this might be sent to WP:AE for input. I rather seriously doubt that it would necessarily be taken up by ArbCom itself, though, given the rather straightforward nature of their previous ruling on the matter. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly its necessary, but as John Carter says I have no problem with it being sent to AE. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I also have no problems with it being sent to WP:AE for input, and I feel that Thumperward's resolution is necessary to prevent further issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I put the resolution. I misunderstood Thumperward who suggested the case should be taken to ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. JN466 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, alas. I personally am in the camp of those who believe each and every article should have an infobox - however, as mentioned above, mucking about with an article that's on the front page sends wholly the wrong impression. If Andy would just say "whoops, my bad, I'll be more careful in the future - and remember that there is no deadline", this wouldn't still be going on. The fact he hasn't (as far as I can tell in all the nearly WP:TLDR debate above) said that, however, indicates that this is necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support and to be clear, based on the methodology of the edits, rather than on the merits. --Rschen7754 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, rationale already provided above. And I don't see any need to escalate to ArbCom here, unless we're going to suggest that the community isn't allowed to implement sanctions any longer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support for exactly the same reasons as The Bushranger. Actually, I wouldn't quite go so far - I agree that it can be a valid application of WP:BOLD to update TFA with an infobox (eg: "I don't have much time on WP so I had to do it now", "I wasn't sure of process, so I just did it", "I'd never heard of the article today and wanted to help"), but my sense from the above discussion is we don't have a reasonable excuse that addresses everyone's concerns. Even so, an apology would go a long way to fixing all this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support —MistyMorn (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - perhaps we can avoid escalation? GiantSnowman 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sorry Andy; the TFA process can't work if it's exhausting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - certainly not the place for pointy and contentious editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per RexxS. I observe Andy's issues always seem to come in conjunction with small cabals of editors who display very strong ownership tendencies; and who to my mind seem to prioritise the acquisition of badges - GA, FA - above improving article content to a point at which an article unambiguously deserves those badges. In effect we're seeing standards being lowered so that borderline articles can be forced through. FA in particular should be a very hard look at an article to see if it is part of the best of wikipedia. It is exactly the sort of place that I would expect to see robust discussion. Sadly, I repeatedly see proponents of an article achieving GA or FA getting very emotional about what should be a rational discourse. And so now, to forestall nasty Andy wading in to argue in particular for structured information such as for coords or infoboxen, you want to ban him because you don't like arguing the point with him? That's really disgusting, and very much the thin end of the wedge. It is absolutely legitimate for any editor to express their opinion as to an FAC. You may not like the opinion. You may wish to argue against the opinion, (but you should be aware that Andy will invariably argue right back). But you should in good faith respect the opinions he holds rather than seek to no-platform him so that your FACs can have an easier life. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that's directed at, but I'm going to assume it's not me. As I've tried to make clear from several edits, I have no problem with Andy expressing an opinion, and I frankly agree with him that he had the perfect right to improve the article if he had a genuine belief it would be beneficial. Below you'll see a solution I have for making this a much easier ride for everyone. Having done about 3 hours' work this evening on getting an article towards GA quality (and it's still far from ready), I couldn't disagree more that GAN and FAC are a walk in the park - absolutely not. I've spent 2 weeks reviewing a GA article, about 3 days doing another one, I've got another one on the go as well, and I'm still getting (albeit constructive and welcome) criticism from the first. I can only imagine FAC is worse. However, you are correct about one thing - there is strong evidence for people not wishing to argue with him. And why should they? Is not WP:3RR just a specialised case of an argument? There is a very fine but distinct difference between arguing and simply agreeing to disagree and deciding a consensus. In my years of managing web forums and bulletin boards, I have come across a handful of people who seem to possess endless enthusiasm for disagreeing at absolutely everything, pulling apart sentences to pick out the one fragment they dislike, and at no point in the proceedings do they stop back and think "Is it worth doing this? Why don't we just drop it?" They're very difficult to ban outright as it's extremely hard to point to any actual direct ad-hominem attacks. Almost without exception, the two endgames of that are that that person gets finally gets banned (after years of aggravation) or takes an extended holiday following the threat of one, or the community disintegrates into a heap. We haven't had the first with Andy, and we can't have the second because we're one of the few communities big enough to withstand such a thing. The ban, at least from my view, is to protect Andy from going off on the rails and ending up doing something silly like this sorry example. I would urge you to comment on my alternative proposal below. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon I don't see where anyone has suggested that Andy be banned from FAC, so even if this passes he will still be able to comment there. Weighing in a FAC is a much better idea than waiting for TFA, anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Off in my own little world, for whatever reason, thinking the proposal extended to FAC. Thank you, Mark. My oppose still stands, however. Looking, for instance, at the two articles cited by the OP, Manchester Ship Canal and Georg Solti, I see Andy adding a table of coords in one, and an infobox in t'other. I do not see any edit warring whatsoever. Stuff was boldly added. The additions were reverted. The matter got taken to the appropriate talk page. What's not to like about that? I'm finding it really hard to believe that anyone would want to bar Andy for having the temerity to do what we're all encouraged to do, merely because such a person doesn't happen to like coords or infoboxes or the style of Andy's argumentation. That sucks. @Ritchie333 ... if I understand your alternative proposal correctly, it is to require Andy to put together a GA or an FA, so as to increase his empathy for GA & FA writers. I don't support that, first and foremost because I don't see that he has done anything w.r.t. FAs that deserves any sanction at all. The evidence supplied by the OP is not ban-worthy. The idea that there are not ownership issues w.r.t. road & composer articles is risible; the fact that Andy will argue against ownership again is not ban-worthy. Of course it would be great if Andy - and any of us - showed more empathy. Including those who would ban him on such scant evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that Andy has certain standards and expectations w.r.t. wikipedia pages which are not always shared by others in the community. His interventions in the pair of article pages cited by the OP seem to me to be entirely blameless. And whilst I am a critic of his style of arguing I very much want him to continue arguing for the sorts of things he argues for - mainly accessibility and structured data. I'd like him to show more empathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2012

• Oppose per RexxS and Tagishsimon's observation. None of what Andy did was harmful, nothing he inserted was incorrect or poorly sourced. It was just went against the Wikiproject that owns the article. The proof is in the pudding, instead of discussing the merits of his edits, we're trying to topic ban him. ThemFromSpace 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, again, maybe I should get one of those stamps made as my reasoning has not changed. It's unfortunate to see the lineup along ideological lines ("oppose because all articles should have an infobox") when to me it's behavioural and more about WP:COMMONSENSE: sure, your ideas have merit and are worth discussing, but why here and why now? When you know TFA will be a contentious time to do it, is your thing really that crucial that you have to muscle onto centre-stage, stamp your foot up and down and say "I AM ALLOWED to do this"? IMO that is attention-seeking behaviour. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support POTW's refusal to act in a collaborative manner has been amply demonstrated in this thread and this is a proportionate sanction. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support While Quiddity and others make valid attempts to understand this behavior (leading to reluctance) -- nonetheless, it appears we are limited in some ways in communicating the inappropriateness and/or disruptiveness (leading to support). - Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. So, Andy's edits at TFA caused the retirement of FA writer User:Tim_riley (see discussion of Andy's addition of infobox while the article was being featured in the main page, Tim riley complains about Andy's tendentious tactics, and he retires right after his last comment). When confronted about this, Andy plain denies everything[78]. Andy doesn't acknowledge any problem in his editing, and he refuses to compromise on anything. In these discussions he has been evading any responsibility for the problems he caused. And he doesn't intend to change his behaviour. No thanks, we don't want this sort of behaviour here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of the burnout and heartburn and frustration that Andy Mabbett's editing has caused and causes. It's not a novelty to suggest, as crazily optimistic people kindly people full of wikilove do above (and even more strongly below, actually), that he needs to try to now and then see some stuff from somebody else's point of view. The same thing has been said again and again and again and again over the years. If anybody's seeing any sign of it suddenly getting through, this time around, please point it out to me and I'll consider changing or removing or eating my comment. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC).
• Support - to prevent a repeat of Georg Solti which loses us quality editors such as Tim riley. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, again. Per my prior comments, those of Rexx and Chris, Tagishsimon. Note that Anthonyhcole did a huge extend from the prior discussion with "and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". Everyone pop a valium, pls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A suggestion

There's a lot of "attack! attack! attack!" in this discussion so far, so I'm going to throw this offer on the table as a more positive way of resolving things in the long term that doesn't go remotely near blocking anyone. I see a lot of (IMHO) justified criticism that Andy has not demonstrated any empathy towards others. One possible way of resolving this is to encourage him through getting an article to FAC himself, to see things from the other side. There's a number of Pink Floyd articles that aren't FA but could be - my eye's personally on Atom Heart Mother, though that needs a lot of work just to get it to GA status for now. Still, it's the one I think we can get the best story out of against the Floyd albums that haven't gone through FAC as it stands. I can't see any obvious evidence that he's been involved in the previous FAC reviews (Parrot of Doom seems to be the main driver), so what he does with the Floyd articles, if anything, I don't know.

Getting through the FAC review, as far as I can tell, requires research, diligence, and the ability to listen to criticism. If the FAC reviewer say "jump", you better jump. If you argue with them, you'll fail the review. Simple as.

If the ban carries, perhaps we could use getting an article through FAC himself as a condition of it being lifted.

Thoughts? Or this is just too much effort and a waste of time? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is his contributions to the TFA. Bringing articles to FA is highly laudable, but how does it address the issue? This isn't a punishment, for which he must do community service to atone, it's to address unfortunate interactions that have helped to lose us a valuable editor and friend. If your concern is that he might not be able to edit his own TFA, I think it would be a common-sense exception that could be addressed once the article was scheduled or nominated for scheduling at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've read that slightly differently to what I intended. The idea is that the act of getting an article to FA and through the review will hopefully make him understand what sort of constructive debate is required, and he'll realise that pushing back on things, even when he's sure he's right, isn't necessarily useful for a collaborative environment. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The concept of learning through walking a mile in the other guy's shoes is always attractive. My concern is that in real life, human nature usually intervenes somewhere along the line. Perhaps others feel differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Andy actually does understand, why the (infobox on classical TFA) timing was bad. Which is why I was suggesting an "acknowledgement" was needed, earlier.

There are logically two possibilities. Either:

1. Andy does understand, and is being tactical/stubborn. He is refusing to admit anything, because he doesn't want to "give an inch, lest they take a mile". (In this instance, he doesn't want to let the "article/wikiprojects can decide for themselves" infobox-precedent stand un-protested, for fears that it will spread...)
   • Possible Solution: He needs to recognize [acknowledge] the perspectives/points of other people, when the disagreement is nuanced / ambiguous / non-clear / subjective, just a bit more often. [he very very rarely does, which is part of why his conversations often become "adversarial".] It would also help if he spent more time editing his choice of words, avoiding divisive and inflammatory words as much as possible. ("straw man", "duped", etc). It will take longer, but work better.
2. Andy does Not understand the problem, due to non-neurotypical thinking, or similar.* If this is the case, then there are only two possible solutions:
   • Last-resort Prevention: community sanctions of some sort. He literally cannot be reasoned with in some cases, and in those cases we need a damage-control mechanism. (Like the 70+ biographical Featured articles without infoboxes, and hundreds of nonfeatured, that he'll eventually make his way around to (but "non-systematically" per the rfc).)
   • Possible Cure: find someone who can re-explain certain-things, in a way that does make sense to him, when he gets into a battle like this. (Wherein he sincerely doesn't comprehend the legitimacy of the other points of view.)

• *Note: I was reading this excellent essay (mostly by Pesky) recently, plus a number of books that touch upon similar topics and situations.**
• **Note2: See also: Exformation as brilliantly explained by zefrank. Our discussions (here, and throughout Wikipedia, and throughout life) are overflowing with exformation. It's a useful thing to understand. The newcomers don't have any exformation, and the oldhands have too much!

I earnestly hope that this framing of the situation will help. It's in the gray-zone of too-personal, which we usually and officially steer clear of; but it's a systemic/widespread set of problems (miscommunications that escalate), and if we can create a positive-outcome here (for everyone), then it could be immeasurably helpful in the future.

[I've done my best to keep this as short/compassionate/polite/impersonal/nuanced/short as possible; apologies for any/all missteps; choosing the 'best brief' words is hard (I've spent three+ hours refining this single post). We should be able to keep everyone editing, with more understanding all-around.] -- Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

111.125.108.86 and 111.125.108.94

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

---

Resolved

 – First IP blocked for 24 hours

111.125.108.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP today
111.125.108.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP on 14 Aug 2012
Seems to be creating significant damage. Some edits are constructive, but much is not. Does not leave any edit summaries to help understand the IP's reasoning. Examples of strange edits: Aquino III, of the Philippines, and of Presidents of the Philippines says that Aquino as been succeeded by his predecessor Gloria Macapagal Arroyo which does not show up with some googling. A number of edits change a DVD cover image from "DVD cover" to "theatrical release poster" even though the image has "DVD" visible. Changes a number of football (soccer) clubs to/from Oceanic and Asian. There have been over 100 edits by this person today. I have been reverting much of the changes, but I am a bit overwhelmed and signing off for the day. Can someone else please check the IP's changes? Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a wp:AIV on 111.125.108.86 who has not edited since 08:56, 17 August 2012 Jim1138 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked that one for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Metropolitan90

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

---

If this user wasn't an admin I wouldn't bring this up here and I'd just talk to him about it. However, he is one and the way he acted is totally uncalled for. Let me start on how this started. I made an honest mistake that no one corrected me until you he did. I thought it was pornographic actors AND models not pornographic actors and pornographic models. Basically it was a reading error on my part.

Instead of just correcting me and saying Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Pornographic actors and models is for pornographic models and not regular models, he tagged me for a level 3 disrupted editing and said I'll be blocked if I continue. Completely ignoring WP:Good Faith.

This is not how an admin and it shouldn't be repeated ever. It needs to be dealt with so this admin doesn't continue to flaunt his power like that. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the things that makes new editors leave (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Because this is a WP:BLP concern (calling a model a porno model), I can see why it was ramped up to a level 3 warning. Not what I would have done, but I can see why someone else might, not knowing it was simply a facepalm moment. I have been given a number of warnings over the years, most of them completely bogus and dished out by IPs who were completely clueless. I've also give out a few that were completely in error. I don't even bother deleting them most of the time. Just yesterday I gave a level 3 out, then discovered I was wrong, and did a rollback on myself. Over the years, I've probably left some that were incorrect before and didn't catch them. I suggest just explaining on his talk page that it was an innocent mistake, and just move on. You made a mistake by adding names to a controversial list, he made a mistake by assuming it was vandalism, but the big blue marble keeps spinning. We all make mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you've been editing for three years, so you're not a newcomer. We certainly shouldn't bite newcomers, and this is bitey behaviour, but it's not biting newcomers. Secondly, you are correct that it was a significantly OTT reaction to an honest mistake. Thirdly, taking it to ANI is no less of an overreaction, especially given that it was a rather silly error to make (twice). Everyone shake hands and forget about it, and let this be a reminder to everyone that a friendly (or at least not obviously aggressive) question on a talk page is a better response to a problem than templates and ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm newcomer, just pointing out this is the stuff that makes new ones leave.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead

User:Stellabystarlight keeps edit-warring on article Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead. She appears to be a family member of the artist in question. She keeps deleting material about an edition of the album released in 2010, alleging (without any sources) that it was a "bootleg" and instead adding information (and a commercial link to Amazon) about a rival 2012 release. [79]. --feline1 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that this editor has previously been warned regarding a conflict of interest in their editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stellabystarlight#Conflict_of_interest --feline1 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Are there any reliable sources for calling the Harkit release a "bootleg"? That's a particularly serious accusation which could be legally problematic if it isn't true--I don't know either way, but as it's essentially an accusation of criminal activity it shouldn't be done here without some very solid sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew and the main page featured articles

Jack Merridew, user:Br'er Rabbit, has been harassing me for the last six months or so. This is continuation of the same behavior (harassment and sockpuppetry on a grand scale) that caused him to be sanctioned by the arbitration committee for the last six years or so.

For the last few weeks, it's gotten especially bad at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests‎, a page which exists for the sole purpose to help me coordinate requests for main page featured article scheduling. Jack has been trolling there something fierce over the last few days.

I removed some of his trolling from that page, and he began revert warring with me. So I've taken the unusual step of arbitrarily banning him from that page. I've removed all of his posts to that page, and protected the page until he's dealt with.

I know I'm not the only one he's harassing. He seems to go from harassing one person to the next with alarming frequency. I think it's about time we discussed a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that an interaction ban could be a more helpful alternative. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it keeps him off the FA pages, that's fine where I am concerned. It doesn't really help the other people he continues to harass. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

better to fix the FA process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FPP for snarky remarks? Not consistent with involved, and since when can a single admin declare a ban? Nobody Ent 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(misuse of tools;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Full protecting the page on which you are having a dispute with another editor is not supposed to happen. You have used your tools inappropriately here, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - using admin tools in a dispute in which you are clearly involved is an abuse of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, at least Raul didn't simply block Jack. I agree that he has gone overboard with the full protection, but it is also obvious that Jack is both disrupting the process and acting in a fashion designed to piss Raul off, likely to make a WP:POINT. I think both need to back down here. Resolute 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it.

And I did it not just because of the snarky remarks -- it's that he's graduated into actively subverting the rules (rescheduling featured articles himself [80]) and encouraging others to do likewise [81][82]. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The discretionary powers of the FA director cannot extend to the abuse of admin tools. Not gonna happen. -- Dianna (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being FA director does not mean you can ignore the admin rules that the rest of us have to abide by. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA pages don't operate like articles do. It's not abuse - it's reasonable discretion. And note to anyone reading that DIanna has been one of Jack's long-time apologists. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean I'm wrong. -- Dianna (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I respect the job you do, but man, you've gotta accept that you've overstepped yourself here. Please reverse your protection. The only thing you are accomplishing here is to let him bait you into becoming the focus of attention. Resolute 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with unprotecting the requests page provided other measures are taken to curb his trolling. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rules regarding the use of admin tools are not restricted to their use on article pages - they apply to all pages. And you don't get to impose conditions before you agree to follow the rules regarding use of admin tools - you need to reverse your abuse of the tools unconditionally, and then *ask* for help, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict x4) Just looking over this case from afar, I can see a case to be made that Raul's removal of Jack's comments and subsequent lock of the page meets the "only involved in an administrative capacity" exception given by WP:INVOLVED. However, indefinitely full-protecting the TFA requests page because of one user's conduct seems... unwise, to say the least. And I'm also not certain that Raul has the authority to "ban" Jack from the page in question; that would seem to be something that should be decided by the community at large. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The rules regarding the use of admin tools also acknowledge the existence of discretion, like the clerks on arbitration pages, or the FA director on the FA pages. So you can shout "Abuse!" all you want, it does not make it so. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bans can only be given out by the community-at-large or arbcom. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is flatly untrue. Arbcom clerks can ban people from arbitration pages. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

At least in my time as a clerk, we have only banned a person with arbcom's consent. I see us as the messenger. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean from the Arbom pages, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is at least partially incorrect. A lot of decisions have been kicked up to the Arbitrators, but individual clerks have the authority (and probably should use it more) to ban disruptive editors from ArbCom pages. I'm actually surprised here that everyone seems to be against Raul's original premise that he has the authority to remove Br'er from the TFA/R pages. Is the office of FA director powerless? NW (Talk) 09:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Teh Power. Taht wut tihs iz really all about. Wiki is not supposed to be about Power™. It is supposed to be about collaboration. FA is supposed to be about our best. The office should be abolished. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Raul, would a well-structured RfC produce sufficient evidence of disruption to justify a site ban? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Any look at Jack's behavior over the last six years would show an extensive history of harassing others. Whether this would justify a site block in some peoples' minds, I cannot say. Long-term harassment isn't exactly easy to demonstrate in a few short diffs, and RFCs don't have the best history when it comes to long-term compliated misbehavior. And Jack has a pretty well-established cadre of apologists. (Witness this very thread). So I think it's much more likely to turn into a huge time-consuming drama-fest. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be time-consuming, and may not result in a community consensus to site ban him, so that would require then taking it to arbitration. But it's worth doing, if there is enough evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried that in May. The arbitration committee's response was appalling. Essentially, they invented out of thin air exceptions to their own previously imposed sanctions. So the previously imposed sock puppetry prohibition became a green light to use as many sockpuppets as he wants. And when it was shown that he violated what few sanctions they did leave intact, they simple ignored the complaint until it was archived. Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to my comment below, I do think that indefinitely full-protecting this page is a misjudgement. AGK [•] 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it." No, you don't, and no you can't. You don't WP:OWN the FA pages and using your tools in a dispute you are involved in is a clear abuse of admin tools. ArbCom have just desysopped someone for less. There are processes to deal with disruption and that isn't it. You should have come here first. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• And you also need to stop spraying the word "apologist" around as well. WP:NPA applies to the FA director as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am on the record as supporting Br'er Rabbit's return to the community, and I recused in the most recent committee proceedings which concerned him. Therefore, I do not say lightly that Raul is probably able to exclude editors from that specific page, that in this case he was justified in excluding Br'er, and that Br'er urgently needs to avoid this type of behaviour. Trolling such as that is completely at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. I must confess I am surprised: Br'er usually knows better than many that we are here to build an encyclopedia. AGK [•] 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Disregarding the appropriateness of Raul's actions, comments like this one from Br'er Rabbit seem quite out of line to me. Don't make snarky remarks about other editors, especially not if you're accused of hounding them. It might give those accusations credibility. --Conti|✉ 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• As a regular contributor to WP:TFA/R, I am outraged that the page has been fully blocked (or whatever the term is), and believe that Raul, whom I usually respect, is far overstepping his powers. Br'er Rabbit has often been a useful contributor to that page, and the big deal that Raul has made about him is far too POINTy for my liking. I request, at the very least, that TFA/R be open for editing again. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Temp page protection upon removal of disruption of process pages is arguably legit (per uninvolved) but I don't think there can be a page ban, unless it's endorsed by the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• this is an abuse of both admin powers and the authoritah of the post of Featured Article Director. pablo 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• History or not, admins should not be using their tools in disputes, and not one single page on this entire project is under the unilateral control of a single editor. This is flagrant abuse of both the admin bit and the general sentiment behind OWN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Raul has obviously been involved with regards to Jack/Alarbus/Br'er since the RFC last winter. This is a transparent abuse of tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a joke, right? That RFC was started in an attempt to find areas of improvement. Jack, Wehwalt, Dianna, et al hijacked it to try to replace me. The community sentiment was 90% in favor of keeping me. Since teh RFC didn't go his way, Jack decided it didn't matter and he would simply ignore the result, which is why he's now trying to do the scheduling himself and encouraging others to do likewise. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The long-term history is irrelevant anyway. You two edit-warred at that page and then you locked it in your version and removed his comments. A clearer example of using admin tools when involved I don't think I've ever seen. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That's false. Show me where I ever said that I wanted Raul out of office. What I said is that the Featured Article Director should do more than he does. Which at present seems to be picking the daily article and engaging in heated discussions, see here. I was expressed no preference as to whether that was Raul or someone else, so long as more was done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • His long term misbehavior is certainly relevant to this discussion. And as has been previously stated, the rules and established precedents allow certain people to have wider discretion on certain pages, ala the arbcom clerks. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Please feel free to indicate exactly where it is stated that you are allowed to circumvent protection policy on certain pages, otherwise undo your protection and then the community can discuss your original point instead of your actions. AFAIK the only situations where a single editor can impose page bans are your example and also on pages where general sanctions are active. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
          • The FA process has always operated with a great deal of directorial discretion. If you need this written down at the top of the FA administrative pages, I will be happy to oblige you. Raul654 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I'd suggest you'd need a community policy discussion to alter WP:INVOLVED first. No-one is saying that the FA director isn't influential at those pages, but that does not extend to IAR'ing policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
              • As has already been pointed out like 15 times on this thread, the involved policy explicitly excludes administrative involvement. 'Involved' does not apply when someone sets out to troll the administrator. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
                • I count at least eight admins here disagreeing with your interpretation of that policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Balls. You feel that you are being trolled so you make up your own rules? pablo 23:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • @Raul § 23:19: Be that as it may, you're still involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of "featured articles", Raul654 is correct about the discretion he has. Jack's known for his provocations, despite being given a clean start on condition that he behave in future. As for Mark, well he's about as trustworthy as they come and has demonstrated good judgement for an extended period. If he's suggesting a community ban my response is that we should consider it seriously. --TS 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust, Tony, I'm honored. But I don't think we should ban Raul. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

While it's nice that you are so eager to bask in Tony's compliment, the "Mark" he was referring to was me. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

_{I wondered what I did to impress him so much... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)}

Arsten, meet Mark-- most folks who know FAC, its history, its functioning, know the man's name. Please stop tossing around terms like flagrant abuse of tools if you don't know the history of the trust and authority that the community has conferred upon Raul to manage the FA process-- trust and a position that has been validated time and time again via RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was a "flagrant abuse", you must have me confused with someone else... Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a whole bunch of editors with a sysop bit have commented on the inappropriateness of the protection, but I'm still seeing "View Source" instead of of "edit this page." Nobody Ent 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• And a whole bunch of others (including an arbitrator who previously supported Jack) have said it's OK. Raul654 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Does having the sysop bit grant them some particular ability to know nothing of the FA process, past RFCs, etc? The protection was not inappropriate-- Merridew has in the past mentioned he planned to intentionally disrupt to challenge authority the community has trusted to Raul to prevent exactly this kind of disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• • There is a clear majority (including AGK) saying that your protection was a misjudgement. Please undo it so we can have a discussion on the main issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Raul, I'm hoping you will undo this yourself, but the consensus here is clear, and if you don't lift the protection, I will. You're letting him make you disrupt your own process. Resolute 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• "This page isn't a community hang-out. It exists to serve a specific purpose -- to help me coordinate the featured article requests If it's going to be a forum for trolling, then it's no longer serving its purpose" what a joke. And what exactly is this alleged trolling? Hot Stop 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• While I don't know much about the background of this dispute, I am seriously flabbergasted to see Raul saying that since he runs FA, he can do what he wants in violation of admin policy. No, you can't - you're an admin and an editor, and you have to abide by the same standards we hold other admins and editors to, even in your fiefdom. If the way the role of FA director has historically been treated has had something to do with why you now think you're not bound by our policies, then maybe it was a good idea for people to try to run an RfC on the topic of that position. I daresay if you stick to your guns here, insisting that you aren't bound by policy like the rest of us, another will be forthcoming rather quickly. Raul, please, take a deep breath and reconsider what you're trying to do here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with Black Kite and Flutternutter here. PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Do whatever you want -- I think I'm going on wikibreak. Raul654 (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I have collaborated with Br'er Rabbit on numerous areas, but I have not been involved in any arguments about the FA process. What is clear to me though is that bad blood has existed between Raul and Br'er/Jack for many years. I am also concerned that I've seen editors whom I respect greatly being put under stress by having very short notification of an article that they took to FA appearing on the main page. The process needs to be helped along and it is quite wrong for Raul to cause problems and then strike out at those who want to see those problems alleviated. This is what is actually being complained about:
  • "This article has been scheduled to appear on 21 August, four days before its 150th anniversary. Was this a random article selection? Hawkeye7, who nominated the other 25 August article, has said he is happy for it to wait" - Tommy20000 TFA/R
  • "I moved it to the right day. The staff can fix the bottom links once they figure this out. This section should be removed, soon." - Br'er Rabbit TFA/R

Br'er fixed a mistake (Tommy's article clearly scheduled for the wrong day) and even pointed out that the bottom links need to amended. In any other featured process, he'd have been thanked for helping out. Somebody needs to figure out why that doesn't happen in the TFA process and then fix it. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to broaden that disclaimer about your typical support of your avowed friend Merridew? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to address the facts that I bring up rather than attempting to smear anybody who doesn't agree with you - the same way you wrongly accused me of attacking Raul in January, when I knew nothing of that RfC? The fact is that you've missed the problems that recent late and error-prone scheduling have been causing. Well-respected editors who have many times your count of featured articles have been getting frustrated about it. When anybody suggests ways in which the process could be improved, they have to put up with your ill-informed haranguing.

Make your own disclaimer first about how you've blindly and uncritically supported Raul, even when it's clear his absence has caused problems. Then you can comment on my disclaimers. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Although Jack/Br'er/(insert name here) can be abrasive at times, he generally has the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Right now I think that protecting TFAR is an overreaction that is doing more harm than good. Unprotecting it so we can discuss this somewhat rationally is a good start, methinks. There may be need for an interaction ban, but Raul should know better than to react like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Moot now, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I hate to wade into this because I always get hammered and don't like being hammered but just have to say that the constant drip drip drip seems to be affecting content editors and the FAC process. If Raul's gone (maybe the desired outcome), SandyGeorgia's gone (maybe the desired outcome), others such as Dabomb and Ucucha, and many more, apparently no longer editing, at some point the question is whether the loss of either key content contributors or those facilitating the FAC process is important to the project. Does a line need to be drawn, or is it okay that we're losing contributors? I dunno, but I do on the one hand see editors such as Casliber pushing content building with the Core Contest, while at the same time see that we're losing editors who write content. Just saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that Raul does have the authority to protect the page as FAC director; this was done earlier this year at WT:FAC. Now, in this particular scenario, this probably was not the best idea, as it locked everyone else out of the page. --Rschen7754 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• If the page exists for the sole purpose of planning FAs, and Raul is the FA director, and a user is making disruptive edits to that page, I don't see a problem with him taking action to prevent that user from disrupting the page. I don't think he's trying to make a grab at power over any user on any page; I see him trying to stop disruption on one page he uses for a specific role he has on Wikipedia. Kcowolf (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a pretty inevitable outcome. Raul is gone, at least for a while. There is nobody to take over the Featured Article responsibilities. And Brer get to continue to disrupt? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Based on the agreement I see above, I ask you all to consider this proposal:

Raul654 (talk · contribs) and Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs), or whatever username he holds at the time, are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other, or commenting in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia.

I think that this should cut down on drama. Feel free to rewrite this as you see fit. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Impractical unless Jack is also topic banned from FA processes that Raul directs. Is that an intended aspect of your proposal? Resolute 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's starting to strike me that we may need to make better provision for when Raul has a conflict of interest in the FA processes. The delegates are good people, but they're his delegates ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with this apparent rash of disrespect for the FA process? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not disrespect, but it shouldn't be an autocracy. It should be based on community consensus, so an arbitrary banning of an editor violates that need for a consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. If an editor screws around with an FA, then he's exercising autocracy and violating community consensus. Or is that not what you meant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm? Definitely not what I meant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)s It amounts to the same thing, as long as Raul is the FAD. And thus is just a restriction on Br'er Rabbit alone, seeing as Raul's exalted position seems to allow him to make it up as he goes along. pablo 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict X100) My first draft included a sentence that said something to the effect of, "due to Raul654's long standing position as the Featured Article Director, this restriction applies to Wikipedia:Today's featured article and all of its subpages." I thought that it was redundant so I removed it. In addition, a delegate can handle a request if Br'er significantly comments on it. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Resolute's observation adequately points out how disingenuous this proposal is given the context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See my comment directly above. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was disingenuous myself as this was a pretty standard proposal for two squabbling editors. It is an unintended consequence that Guerillero may have overlooked due to a failure to consider Raul's position. But even without a formal interaction/topic ban, I hope Jack will realize that his... zealous... actions are causing disruption and voluntarily back off from edits at TFAR other than commenting on nominations for the time being. Resolute 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Or not, heh. Resolute 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that given the amount of bad blood that's clearly (oh, so very clearly) gone between Raul and Jack, some sort of interaction ban is necessary. However, as Resolute points out, Raul's position makes that very difficult to enact. I would hesitate to say that he can't help at FA because Raul works there - this is not a divorce, and we don't "give custody of the children" to one editor and not the other. If Jack wants to participate constructively in FA, he should be allowed to. Same for Raul. Obviously Raul can't be handling Jack's requests, and vice versa - so what can we do here? Bar them from interacting even in FA space, and say that someone else needs to handle FA-space in regards to Jack's requests/submissions/edits? I understand that Raul is basically king there, but even kings must have advisors, regents, and crown princes who can step in if something needs seeing to and the king isn't available. Surely there's someone else who can speak to Jack in the context of FAs? If there's not, and Raul is unable to treat Jack neutrally, then we have a larger problem here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - how about adding User:Mark Arsten as a "facilitator", not a "delegate" but more independent, as Mark is always around and really reliable and wouldn't abuse tools, so he could prevent the situations where 59 minutes notice for main page appearances could be prevented—since the delegates and Raul654 aren't around that much. Then all this friction could be prevented. Just a suggestion, as I don't know the right procedures. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and could also deal with the situations at TFA, FAC, and FAR where Raul has a conflict of interest. For example, Raul's article, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima recently passed through FAR and lost its star. Deciding the director's article was no longer worthy of the star must have been uncomfortable for the delegate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me, guys. The position isn't something that particularly interests me, but I'm willing to help if the community sees a need/people think it's a good role for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Interaction ban is unnecessary and almost unworkable. Why not all admins from this point on consider this a Delicate Situation and consider a (1) Low Threshold for Blocking for gratuitous Snarky Comments or Disruptive Conduct, and (2) Low Threshold for notifying the Arb Committee for Use of Tools while involved? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, evenhanded. On the one side "give us a call" and on the other "block for snarky comments".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much from anyone, not just Br'er. The situation has inflamed tempers. Sarcasm isn't helpful either. The above discussion has pretty clearly delineated appropriate admin conduct from this point onwards so obviously any repeat will head our way. Yes, the FAR on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima might have been uncomfortalbe but due process was followed, so I am not sure what your point is in raising it. I am ok with Mark Arsten facilitating.....or really any admin can keep an eye on proceedings really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to have someone designated for the situations I mention. I think the point is clear: the delegates derive their office from Raul and so it would be helpful to have someone for those cases, especially in close cases, which Iwo Jima was not of course. As for the sarcasm, I do see your point, but I also read your comments about Jack in the arbcom leaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Meaning what? He's aware of my concerns (which presumably you are referring to) - I am trying to work with the positives of what he has to offer (which is alot), before this gets out of hand and everyone calms down. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Raul has misused tools re myself. He overrode admin actions of both Amalthea and Wehwalt regarding my user pages and blocked over their declining to. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Featured Article topic ban for Jack Merridew would resolve this problem efficiently. --TS 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So would any manner of weaponry. However, neither would be appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A FA topic ban for Merridew and his socks is long overdue, but it should be understood from the outset that there are about four other editors who will consistently and always have spoken for him, regardless of his sock status, so coordinated editing must also be accounted for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We certainly need a facilitator right now, as Raul has announced a wikibreak and his sole delegate has not edited since the 27th of July. Mark Arsten is an admin, he's level headed, he's familiar with FA. This is a good idea, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean for TFA? As far as I am aware, the other FA processes seem to be running... --Rschen7754 01:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bullroar. Diannaa, you have been as involved as involved gets in these attempts to unseat Raul and install your preferred delegates regardless of their experience-- please hold your horses, the man isn't dead yet. Should another delegate be needed, that discussion would happen at FAC where some folks who actually know how the process works tend to congregrate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you've been on vacation, some folks who know how the process works have voiced support for a new delegate. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; the different sectors have different delegates; promotions, reviews, featured list candidates, etc. For quite some time now, the only task Raul has done personally is select the daily featured article. -- Dianna (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured lists are not part of the realm. They are proudly democratic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We have articles selected for a week in advance, and we also have some emergency standbys, so this sin't an earthshatteringly urgent situation, but I'd be happy with Mark too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"proudly democratic" - Wehwalt, that is not helpful here. Can we try and bring everyone together without extraneous stuff? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's no secret that I support making the FA processes democratic. That's what I said in January and I've seen nothing to change my mind. But I agree, let's push on.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Say, something like this. That Mark is the FA facilitator, empowered to act in the event of a COI or in the inaction of the director/responsible delegates (i.e. the late notifications). That we'll let pass what happened earlier and hope that everyone will keep the peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Creating an FA facilitator to act in cases of "COI" (defined how, exactly?) seems like a significant change to the FA process. This probably isn't the right venue to propose substantive changes to the FA process, especially as it was just recently affirmed in a large RfC earlier this year. I don't see others raising COI as a concern here, and in the case you mentioned it seems that Raul's article was de-featured - which rather suggests that COI isn't a barrier to objective assessment. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this is not the place for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then I'm not sure we can do much more here, and I guess we will see what happens next.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All Raul needed to do was the standard procedure whenever there's a hint of involvement—ask another admin to review and act if necessary, in their opinion. This system is looking very fragile if it blows up because of one difficult editor. Everyone get a grip and move it back into good working order. And could I add that this shows up the weakness of policy in the area of alternate accounts; I had a push to tighten it a few years ago, and ironically it was admins who resisted. Talk about making a rod for our backs. Tony (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus on who will prep the TFAs if Raul doesn't return in time and his delegates are not active? If no, I'll help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticise arbitrary Power™ and get teh stomp? That would be convenient... for Raul. The issue here isn't my comments, it's the underlying issue of old-guard cabalism. And his being retired in place. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see complaints about Power and that FA should Not be an autocracy. Sorry, but no. The only relevant question to this noticeboard is whether Br'er and Raul are capable of interacting; they obviously are not. We have discussed this subject for quite long enough. Please ban them from interacting with one another, then close this thread. AGK [•] 10:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You've heard my comments on interaction bans before. They're a no-contact slow-dance. They actually tie users together. Mostly they're about avoiding addressing the underlying issues. They're a failure of dispute resolution. My criticisms are spot-on. The Emperor has No Clothes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• An interaction ban would be a de facto ban on one party from the TFA process, and so I oppose. (And AGK presents a false dichotomy - though Wikipedia is not a democracy, it also isn't supposed to be an autocracy) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• We really need WP:AUTOCRACY. I think its jest when we call Jimbo the ultimate overlord, but if autocracy is allowed here then... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's what WP:VESTED is (supposed to be) for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is a long history of antagonism towards Raul654 from a small group—that is to be expected as FA generally involves skilled editors, many of whom are high achievers in real life and who may not be able to get along with other opinionated people. Br'er Rabbit is expert at using casual chat to needle opponents, and when editing as Alarbus was part of a small group pushing wildly against consensus at WP:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. Wikipedia is not an exercise in fairness or free speech, so the issue is quite simple, and boils down to this: Does it help if Br'er Rabbit continues to poke Raul654? Since Br'er Rabbit's criticisms consist of slogans with no content (see this discussion and the RfC), the answer to that is no, and there is no need for Br'er to interact with Raul, so support interaction ban. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing about Encyclopedia that implies a front page or featured articles. It's supposed to a reference work. It's not like I go to look up caterpillar and say, oh, it's not a featured article, I'll go read star instead. To the extent Wikipedia works on a sort of follow your own muse principle, if editors want to challenge and encourage themselves to push the writing above average, that's a good thing. Alternatively if folks want to standardize the separator between Mexican and American, that's fine. The fineness stops when such activities become disruptive to the project as a whole. Given that there are two high churn threads going on related to FA -- the Rabbit/Raul and Andy Mabbett on top of the page, where behavior that would be fine elsewhere on Wikipedia is a big deal because it involves FAs, we ought to take a step back and assert the the needs and norms of the project as whole are what's important, and no subgroup, however passionate or filled with high Wiki-cred editors, gets to have their own set of rules.

Since Raul appears to be unwilling play nice with the Rabbit, I endorse the concept above the Raul recuse himself from interactions with BR and Mark Arsten (or someone else) sort out any TFA concerns raised by BR. Nobody Ent 12:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. FWIW, I've worked a bit with Mark Arsten (and Crisco 1492, who similarly offered to play a role in FA), and think either (or both) would be a fine addition to the process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason Rabbit can't follow his muse elsewhere? If the community has set up a process, and the community has asked a volunteer to manage that process, and another user wants to help, but the first does not find it helpful, why shouldn't the second user just go help somewhere, else? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that Jack/Rabbit's recent attempts to help out at TFA were prompted in part by complaints by some FA writers about late notice when their article was TFA. Raul has said that he realizes there is a problem and will work to remedy it, though, so hopefully there won't be a need for anyone else to help out. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't have editor hierarchies here, no matter how much some people seem happy to go along with them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest a "hierarchy." Wikipedia does, however, have processes and different ways of managing particular processes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You did, although inadvertently. Some of those processes are robust and others have single points of failure. When you create a process where that single point of failure rests with an individual, then you create a hierarchy, whether you intended to or not. Wikipedia works best as a collaborative system. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The community consensus is in control, regardless. As I understand it, some of that was tested last winter in an RfC. But one user, saying to another user, in effect, 'you are failing my standards of properly managing your responsibilities', and the other user replying: 'no I am not, you are interfering with my ability to properly manage within my assigned duties', is not a hierarchy. It's a process disagreement, which needs a process solution, which is usually done by customary usage, in the absence of other valid methods being employed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is all fine; however the next step -- the FPP and declaration of a ban, was not. Nobody Ent 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I view it only somewhat differently. Those actions by Raul are serious and evidently wrong but he reversed (however reluctantly) after reporting them to ANI (and stating his reason was to protect the process page); We want admins to self-report such things to ANI; so, the question is whether there is anything we can do here to address the underlying unfortunate series of events. It looks like we cannot, here, at least. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with hierarchies. They're everywhere. We recognise competency and delegate decision-making to those that demonstrate it, all through every aspect of life. Raul has demonstrated his competency. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's true, he set it up competently, in 2004. What about the manner in which he, as Alan puts it, demonstrates "different ways of managing particular processes" today? Can you opine as to that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to. I read the RFC. I realise you disagree, but the arguments at the RfC in favour of Raul continuing in the position were compelling. I was convinced. And the vast majority of editors there, most of whom were familiar enough with his performance to be able to make an informed judgment, endorsed that view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Raul demonstrated a lack of competency with the FPP, ban declaration, and opening of the ANI. Nobody Ent 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That was then. There have been significant changes since then. Certainly the present threads raise concerns which may affect the feelings, especially when you consider that Br'er is not a troll, but has probably done more to improve the technical side of FAs than anyone else in quite a long time. The argument then, as was widely accepted, was that things were running smoothly, there was no reason for a change and that an autocrat who administered fairly and remained above the fray was preferable due to the nature of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Things certainly have changed since then. When I expressed my view at that RFC I was considering the FAC process, not TFA, and I've got more than a little tired of receiving 59 minutes warning of an imminent TFA. Added to which SandyGeorgia did almost all the heavy lifting both at FAC and at TFAR, but she's no longer around. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen complaints about lack of warning on TFAs but couldn't tell how significant a problem it is. I don't think I've read your thoughts on what to do. Do you have any suggestions? (I wish I'd seen your post before I proposed a topic ban just below.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly rocket science. The only TFA delegate is Dabomb87, who hasn't been active for almost a month now, and Raul is largely an absent landlord. This whole topic has more than a slight odour of shooting the messenger IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indulge me. What's the way forward? It might be obvious to you but it's not to me. Do you favour replacing Raul, appointing new delegates, both or changing the system? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What he said, on both. I am hoping for the appointment of someone who can get in the middle, and whose job is not at Raul's pleasure.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity Wehwalt, can you be more specific about this. Do you want a new RfC? Do away with the existing delegates? Personally I'm upset to see the number of editors we've lost since last January and carry a huge amount of guilt because all of this seemed to blow up with my dispute with Alarbus, but I'd like to see concrete proposals instead of complaints. Bridge mending is more constructive than bridge building and a lot of bridges were burned during the winter, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote what I meant. That's what I'm looking to do. In the future, I'd like to find a way to make this whole thing less dramatic, so we don't have to have conversations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what you've written is cryptic. Perhaps it's so unintentionally or maybe I'm just stupid, but what exactly, clearly, do you propose? And how do you propose going about it? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted a simple proposal to help the process, it would be easy to ask Brianboulton to take on some of the work that Sandy and DaBomb have been doing. If you wanted a radical proposal, I'd ask Malleus to do the same and simply give him admin status against his protestations. Considering how much he's been on the wrong end of admin actions over the years, there's nobody I'd trust more to know how to avoid abusing the tools. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd Support that in a heartbeat. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lovely suggestion about Brain Boulton there from folks who haven't been paying attention-- those of us who do and have, have spoken with Brain many times already. Can we stop speculating about the FAC process, which is nothing more than another attempt to disrupt a process which is functioning fine by the same crowd that did it less than a year ago? And why is this discussion about the FA process being held here without the involvement of FA people, and driven by the same group who seeks to unseat Raul via disruption, when they know multiple RFCs have already favored Raul's leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

FAC isn't the issue here, Graham and Ian are doing a stellar job running things there. It's not that people want to unseat Raul, it's his inactivity that has been the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously my question isn't getting across. Personally I'm not at all in love with the TFA process, so could care less. But is the discussion to change TFA being held here, now; will it be held elsewhere; and why are names being bandied about (no problems with Brian and Malleus) but it all seems so out-of-process. Just wondering whether there is a process, whether a process will be put into place and how. That's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

/I/ suggested to both Brian and Mally that they get more involved (and that is a lot of why we're here). Others have made such suggestions; Wehwalt, Rex, you. MarkA and Crisco have been suggested/offered. Really the only one with a problem with that is the guy that's disengaged, getting way behind, offering no leadership, and is abusing tools in a battleground manner. The FA process without him would improve considerably and quickly. Who's going to bell the cat? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been here long enough to understand exactly if a process is needed and if so what the process should be. What I'm wondering is whether AN/I is the place to make these decisions? Or run another RfC? Or maybe have someone knock on Dabomb's door and find out whether he's coming back. It just seems to me like decisions are being bandied about and people jumping on them quickly. To be honest, we need to be smart about who is in charge of TFA - it involves some sort of logic in terms of choosing pages, writing skills for the blurbs, and a daily commitment. I'm not sure this is the place and the manner to make these decisions is all I'm saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been here plenty long. How many processes on wiki have a director? One. We don't need one person, we need collaboration, cooperation. We need good logic, like running Olympic games the day they open, logic like running train stations on the 150 anniversary, not four days before. A group that doesn't slack and not put stuff up until hours before it's live, who make a daily commitment and don't take wikibreaks when their misuse of tools is called. That's all I've been saying. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, we seem to agree. In which case maybe all this churning achieved something? Truthkeeper (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what makes it all so interesting...Modernist (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As TFA has absolutely nothing to do with the FAC process so far as I can see I don't see why it ought to be within Raul's remit anyway. And as TFAs in my experience simply cause aggravation for their editors by and large I'd be quite happy to see them disappear from the main page altogether in the proposed main page redesign. So I'm not so bothered about whether an additional TFA delegate is appointed or "democratically" elected, but clearly there needs to be one. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Would it be true to say Jack drove Sandy off the project? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea; it may have been a factor, but I doubt it was the deciding factor. You'd have to ask Sandy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack's last interaction with Sandy was on Talk:Sean Combs. Who was trying to drive who where, I leave as an exercise for the student. -- Dianna (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is typical incorrect information that I have come to expect from Diannaa, which is the norm for these Alarbus/Merridow sock farm discussions and the usual band of supporters (Wehwalt, PumpkinSky aka Rlevse, recently Crisco and Arsten). The Sean Combs situation, by the way, was a continuance of Merridew's long-standing issue with Gimmetorw. Post-data: no one drove me off the project-- I'm enjoying my summer but not missing any of these usual antics, which I watch, and for which the same crowd always appears ... the six or eight of them travel together, consistently. Re AnthonyCole, below, yes, when Alarbus and PumpkinSky turned up at FAC (and eventually DYK) where they harassed Raul and disrupted the process, were joined by this same group of supporters (Wehwalt, Dianna, in a bid to install Wehwalt as FA director), yes, we knew they were socks (no one BUT socks and this handful of six had an issue, and the agenda was to install Wehwalt as FA director) but Merridew and Rlevse had the support of some arbs who stifled discussion and eventually welcomed Merridew and his sock Br'er when he returned, so the disruption was enabled and we weren't able to say or do anything until FOUR DIFFERENT RFC's launched by this same crowd were broadly defeated and Raul's discretion and position were again supported. Why one or two arbs support Merridew/Alarbus/B Rabbit and his socking and disruption is something that will have to be dealt with in the next arbcom elections-- a separate matter. The FAC RFC's definitively yielded broad support of Raul and the way FAC is run with the only naysayers being this very same crowd that is disrupting TFA/R today-- the Merridew supporters. The disruption of the FA process should not be allowed to continue, as it seems to have the same goal as the failed coup against FAC almost a year ago had ... for a small crowd to gain control of mainpage scheduling. The FA process is one in which Raul's discretion has been upheld time after time, and if anything is likely to drive many off the project (and likely already has), it is this newfangled acceptance of cabalism and bands of disrupters, supported by folks who weigh in at ANI who don't have the background or take the time to review the history before opining in ways that will undermine longstanding well functioning processes. In the past, before several good old fashioned cabals were dealt with by the arbs, at least the cabalistas knew how to write articles and were concerned with content-- now the unbridled drive for power that we see surfacing in roving bands on Wikipedia isn't even related to producing quality content-- just power for the sake of power. No interaction ban-- it is time to remove the disruptors from FAC ... four RFC's is enough. Yes, Alarbus, Merridew, Br'er, Rlevse, PumpkinSky et al and their band of supporters have done enough bullying around FAC ... and waterskiing is more fun than engaging disruption, as it's unpleasant to watch this continue. Please remove Alarbus/Merridew and all of his socks from all FAC pages, and let's begin to treat the small support group as the coordinated editing that it is-- the recent TFA/R disruption is meant to undermine exactly what makes the process work (Raul's discretion, Alarbus threatened to do this in the past), and has already been addressed via RFC. And Mark Arsten as a facilitator of FAC? Absolutely not ... he is a consistent supporter of less than quality articles, and not someone who has been around long enough to understand how FAC functioned before the recent disruption or how it functions best. Raul has discretion, he is the reason FAC works, this band is most often the reason FAC falters, and those who are saying Raul has acted improperly need to dig up the multitude of RFCs validating Raul's position and discretion. Please review history ... if someone would post it, there's alway a remote chance that 1) folks other than the AlarbusMerridew/RlevsePumpkinSky/Diannaa/Wehwalt crowd will opine (they are all involved up their eyeballs in the long-standing harassment of Raul and FAC) and 2) someone will actually read the RFCs and understand the history before further empowering this crowd's long-standing disruption of the FAC process, where Raul's discretion and authority has been validated mutliple times over many years by the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll do some reading. Any diffs that come to hand without too much trouble would be appreciated. Otherwise I was just going to search project space for "Jack Merridew" and browse through the results. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You go, Sandy! I support the FA director as a special case because I think the FA process is special. Raul should be supported in his wish to run FA without disruption. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When Alarbus turned up at FAC, did everyone know it was Jack from the outset? --Anthonyhcole (talk)

No. Obviously people knew from back channeling, but I for one had never heard of Jack Merridew until quite a while after Br'er Rabbit appeared. Whenever that was. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not clear why you would say "Alarbus"? Do you not mean "Br'er Rabbit"? Alarbus has not edited since March. As to whether "everyone" at FA knew, I dunno. Lots of people knew. Here is a thread at the AC showing that Raul had known Br'er=Jack pretty much since he started editing as Br'er Rabbit. -- Dianna (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think PumpkinSky was involved at FA for quite a while before anybody knew he was Rlevse. Was Alarbus engaging in disputes with people at FA that Jack Merridew had been in dispute with, without telling them he was Jack? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea who Alarbus was until after he was banned, and I also had absolutely no idea who Pumpkin Sky was either. I told Raul about Alarbus being banned - and it was the first that he heard about Alarbus being a sock...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus was never banned, to my knowledge. Are you talking about when Raul blocked that account, some months after the RfC during which Raul had some unkind things to say about Alarbus?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever - after he was busted and stopped editing - until he came back and started editing again under his current name. As far as Raul goes - he can speak for himself...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Jack Merridew never edited any FA type stuff; he mostly edited pop culture, actresses, some political stuff. The interest in featured articles was new as of August/September 2011; he was not in contact with any of the FA crowd before that point. -- Dianna (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the editor in question with the current user name of Br'er Rabbit came into contact with the FA "crowd" when as Alarbus he ran into a dispute with me last November. That began an unfortunate series of events. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. He started improving FA articles in August and September, like I said above. User:Victoria and Albert; User:Portuguese Man o' War; User:One Ton Depot. -- Dianna (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper is correct - it all started at the talk page at Ernest Hemingway; and I pointed out that it was a FA and shouldn't be changed without consensus...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you and Truthkeeper were not the first FA editors that Jack came into contact with; those would be the editors he met when working as User:Victoria and Albert, User:Portuguese Man o' War, and User:One Ton Depot in August, Sept, and October. I gotta go to the gym now, ttyl. -- Dianna (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I never even knew until now that Victoria and Albert was part of this until just this moment, and didn't find out until much later about the others, so that makes me wrong, Diannaa? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Gawd. Good night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Were two or more of User:Victoria and Albert, User:Portuguese Man o' War, User:One Ton Depot or User:Br'er Rabbit ever in dispute with the same editor? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@Truthkeeper: I don't understand your question. Do you want me to tell you whether you were wrong or not? Or justify my edit summary? Not sure what you're driving at. @Anthony: No. -- Dianna (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: How far do we push this interaction ban? If Jack simply comments on a specific request at TFAR, does that thus disqualify Raul from exercising his role as director for that article? Resolute 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove Merridew from the FA process-- four RFCs is enough, the disruption has gone on for almost a year, and the poking and provoking of Raul is intentional, just as it was before the RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unworkable and lopsided. pablo 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Move that Jack Merridew/User:Br'er Rabbit be banned from Featured Article pages

"A Featured Article topic ban for Jack Merridew would resolve this problem efficiently." (Tony Sidaway, above: 01:21, 15 August 2012). I agree with this sensible suggestion. Perhaps the ban could be limited to certain pages that Raul and his delegates nominate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony has been dogging me for 7 years; he's like totally involved ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I've got a lot more reading to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) It looks like you're going to scrape through this one without a ban :). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support This seems more enforceable than the above proposal. --Rschen7754 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify my stance, I am not necessarily endorsing Raul's behavior here, but the proposal in the section above is unworkable. --Rschen7754 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I support this as the "least worst" option. If anyone proposes anything better, I'm open to it. --Rschen7754 05:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't support any movement towards allowing "untouchables" to mandate policy or procedure on an open project. — Ched :  ?  19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Ched. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ditto. Incidentally, this thread is an assertion of authority that the community, not the director, controls access to the FA pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure I can support at this point, mostly because my understanding of their conflict is limited. However, I do believe Jack's actions that led to this latest spat were disruptive, and that for the sake of the TFA process (and therefore the most visible page on Wikipedia), if it happens again, then Jack should be quickly banned from the appropriate pages. But at this point, if he wishes to comment in good faith on TFAR nominations, or discuss the process on the talk page - focused on the process, not Raul - he should be free to do so. Resolute 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I moved a page to the 25th, where it belongs (150th anniversary) noting that the bottom links would need fixing, Raul blanks it but then says he will run it that day and that I "broke" it by not fixing the links (which would be to unknown pages). So, he is going to be restoring my fix... I believe he was just making the point that he owns all of those pages. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Observe Anthonyhcole's bad faith ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) (Tim has said this is not the case)

• Bad faith? You were extremely rude to a friend of mine the other day, and from memory were very involved in adding controversial furniture to TFAs. A lot of people are upset with you and you have been banned from this project. On the face of it, you're awful. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to read your history. I'm going to your own words and actions to decide what to think about you, rather than rely on second-hand reports and block logs. So far, you're coming up intelligent, amusing, somewhat charming and helpful. I loved your signature at that RfA. But there's a lot of reading ahead. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• It would have been better if you had done your reading before you made your proposal. Simply go to the talk page of Br'er Rabbit and count the "thanks" of a few months. Read the changes to TFAR: helpful, correcting. therefore:
• Oppose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair cop. I'll wear that. I was working off a six month old RfC, and some appallingly rude behaviour a couple of days ago that drove a good writer off the project and upset a friend. But there's more to this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That is /not/ true. As the saying goes, you don't know Jack. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Which /bit/? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems to me it would resolve it efficiently, but unfairly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Opppose – (ec) From what I've seen, Jack/Br'er makes good contributions to both FA articles and discussions. Obviously, he also butts heads sometimes, but he's clearly a net positive in those areas. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Blanket bans on anyone for a bit of "incivility" (Whatever that is) is ridiculous. Br'er calls it as he sees it, usually with the good faith goal of actually improving the encyclopedia. If people can't cope with that, they have bigger problems than can be solved here. Tired of people racing to ANI to declare someone persona non grata just because of a disagreement on content, however heated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the sandwich Nobody Ent 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If there's going to be a sanction for a valuable contributor, it should be a tightly focused one. Jack does great work to high-quality pages and generally works very well with content contributors, with a few notable exceptions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I'm sick of his incessant wikilawyering. Bon voyage. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Montanabw and others. Br'er has helped me and I'm a nobody. Is it that he has a sense of humor that gets people's backs up so quickly? (He knows tons more than most editors here. Definitely a net positive, plus he edits daily and doesn't go missing.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Kick it up to the arbs. Merridew is a big problem across Wikipedia, not only at FAC, banning him from FAC will most likely only result in another couple dozen socks from one of Wikipedia's most enduring and accepted sockmasters, and the rest of us deserve to know why the arbs have allowed this to continue-- his involvement at FAC and TFA/R is only one symptom of the broader ill-- his desire to install his preferences Wikiwide, and a testament to the means he uses to accomplish his goals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that may be a viable option. There are serious accusations being flung around going both ways that really need to be resolved in a formal setting once and for all, examining the evidence to determine what is truth, rather than the fast-paced world of ANI where people choose sides based on politics. --Rschen7754 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree that an Arb case would be a good idea given the complexity of the situation. Although I'm sure the Arbs would be unhappy to have their summer vacation interrupted by this. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've taken the initiative to file a case request; let's see what happens. WP:A/R/C#Featured article process. --Rschen7754 09:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, prefer to kick this upstairs to ArbCom to see why they have amused themselves by letting troublemakers have free rein to torment other volunteers who make the place run. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yeah, his style isn't to everyone's taste. I get that, and perhaps he should be a little bit more conciliatory. But I do agree with with several of the above that he's a net positive to the encyclopedia. I for one have been on the receiving end of his wikimarkup expertise in that - without my asking, at least the first time - he updated the references in two of my FAs and my current FAC, along with a couple other articles I intend to work on. And even though we've never really interacted beyond him teaching me {{sfn}} and helping with formatting, all of those interactions have been really positive and helpful. I don't think it would be good for the project to kick him out - plus, my reference formatting would be a mess... ;) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Grudges, much? This would be the opposite of an improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but silencing critics by removing them from the process seems too draconian to me. -- Dianna (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unwarranted. pablo 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly dumb question

Am I the only person confused by the ridiculous amount of accounts operated by Jack, and am I the only one who thinks that a restriction to just one username would extremely helpful in unraveling this mess? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• It would, yes, but enforcing it would be the devil's own (I can name five offhand, and there's dozens). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Partial, those declared mostly — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So what if it's hard to enforce? Let's quote WP:SOCK here: "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. ... Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages (see below), with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them." Where's the expectation here? Where's the valid reason? I'm just as much of a fan of Jack's article work as anyone else, but this is simply disruptive. (I'll also note that he had this exact restriction until he unilaterally withdrew from it... I feel like we would have had many less headaches now if people had actually enforced it) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did not ArbCom restrict Jack to a single account in allowing him to return as Br'er Rabbit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they now interpret that as 'one account at a time', so he can switch whenever he wants. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"He was rounder than the average undergraduate and wore more hats. That is to say, there was just the one hat which he habitually wore, but he wore it with a passion that was rare in one so young" -- Douglas Adams on Dirk Gently. Jack is rather the inverse of Dirk. Perhaps only wore one hat at a time. Sometimes gold. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is why he's back to editing in good standing (much to the furious rage of his enemies). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the furious rage. Whatever. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Undoubtedly things will be unpleasant from that quarter, but when were they ever pleasant?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly dumb diffs

The general talk about Br'er Rabbit messing TFAR made me curious, samples (backwards in time):

• provide missing link
• support
• support
• calculate
• fix
• asking for refs
• correct title
• oppose because of refs
• strike oppose after ref improvements done
• request ref improvements

However, you who spoke up above, probably checked yourself before doing so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Onion hotdog

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

---

Onion hotdog (talk · contribs) apparently created an attack page against Dougweller (talk · contribs) at Metapedia and has resorted to personal attacks at Talk:Roger Pearson. Some attention seems warranted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not an attack page, Metapedia merely records details on race denialist trolls, the same with Afrocentrics, and other promoters of pseudosciences. Wikipedia breaks its own rules on NPOV, by allowing race denialists on race related pages. Onion hotdog (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious from just a glance at Talk:Roger Pearson,that Onion hotdog has proven himself to be quite unable to function as an editor on Wikipedia. NPOV problems, battleground mentality, personal attacks both on- and offsite. I would expect that they are probably socking as well, since the level of dedication against certain editors suggest a much longer editing background than the few edits their contribs list has to show. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that both WP:RGW and WP:Advocacy may be of benefit to Onion hotdog and Teddyguyton. -- Atama頭 21:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:NPA... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've hidden <redacted> a personal attack by User:Onion hotdog on talk:Roger Pearson here and think a block is needed. Vsmith (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Probably qualifies for rev/del. Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That was malicious enough to warrant an "only notice", and I've left a warning, but declined to block at this point. Hopefully Onion hotdog gets the point and this won't escalate further. I'm not going to revdel though, we don't normally do that for an "ordinary" personal attack. Another admin may delete the revision at their discretion. -- Atama頭 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and my warning was in the spirit of WP:ROPE. If Onion hotdog doesn't take a different tack soon, an indefinite block may be in order. -- Atama頭 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I completely agree with Atama, a warning is the answer, and a block will be the next response to a personal attack. A cursory look at their edits makes me wonder if they are WP:HERE for the same reasons as the rest of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. The background is that yesterday I discovered an attack page on me at Rational Wiki (really bizarre page, based on the ramblings of two internet kooks). The upshot of that was that the page was deleted and I was made a sysop. It appears that a relatively new and inactive editor there then created two attack pages on Metapedia (using a different username). One of these was about me, the other a 'list of race denialist trolls'. That has just 4 names, someone on a forum, an editor at Rational Wiki, me, and Maunus. It's hard to believe that Onion Hotdog just happens to be in a dispute with Maunus and me and quoted from the Metapedia attack page by coincidence - he is almost certainly the person who created the Metapedia attack pages. Dougweller (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The metapage was created by a user called "Atlantid" - a substantial part of Onion hotdog's edits have been to insert the idea of an "atlantid" race into various articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, people, but... a warning? Seriously? After this and this, and the creation of the attack pages on those other wikis, I can't think of any reason why anything below an immediate permanent ban could be an appropriate response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I quite agree with FutPerf. This is a troll with a whopping 66 edits, making nasty personal attacks, even if you don't believe he is responsible for the attack pages. I cannot imagine how it harms the encyclopedia to show him the door, nor can I imagine any time when an editor like him suddenly reared up after a warning with an "Ohmigod! I've been so horribly blind and uncivil! I shall now be a productive and polite editor!" Ravenswing 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that is the way Atama chose to deal with it, so that is how it should rest. I'm sure there's no lack of watchers (including me) ready to pounce with an indef. Much more likely of course is that this one vanishes and another surfaces - but it seems clear that this account will not edit again in the same vein, or at most will get just one more shot... Franamax (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, procedurally. Before Atama commented here, two other editors had argued for a block. Atama was the first to speak about not blocking, and just because he chose to use the words "I decline" in doing so doesn't mean he gets to cut the whole discussion short and make that the final administrative word on the matter. Unless I hear a convincing reason why O.h.'s behaviour did not actually deserve an indef block, I'll make that block in a short while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Behaviour deserves nothing, it is all about actions and outcomes. If the actions continue to produce disruptive outcomes, even once, they will be met with a permablock. I see no hint of leniency here, so why the need for a trophy? They will just abandon that account anyway, and if not, the history is there. I've only ever upped another's sanction myself once when I'd already specified a blocking time in a prior warning. And having been on the other end of other admins messing about with my intentions, I'm on the side of just sitting back and waiting for "told you so" until my (Atama's here) approach is shown wrong. YMMV but what's that meatball link about supporting each other? Franamax (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If by "what's that meatball link about supporting each other?" you are suggesting that Fut.Perf. should have supported Atama, my feeling is that it is more important to support the good editors who were the target of off-wiki attack pages. An indef is not a trophy—it's WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indef isn't the same as WP:DENY. Cleaning up afterwards is. And as I said above, their edits may lead someone to the conclusion that an indef for not being here to build an encyclopedia, but I didn't have time to do more than a cursory look (not the reason they were here). Giving a warning isn't a sign of weakness, btw, and was backed with a rationale by two admins. Using off-wiki reasons to block is not without risk since we don't have the tools to definitely link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's my reason why I – strongly – feel that a mere warning was insufficient: a warning implies that an offending editor could still make good by merely avoiding a repetition of the offending behaviour. This doesn't work here, because this type of off-wiki harassment attack is a burn-all-bridges, past-the-point-of-no-return kind of offense. In these cases, we have victims to protect. Whatever the offender does or does not do in the future, it is imperative that the victim should never again be exposed to a situation where they'd have to encounter or deal with them on this project. This is why, even if the attacker suddenly became a model wikipedian and began spurning out featured articles at a rate of one per day, I would still insist on keeping him banned. This is in fact not an "indefinite" block, it's a permanent, never-to-be-lifted-until-hell-freezes-over block. – Now, you might object and say, Dougweller is a big boy, he doesn't need that kind of protection. Yes, indeed, Dougweller is probably more battle-hardened and cold-blooded than most of us when it comes to dealing with nasty trolls, and his composure during this discussion has been admirable. But it's a matter of principle, and not everybody is as thick-skinned as he is. I can assure you all that if what happened to him had happened to me, and an admin at this board were to tell me that no, he wasn't going to block the attacker immediately, that admin would find himself in a hell of a shitstorm the next minute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Off-wiki attack sites basically only serves one purpose: To intimidate other Wikipedia editors. Such behaviour results in immediate indeffing when it comes to legal threats, and since the purpose with attack-sites is the same as with legal threats, the result should be the same here on Wikipedia. We simply cannot accept editors trying to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nasty blatant troll - nuke with prejudice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave a warning for on-wiki behavior, because nobody has done so anywhere that I could find, not on the editor's talk page, not even on the article discussion page. I'm generally reluctant to block based on behavior when no warning has ever been given to an editor, except for bright-line situations such as a vandalism-only account or a person making a legal threat. I made no judgement about off-wiki behavior. If someone wants to block for that, be my guest. There are other administrators who are more familiar about what's going on off-wiki than myself. I've been accused of being too weak about blocking people in the past, and I'm not surprised that I'm being criticized for it now, but in general if I'm going to make a mistake I'd rather make a mistake in being too lenient than being too harsh. -- Atama頭 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We expect the editors we entrust with the sysop bit to act in good faith, relatively promptly and with good judgement. Nothing about that expectation implies admins should be uniform clones such that two different individuals evaluating the same situation come to the same conclusion. Both approaches presented here -- final warning and indef block are perfectly fine and I would criticize neither. To the extent we also prefer issues be dealt with with a minimum of fuss, it's generally preferable admins defer to first actor except when the action is significantly out of reasonable bounds. Declining to immediately block OH is in no way an endorsement of their behavior nor a indication of a lack of support for DW, it's acting in accordance with the concept that blocks are preventative rather than punitive. I encourage FPOS to defer to other admins in the future in similar circumstances but see no benefit to unblocking OH now. We should support Atama and FPOS and DW and good editors harassed both on-wiki and off; I don't see those goals as mutually exclusive. Nobody Ent 19:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think everyone involved here did a good job.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have no problem with FPaS blocking. It isn't the choice I would make, but my choice was extremely generous and I know this. Fut Perf's choice was more direct but within the range of expected norms. As Ent said, we all have different ways of dealing with issues, sometimes my way, sometimes others, this is normal. Everyone knows that if I genuinely had a problem with the solution, I would say so :) Nothing unusual here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm sure that this is the same editor who created the attack page on me at Metapedia, with a link to my page here which is now getting attack posts. Anyone want to block the latest vandal? Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Merlinschnee

Merlinschnee has been repeatedly inserting POV commentary , half of it written in fractured English, in articles related to the U.S. presidential election. Although he has been careful not to 3RR in any given article, his disruption spans several articles. Mitt Romney: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]; Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012: [88], [89]; Paul Ryan: [90], [91], [92], [93]. I think this pestiferous critter warrants a time-out. Mesconsing (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ҝаҝ җиэнь? Merlinschnee (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the English wikipeida; say again please? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:American Family Association

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

---

It appears that a multi-editor edit war has broken out on Talk:American Family Association concerning the wording of an RfC. I am bringing it up here instead of WP:3RR because it looks a lot more complex than the usual edit war, but if anyone thinks I should go there instead, just let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(Note: I am involved in that Rfc.) All I've seen is arguing about verbiage. I have not seen anyone editing or removing anyone else's posts. The Rfc has about 28 days to run, and the subject is a bit intense for some editors. I don't see any real harm as long as the argument stays where is should, in the Rfc on the talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Seven reverts in less that two hours:[94][95][96][97][98][99][100] Looks like an edit war to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. I didn't see that.. sorry. I had this confused with the similar and related one at Family Research Council. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW there is already a thread started at the NPOV board as well as a discussion on the WP:RFC talk page to seek clarity. For those interested it's a question of can a perceived non-neutral RfC statement be reworded just to address that perception or does it run afoul of touching someone else's talkpage comment. The original statement was not produced by consensus but by one person and I was not a part of the original dispute. The RfC page is clear the RfC statement should be neutral but does not clarify how to address any perception that the statement offered is not neutral. Insomesia (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Let's make this known up-front: Nobody involved in the discussion (and it IS a discussion at this point) asked for this intervention. Guy stumbled across this somehow, offered to help by mediating, then changed his mind and brought it here on his own initiative. (I'm not criticizing, but those are the facts.) There is a single involved editor (not myself) who is AT 3RR (not over), but he has stopped warring and has been working out the disagreement, now that he's received a warning template.

I think it's also important to stress that this is a Talk page, not an article. I see no authority in policy for an editor to unilaterally modify the wording of an RfC against the wishes of the initiating editor. (I believe WP:TPO applies.)

So yes, there was an edit-war, briefly, but cooler heads have prevailed and it's over now. As the user whose RfC was tampered with, I am not, at this point in time, seeking admin action. I suppose it might be useful for a patrolling admin to render a policy ruling on what's to be done about the RfC at this point in time, which has been "adjusted" to suit the desires of an editor who didn't post it and hasn't been changed back. Belchfire-TALK 01:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it the first time and then reverted twice, not sure if that meets 3rr or is 2rr but I'm not interested in warring and your warning to me did not change my opinion that a neutrally worded RfC statement is more important that leaving a pointy RfC statement as is. Had you sought a consensus wording of an RfC statement in the first place we likely would have never gotten to this point. For my part I'm interested in the RfC being neutrally asked so that the best consensus can emerge. Insomesia (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Insomnia has been warned for edit warring. Another revert and the editor could be blocked. Also talk page comments, even RFC comments that you do not agree with, should not be refactored. You should have asked the editor to change or reword the phrase before making the changes yourself.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Insomesia, we differ on interpretation of 3RR here, but that really doesn't matter AFAIC because, as I pointed out, the warring stopped. Your bolded question, above, concisely asks what would have been useful for all of us to know earlier in the day. I'm not sure if we should expect to get it answered here or not, though. Belchfire-TALK 01:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was not looking to see anyone get blocked or even warned. I just want clarity about the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Yes, a clarification would be most helpful. Belchfire-TALK 01:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Refactoring the wording of an RfC is not much different than refactoring someone's talk. If it doesn't change the meaning, like a spelling error, or if someone uses a wrong name and it was obvious to fix (ie:had the original poster seen it, they would have fixed it themselves) then that is fine. In this case, removing the line "one of its political opponents" probably shouldn't be removed and instead the editor asked about it on their talk page, since it would change the meaning of the question to a degree. I don't find it overtly POV, and I assume there is some truth in the statement, so it is more of a matter of the wording being less than optimal. It is doubtful that the line would change the votes of someone stumbling upon the RfC, as they likely would know the relationship of the two organizations. I don't think removing it is a blockable offense (excepting 3RR violations), but removing it seems as unnecessary as including it, so you approach the editor instead. You can always !vote Abstain, flawed premise if you feel it is biased, but removing isn't really the solution. Bringing it here was fine, it was a legitimate issue to raise, and technically an "incident", so Guy acted proper since there were so many reverts. Probably best if everyone leaves it alone, vote how you want, and not sweat 3RR here, as reverting was misguided but likely in good faith. No reason to make the issue larger than it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. To quote Blueboar (origially posted at WT:NPOV), The issue is being discussed in more depth at WT:Requests for comment#How to handle non-neutral RfC statements. "It has been noted there that linking (the word "neutral") to this policy in that sentence of the instructions was inappropriate... WP:NPOV is an article content policy, and does not really apply to talk pages and RfC. What that instruction is trying to say is that we should not attempt to influence the outcome of an RFC by giving a skewed, one sided account of what the issue under discussion actually is. That has nothing to do with what WP:NPOV is talking about." The original wording has been restored and is also under discussion at the RfC. I consider this closed as discussion is taken place at the two venues; at the RfC itself, and the policies involved at WP:RFC. Insomesia (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Multiple inappropriate redirects, etc

We may need help rolling these back if they are as inappropriate as they look. Giggette (talk · contribs) is new this month and is making multiple redirects with no discussion, including creating at least one new article by moving material to it (again without discussion and also without attribution). It was this unattributed move that first made me notice this, and a post to my talk page galvanised me to take this here. I'm about to go out and really need to also comment on something else here so I'm hoping other editors can look at these and maybe someone can do a mass revert until we get some discussion going either on her talk page or individually at the various articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The user moved List of Roman deities to List of Roman mythological figures without discussion and evidently without reading the article, since it specifically says it's about deities of ancient Roman religions and excludes "mythological figures" in general. I moved it back before I realized there was a larger problem, so I hope I haven't messed up whatever should've been done procedurally. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic. Some of the moves may be ok, but definitely not all of them. Some may be with discussion, but should not have been done unilaterally. The sky god article, for instance, is more than a list. Others, as Cynwolfe noted, are even more troubling. LadyofShalott 17:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Giggette has not made any edits for a few hours, so a block is not appropriate now. I hope Giggette will engage in discussion here upon returning. If, however, they start moving articles again and not discussing, a block will be in order. I am not familiar with doing mass reverts. (I know it can be done, but I've never done it.) LadyofShalott 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, my confusion with the times. Giggette is actively editing. LadyofShalott 17:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some moves are OK?. --Giggette (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I said MAY be. There is enough that is problematic that I'm not sure of any at this point. LadyofShalott 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if these moves are not OK, I just wanted to organized these topics in a template. --Giggette (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not simply title the template "deities" rather than "mythology"? I am now going to move back List of Germanic deities; in that case the problem is more or less the opposite from the problem with Roman deities: "mythological figures" is too broad. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to organized these topics in a template, Did you know you could use WP:PIPING rather than moving articles ? --DBigXray 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait. The template itself alarms me. In addition to not moving pages until you seek consensus on the talk page, I would urge you to consult Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion about you're trying to accomplish overall. If you have to rename articles to make them fit your projected template, maybe there's a problem with your template concept. Many mythology articles are already overcrowded with less-than-useful templates that crowd informative images and take up too much space relative to the text. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Giggette, do you look at the contribution history first before you move an article or take out large amounts of material? If an article hasn't been edited for over a year, you might be able to act unilaterally, but if it isn't moribund than you really need to start a discussion on the talk page, leave a decent period for replies (I'd say wait until the Universities start up again), and only then, if others agree or haven't commented, should you consider acting. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller makes some very good points above here. I acknowledge that there are some significant differences between "man on the street" usage of language regarding mythology and religion, and academic discussion of the same topics. The best way to try to resolve any concerns regarding questions related to that is probably to make some sort of request to move an article first, and maybe notifying one of the more directly relevant WikiProjects. They will often have some editors who have access to a broader range of sources on a topic, and might be able to help ensure that the articles have the appropriate content and names. There are potentially some serious questions regarding a lot of content, but it generally is best to work with others in advance to see that the final results are most consistent with our existing policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Edit filter playing up?

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

---

I'm not sure this is the right place to report this, but I think that the edit filter may be playing up, and generating a lot of questionable false positives. As can be seen from Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, there have been an apparently inordinate number of such incidents in recent minutes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That was me...I managed to block every edit to Wikipedia. Sorry. Facepalm Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Doh! Where's the trout - we are going to be needing it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At least it did block the vandal trolls. (And I don't mind fish that much. :P) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked every edit to Wikipedia? Sounds like a natural candidate for the WP:STOCKS, which already has a similar case in it. jcgoble3 (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I think we have a winner. This is a perfect candidate for stocks, and I will be disappointed if someone doesn't add it. :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. jcgoble3 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I decided to check my own edits that triggered the filter. Why does wikilove trigger the filter and what is the purpose when it doesn't do anything? (None triggered the filter in the incident today) Ryan Vesey 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See filter 423. To quote Erik Moeller therein, "Purpose of this filter: Track usage of the WikiLove tool, both by new and experienced users, to watch for use and abuse. We'll have better tracking tools soon, but right now this is a simple solution to watch what's going on. To reduce impact on patrollers, it merely flags the edits. Please discuss with User:Eloquence if you have comments or questions. Since this filter is in active use by a number of people, please do not disable without discussion." jcgoble3 (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense, I forgot that it was the edit filter that flagged edits. On that topic, can we get an edit filter flag of article feedback additions? They appear in a user's contributions and it would be nice to be able to search someone's edits for them. I discussed this with Oliver Keyes before but forgot about it. Ryan Vesey 13:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So, thanks to you Reaper I now have an entry in my filter log claiming that I attempted to vandalise Pendleton. Thanks very much. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the mistake in the coding. Honestly, though, nobody will believe that you attempted to vandalize Pendleton, Greater Manchester, and nobody is ever going to look at your edit filter log in the first place. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Likewise (same false accusation, different article). These should be expunged from the log. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That isn't possible. Even if it were possible to revdelete them, no admin would do it since it simply isn't worth the time to hide every false positive that occurs in the edit filter. As I've mentioned before, nobody will believe that you attempted to vandalize a Wikipedia page. Calling a message from an automated computer system a "false accusation" that "should be expunged from the log" is blowing things way out of proportion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One (1) serving of trout has been delivered to Reaper's talk page. jcgoble3 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Be happy, Malleus, that you weren't caught in what we shall have to name Reaper Eternal's Catch-422, as all of these poor people were. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the fact that we have more than 423 filters is a problem in and of itself. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a problem spawned by the rule that anyone can edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them are for the useful tags you see in recent changes (or article histories) Things like "large unwikified new article" and "possible conflict of interest" can be very useful. Ryan Vesey 14:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that those very two tags just allowed me to find and tag two articles as G12. Ryan Vesey 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 423 is the total number of filters that have ever been created. The majority have since been deleted, and filter numbers are not recycled after deletion. Only 141 filters remain, and of those, only 111 are currently enabled. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Er... I meant 423 means that that was the 423rd filter ever created. More have been created since, but the other figures are correct. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it thanks. That's still a lot but that is a little better. Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to help out with reducing and consolidating the number of filters, I've been trying to open a discussion on WT:EF with that goal. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll glance at it later. I'm trying to stay away from admin related areas. Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Micronations being added to Category:North American countries

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

---

See Category:North American countries where Alan J. Villarruel (talk · contribs) is adding micronations to this category, and groups such as the Washitaw Nation. I'm off to bed so no time to deal properly but will notify this new user. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fake articles in userspace

They've been reverted by other editors. His userpage says he is 13, but he seems to have experience enough here to construct fake articles in his userspace. See for instance User:Alan J. Villarruel/Interstate 60 where the paragraph starting "One section of I-60 running from Netcong" is copied from Interstate 80. User:Alan J. Villarruel/Eureka Metropolitan Area seems to be just nonsenses, eg " It is the third largest metropolitan area in the Silicon Valley, the first being Los Angeles and San Francisco, ...The metropolitan area's Silicon Valley location, which is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions," (fictional geography etc). Compare with Eureka, California. His own user page mentions Chuckee cheese which rings a faint bell. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and blocked. An editor whose monthlong Wikipedia career already includes hoaxes, nonsense, youtube spam, school-kid silliness, and copyright violation? It's like a terrible disruptive editing variety pack! No thanks. Somebody may want to do an SPI to check if it's a sock of someone, but it's not terribly important to find out who. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A new wrinkle on personal attacks?

Doncram is abusing the agreement reached at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Evil as an excuse to excise my input from on-wiki discussions that he is involved. The referenced ANI discussion started with an expression of concern about Doncram's persistent pattern of personal attacks targeted at me and another user. It led to an agreement that, in order to help Doncram avoid "reacting with venom" against us, Cbl62 would monitor Doncram's edits for 30 days, during which time SarekOfVulcan and I would refrain from criticizing or questioning Doncram's work -- instead alerting Cbl62 to any concerns we might have. In most respects, this arrangement has worked out well. Cbl62 has taken it upon himself not only to communicate with Doncram about issues with his new-article creations (which have been the primary source of friction), but also to clean up, expand, and improve upon some of Doncram's new contributions. Other users, such as Acroterion, have done likewise.

My concern is that Doncram is interpreting this agreement as giving him permission to delete my input from on-wiki discussion pages he is involved with -- in effect, treating me as if I were a banned user. First, he deleted my comments from an AfD discussion that another user had started and inserted a personal attack on me (corrected link here) on the AfD page after I added a note to the effect that my comments were in the history and on the Talk page for the AfD. The second incident involves the article Harmony, Florida, a page that has been subject to significant disharmony between users with strongly divergent opinions. I received an email from one of those users, requesting advice on dealing with Doncram, and not identifying the reason for asking. I looked at the user's contribution history and determined that the user's concern was focused on Harmony, Florida, where Doncram had recently become engaged in article-editing and talk page discussion related to long-standing controversy between editors. After seeing the disharmony in Harmony and the substance of the ongoing discussion there, and having no desire to get involved with another user's interaction with Doncram, I advised the user who emailed me that: "I don't think this is a personal issue, so much as an issue of Wikipedia policy and article-writing." Additionally, I commented on the talk page in general support of the tack that Doncram was taking there, and I notified Doncram by email that I had commented there because of the email I had received. Ten minutes after I commented on the talk page, and apparently before he opened my email, Doncram removed my talk page comment with an edit summary that said: "remove a message, posted in violation of an agreement. Discuss elsewhere, at ANI if you wish. Don't interfere here, pls, don't introduce unnecessary drama here, thanks." He followed that with a talk page announcement about the comment removal that gives the impression that my talk page comment had been some sort of criminal act so unspeakable that it cannot be mentioned in polite company. A little while after that, he sent a reply to my email, in which he specifically forbid me from quoting the contents of his message.

After several years of enduring various forms of character assassination from this user, I was grateful for Cbl62's recent intervention, but I am disgusted to find that Doncram is using this as a new excuse to attack me in a new and different way. I am not a banned user! --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing to avoid interaction, another to impose a self-selected Cone of Silence, and entirely unacceptable to remove comments at AfD. As Orlady notes, I've occasionally tried to save Doncram from overenthusiastic CSD taggers and to some extent from himself, but I lack Cbl62's patience. Agreements not to interact are not a license to expunge other peoples' communications anywhere but in Doncram's userspace. Orlady's participation in the Sons of Norway Building AfD was not a good idea, seeing as Doncram created the article, and it's probably best that she avoid such discussions in the future, but Doncram may not police comments. At Harmony, Florida, both Orlady and Doncram were separately acting in good faith to deal with a problem: there was no reason to remove Orlady's comments. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can't respond in detail now. Quick points. There should be no suggestion that there is a "ban" on Orlady's activities. There is not. There is a voluntary agreement to keep some distance from each other. I would like to see that voluntary agreement remain in place. I do think that Doncram has shown signs of improving the quality of his work in the last 3 weeks and has also been interacting appropriately and collaboratively with other users. The problem is that, when it comes to Orlady, Doncram believes (whether rightly or wrongly) that any criticism from her (as in her recent vote to delete one of his articles) is part of a campaign to get him banned from Wikipedia. For that reason, he reacts vociferously to Orlady's criticisms. I am hoping that with a bit more separation time, this may still work itself out. But I agree that Doncram should not be deleting (or moving) Orlady's comments from AfD discussions or article talk pages or anyhwere else (excpet his talk page). Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I also had a problem with Doncram removing Orlady's comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Norway Building (Minneapolis, Minnesota), but I didn't want to mention it at ANI or make a big issue out of it at the time, mainly because I knew it would grow into another food fight. Unilaterally removing talk page comments or discussion comments seems, at best, a heavy-handed way of trying to enforce an agreement. At worst, it's a provocative maneuver that could completely derail the attempt at compromise that the original agreement was hoping to solve. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, what an unfortunate turn of events. It sounds like the agreement reached was resulting in some progress. I wish that Orlady had concluded that the AfD process will not collapse if one person declined to contribute, and had chosen not to weigh in with a delete !vote for a Doncram created article. Without getting into whether that constitutes a violation of the agreement, it is quite unacceptable that Doncram interpreted the agreement as permitting a removal of comments from a board. I'll go so far as to say that if the agreement did permit this, we would revisit the agreement. Doncram would have been better off to notify Cbl62, who could decide whether Doncram or Orlady or neither ought to be chided. Removal was NOT acceptable.

As for the Harmony incident, had Orlady shown up on her own, it might have been a violation, but when an editor receives an email from a participant, that (IMO) trumps the agreement. But it doesn't matter whether I'm right that it should be permitted, or wrong—it isn't Doncram's remit to remove comments form anywhere other than his own talk page.

I do want to thank Doncram for his involvement at Harmony, Florida. His input was thoughtful and helpful.

Before I propose, I must note that my thanks for Doncram's involvement in Harmony, Florida may constitute a COI, so take the following with a grain of salt:

While I think Doncram was decidedly wrong in removing the comments of Orlady, a liberal dose of AGF would permit me to believe that one might have read the agreement that way, so my suggestion is: TO Doncram - No, absolutely not, and never again. To Orlady: Did you REALLY have to contribute to the AfD of an article created by Doncram? I propose that Doncram agree to the clarified agreement, and we move on.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my commenting on that Sons of Norway AfD was a mistake. My excuse is that when I first looked at the AfD, I mistakenly thought that Elkman had created the article, when in fact he had started the AfD. I probably would never have brought up that AfD again if it hadn't been for the venom that was directed at me there ("a long-hateful editor seemingly ever intent on following and poisoning and wreaking mayhem") and the subsequent Harmony incident. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• The simple solution is that Doncram shouldn't delete any more comments from Orlady, and if he thinks a comment violates the voluntary agreement, notify Cbl62 instead, who can determine and take any action needed. And as for here, just move on without action against him, giving the best of faith that it was a misunderstanding. Since Orlady has already indicated that the comment at the AFD was a mistake, I can assume Orlady understands that avoiding AFD's of articles that Doncram started is best, and that this was a simple mistake. Mistakes were made, nothing got broke, the earth keeps spinning and we just move along and build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that even with the "best of good faith" this should be dismissed as a "both parties goofed" moment. Doncram's response was egregriously inappropriate even if he did think he was being deliberately poked. Editor rehabilitation should absolutely not be allowed to interfere with the betterment of the project, and if Doncram is literally unable to interpret close proximity to Orlady as anything other than calculated malice against his person then there's only really one resolution available. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think Thumperward has a point here, but I still think it might, remotely, assuming good faith, be possible to think maybe Doncram thought he was acting appropriately. Maybe. I myself have difficulty seeing how that could be the case, but I suppose it might be remotely possible. Having said that, I do think that there may very likely be some intent problems here, and do not necessarily oppose any action against Doncram, although I would might favor a perhaps slightly more lenient option of those which might be considered. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My suggestion to move on should not be interpreted as implying that both sides goofed equally. I just don't think either qualifies for explicit admin sanction, beyond the "don't do that again." --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
        • My thoughts exactly. I wasn't meaning to equate the mistakes, only noting that both parties made them and it was better to give a little extra good faith and simply say "don't do it again, you will get sanctions next time". No one is perfect, but this doesn't require blocking, just a warning, imho. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Let me summarize: in a previous ANI incident discussion, Orlady and another editor committed to cease with following and contention and attacks and ANI incidents for a period. To the few editors reading here who are not aware, there is a long history of hatred and contention and following.

I don't know why they agreed to cease for a while exactly, but it did succeed in ending the previous ANI which maybe otherwise would prolong some negative attention for them right then. It puzzled me because I thought they enjoyed ANI reporting and contestation....maybe they were messing with my world-view....but no, here we are at ANI with another ANI report opened by one of them. A few days remain until Orlady and the other editor are released from their commitment and can resume around-the-clock ANI reporting if they wish, I suppose. Orlady violated that commitment several times since, just two of which are being discussed here. By opening this here, Orlady achieves another ANI report, and calls for sympathy for their right to contest and open ANI reports. I'd rather not. It's an interesting-to-some question, what should be done when an editor violates a commitment. I agree/concede that there can be differences of opinion, about what should be done to minimize the damage when they do. I made a judgment in both cases about what to do most expeditiously to reduce the damage and embarrassment in front of new wikipedia editors, etc. Others could judge differently. It's subjective.

What is the point for Orlady of having this ANI repor? Is it to bring attention to the injustice for Orlady of someone taking action when Orlady violates Orlady's commitment? I dunno. Some may want to turn to consequences to be imposed. We could debate what to do the next time that Orlady violates Orlady's commitment. If it helps people walk away, I promise to come back and consider whatever people's opinions expressed here are, before I make some response to Orlady's next violation. If Orlady chooses not to violate Orlady's commitment, we don't have to come back here again for second-guessing one another's responses to Orlady's violations. Whew!

I judge this all to be an embarrassment in front of the new editors watching, and this is unpleasant, and it defeats the purpose of having a ceasefire, to open a new ANI battleground. I suggest this ANI section be closed. Sorry, I don't want to play here, and would like not to reply further. --doncram 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, all I read above is WP:BATTLE. Personally, I WP:AGF'ed across the board. The above shows me that Doncram isn't ready for the community of Wikipedia dangerouspanda 01:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And I concur with that assessment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Doncram, regardless of whether or not you consider Orlady to be in breach of the committment, you do not have the option of removing her comments from anywhere but your talk page. Hopefully this is now fully cleared up for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Conscientious Objection

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

---

To whom it concerns,

Is it possible that I want to be forbidden from Wikipedia, (even requesting deletion of all my account) forever, as a regard of my conscientious objection to be here anymore? (if it's a right here)

If possible, what should I do?

Thanks. Barayev (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • You posted this on my talk page, and I've already answered there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick respond. Checking now. Barayev (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I used the term "Conscientious Objection" allegorically. So you're right, Wikipedia doesn't force anyone to be here. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to actually be blocked, see WP:BLOCKME. To just "vanish", see WP:RTV. Of course, it's simplest just to stop editing if you don't want to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

173.80.105.69 (talk)

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

---

This particular IP, who has already vandalized Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson a few times, keeps on personal attacking User:Reaper Eternal ever since they got blocked, and I informed Reaper Eternal about it, and he relinquished the IP's talk privileges, but the IP still managed to vandalize its talk page with messages like: "Fuck Reaper Eternal Fuck wikipedia Fuck Cluebot NG the only way that you wikipedia fucks are going to stop me is to permantely block my IP address you fucking wikipedia cunts i'll keep posting this until i get what i fucking want and that is a permante block i'm the only user of this IP address hahahahahahahaha." Here are the links to the attacks: [101][102][103][104][105][106]. ZappaOMati 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected for the duration of the block. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'revoke talk page access' tickbox wasn't checked. It is now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:StillStanding-247 Repeated refactoring of other users comments

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

---

1st refactor 2nd refactor

These are just two of the most recent refactor/hatting of other editors comments. S/he has been asked not to do this before. Could an admin please inform her/him this conduct is not appreciated and that s/he could be blocked if this refactoring continues?

User has been notifed.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this ain't cool, but I don't think this is on the level of ANI-worthy (yet), unless I'm missing something. I left a note on user's TP shortly before this ANI-section was opened. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Seb, it's my contention that the remark was uncivil and in no way conducive towards editing the article, but since you're a neutral party, I will leave it alone. LGR is, uhm, not neutral. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And as a side note, the second refactoring was using hat/hab as opposed to slashes. In other words, I was attempting to find a more acceptable way to block off the uncivil remark. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Short of BLP issues, you should not be refactoring anyone's comments. Nor should you be hatting them unless it is on your talk page. If you find a comment uncivil, try to work it out with them. If that fails, take it to WQA, if that fails then take it here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• He also did the same thing on Little green rosetta's own comment page [107] and I'm not sure why he felt inclined to do that either on Little green rosetta's own personal talk page. I've had my comments hatted by Still on his talk page but I never changed it back because it is his talk page as it is his right to do so. ViriiK (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• It's becoming a habit with this guy. [108] Needs to be nipped in the bud. Belchfire-TALK 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Er, in that thread it looks like you made an inflammatory comment (that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a "radical left-wing civil rights group"). A bunch of people asked you (appropriately) to provide reliable sources for that assertion. You responded that you had no intention of providing sources, nor any intention of adding the material to the article, and closed with an attack on the motivations of other editors.

    That's a misuse of the talk page on numerous levels: first of all, the talkpage is to discuss specific improvements to the article. If you don't have any intention of adding something to an article, don't use the talkpage as a forum to discuss it, especially if it's divisively ideological. Respond politely to reasonable requests (like, for instance, that you provide reliable sources). You're correct that StillStanding shouldn't have hatted the comment, but he's not exactly the only one riding roughshod over the talkpage guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't want this to be a pile on. I'd be happy with a "please don't do that again" and have this closed. G'nite.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but when you file an ANI report on me, it's normal for Belchfire and ViriiK to pile on. I'm their special friend. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:NOTTHEM. You refactor people's comments when you're not supposed to do so. There's been other instances of this other than those reported links. ViriiK (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're not blocked. But trying to deflect attention to myself or Belchfire does not change the issue here. ViriiK (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can remove comments from your own talk page, if they are removed in toto, but editing any other comments on any other page is not something you do. The only exception is if there's a serious violation of the BLP policy, but even then you're much better off bringing it to an admin's attention and letting them deal with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we're talking about removing comments, just hatting them. I know I've seen comments and even whole sections hatted on article talk pages before. Could you please point me at the right policy page so I can read up about this? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading WP:TPG#Others.27_comments but I don't see anything about this... StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• little green, I'd love to agree with you, but I cannot. This user simply has no respect for other people's comments. Just look at this - tampering with the diffs in an AN3 report. [109] Somebody should step through the diffs for that entire episode. It's abominable. Belchfire-TALK 05:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Then there's these: [110], [111], [112] As I said, this is a real problem. We could have a little more peace and harmony if it were solved. Belchfire-TALK 06:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that the real problem here is that you guys pile on to anything I'm involved in and do your best to get me blocked. This is getting old, guys. Move on and go edit some articles or something. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue here. You're being derisive now. The issue is that you think it's perfectly acceptable to refactor comments. ViriiK (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We disagree on what the issue is. I think the issue is that you keep trying to get me blocked. You think the issue is that I'm not blocked. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems everybody but you agrees the issue is that you're abusing the hat template, Still. Here's another example: [113] "I object to Still's hatting of my remarks. And have asked him to stop. I have every right to revert him. However I desire that this thread stay focused on the 4 reverts in the blue box above clearly establishing edit warring.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)" What's it going to take if you refuse to listen when people tell you to knock it off? Belchfire-TALK 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Everybody? No, that's Lionelt, who's just one of your guys. I listen to neutral people and to policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. That's pretty simple. template:hat ViriiK (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, you're talking yourself into a hole. Simply do not selectively hat, strike, remove, or otherwise alter anybody else's comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, next time I'll just report him for incivility, not that it'll have any effect. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you. We're done here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Micronations being added to Category:North American countries

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

---

See Category:North American countries where Alan J. Villarruel (talk · contribs) is adding micronations to this category, and groups such as the Washitaw Nation. I'm off to bed so no time to deal properly but will notify this new user. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fake articles in userspace

They've been reverted by other editors. His userpage says he is 13, but he seems to have experience enough here to construct fake articles in his userspace. See for instance User:Alan J. Villarruel/Interstate 60 where the paragraph starting "One section of I-60 running from Netcong" is copied from Interstate 80. User:Alan J. Villarruel/Eureka Metropolitan Area seems to be just nonsenses, eg " It is the third largest metropolitan area in the Silicon Valley, the first being Los Angeles and San Francisco, ...The metropolitan area's Silicon Valley location, which is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions," (fictional geography etc). Compare with Eureka, California. His own user page mentions Chuckee cheese which rings a faint bell. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and blocked. An editor whose monthlong Wikipedia career already includes hoaxes, nonsense, youtube spam, school-kid silliness, and copyright violation? It's like a terrible disruptive editing variety pack! No thanks. Somebody may want to do an SPI to check if it's a sock of someone, but it's not terribly important to find out who. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A new wrinkle on personal attacks?

Doncram is abusing the agreement reached at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Evil as an excuse to excise my input from on-wiki discussions that he is involved. The referenced ANI discussion started with an expression of concern about Doncram's persistent pattern of personal attacks targeted at me and another user. It led to an agreement that, in order to help Doncram avoid "reacting with venom" against us, Cbl62 would monitor Doncram's edits for 30 days, during which time SarekOfVulcan and I would refrain from criticizing or questioning Doncram's work -- instead alerting Cbl62 to any concerns we might have. In most respects, this arrangement has worked out well. Cbl62 has taken it upon himself not only to communicate with Doncram about issues with his new-article creations (which have been the primary source of friction), but also to clean up, expand, and improve upon some of Doncram's new contributions. Other users, such as Acroterion, have done likewise.

My concern is that Doncram is interpreting this agreement as giving him permission to delete my input from on-wiki discussion pages he is involved with -- in effect, treating me as if I were a banned user. First, he deleted my comments from an AfD discussion that another user had started and inserted a personal attack on me (corrected link here) on the AfD page after I added a note to the effect that my comments were in the history and on the Talk page for the AfD. The second incident involves the article Harmony, Florida, a page that has been subject to significant disharmony between users with strongly divergent opinions. I received an email from one of those users, requesting advice on dealing with Doncram, and not identifying the reason for asking. I looked at the user's contribution history and determined that the user's concern was focused on Harmony, Florida, where Doncram had recently become engaged in article-editing and talk page discussion related to long-standing controversy between editors. After seeing the disharmony in Harmony and the substance of the ongoing discussion there, and having no desire to get involved with another user's interaction with Doncram, I advised the user who emailed me that: "I don't think this is a personal issue, so much as an issue of Wikipedia policy and article-writing." Additionally, I commented on the talk page in general support of the tack that Doncram was taking there, and I notified Doncram by email that I had commented there because of the email I had received. Ten minutes after I commented on the talk page, and apparently before he opened my email, Doncram removed my talk page comment with an edit summary that said: "remove a message, posted in violation of an agreement. Discuss elsewhere, at ANI if you wish. Don't interfere here, pls, don't introduce unnecessary drama here, thanks." He followed that with a talk page announcement about the comment removal that gives the impression that my talk page comment had been some sort of criminal act so unspeakable that it cannot be mentioned in polite company. A little while after that, he sent a reply to my email, in which he specifically forbid me from quoting the contents of his message.

After several years of enduring various forms of character assassination from this user, I was grateful for Cbl62's recent intervention, but I am disgusted to find that Doncram is using this as a new excuse to attack me in a new and different way. I am not a banned user! --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing to avoid interaction, another to impose a self-selected Cone of Silence, and entirely unacceptable to remove comments at AfD. As Orlady notes, I've occasionally tried to save Doncram from overenthusiastic CSD taggers and to some extent from himself, but I lack Cbl62's patience. Agreements not to interact are not a license to expunge other peoples' communications anywhere but in Doncram's userspace. Orlady's participation in the Sons of Norway Building AfD was not a good idea, seeing as Doncram created the article, and it's probably best that she avoid such discussions in the future, but Doncram may not police comments. At Harmony, Florida, both Orlady and Doncram were separately acting in good faith to deal with a problem: there was no reason to remove Orlady's comments. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can't respond in detail now. Quick points. There should be no suggestion that there is a "ban" on Orlady's activities. There is not. There is a voluntary agreement to keep some distance from each other. I would like to see that voluntary agreement remain in place. I do think that Doncram has shown signs of improving the quality of his work in the last 3 weeks and has also been interacting appropriately and collaboratively with other users. The problem is that, when it comes to Orlady, Doncram believes (whether rightly or wrongly) that any criticism from her (as in her recent vote to delete one of his articles) is part of a campaign to get him banned from Wikipedia. For that reason, he reacts vociferously to Orlady's criticisms. I am hoping that with a bit more separation time, this may still work itself out. But I agree that Doncram should not be deleting (or moving) Orlady's comments from AfD discussions or article talk pages or anyhwere else (excpet his talk page). Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I also had a problem with Doncram removing Orlady's comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Norway Building (Minneapolis, Minnesota), but I didn't want to mention it at ANI or make a big issue out of it at the time, mainly because I knew it would grow into another food fight. Unilaterally removing talk page comments or discussion comments seems, at best, a heavy-handed way of trying to enforce an agreement. At worst, it's a provocative maneuver that could completely derail the attempt at compromise that the original agreement was hoping to solve. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, what an unfortunate turn of events. It sounds like the agreement reached was resulting in some progress. I wish that Orlady had concluded that the AfD process will not collapse if one person declined to contribute, and had chosen not to weigh in with a delete !vote for a Doncram created article. Without getting into whether that constitutes a violation of the agreement, it is quite unacceptable that Doncram interpreted the agreement as permitting a removal of comments from a board. I'll go so far as to say that if the agreement did permit this, we would revisit the agreement. Doncram would have been better off to notify Cbl62, who could decide whether Doncram or Orlady or neither ought to be chided. Removal was NOT acceptable.

As for the Harmony incident, had Orlady shown up on her own, it might have been a violation, but when an editor receives an email from a participant, that (IMO) trumps the agreement. But it doesn't matter whether I'm right that it should be permitted, or wrong—it isn't Doncram's remit to remove comments form anywhere other than his own talk page.

I do want to thank Doncram for his involvement at Harmony, Florida. His input was thoughtful and helpful.

Before I propose, I must note that my thanks for Doncram's involvement in Harmony, Florida may constitute a COI, so take the following with a grain of salt:

While I think Doncram was decidedly wrong in removing the comments of Orlady, a liberal dose of AGF would permit me to believe that one might have read the agreement that way, so my suggestion is: TO Doncram - No, absolutely not, and never again. To Orlady: Did you REALLY have to contribute to the AfD of an article created by Doncram? I propose that Doncram agree to the clarified agreement, and we move on.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my commenting on that Sons of Norway AfD was a mistake. My excuse is that when I first looked at the AfD, I mistakenly thought that Elkman had created the article, when in fact he had started the AfD. I probably would never have brought up that AfD again if it hadn't been for the venom that was directed at me there ("a long-hateful editor seemingly ever intent on following and poisoning and wreaking mayhem") and the subsequent Harmony incident. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• The simple solution is that Doncram shouldn't delete any more comments from Orlady, and if he thinks a comment violates the voluntary agreement, notify Cbl62 instead, who can determine and take any action needed. And as for here, just move on without action against him, giving the best of faith that it was a misunderstanding. Since Orlady has already indicated that the comment at the AFD was a mistake, I can assume Orlady understands that avoiding AFD's of articles that Doncram started is best, and that this was a simple mistake. Mistakes were made, nothing got broke, the earth keeps spinning and we just move along and build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that even with the "best of good faith" this should be dismissed as a "both parties goofed" moment. Doncram's response was egregriously inappropriate even if he did think he was being deliberately poked. Editor rehabilitation should absolutely not be allowed to interfere with the betterment of the project, and if Doncram is literally unable to interpret close proximity to Orlady as anything other than calculated malice against his person then there's only really one resolution available. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think Thumperward has a point here, but I still think it might, remotely, assuming good faith, be possible to think maybe Doncram thought he was acting appropriately. Maybe. I myself have difficulty seeing how that could be the case, but I suppose it might be remotely possible. Having said that, I do think that there may very likely be some intent problems here, and do not necessarily oppose any action against Doncram, although I would might favor a perhaps slightly more lenient option of those which might be considered. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My suggestion to move on should not be interpreted as implying that both sides goofed equally. I just don't think either qualifies for explicit admin sanction, beyond the "don't do that again." --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
        • My thoughts exactly. I wasn't meaning to equate the mistakes, only noting that both parties made them and it was better to give a little extra good faith and simply say "don't do it again, you will get sanctions next time". No one is perfect, but this doesn't require blocking, just a warning, imho. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Let me summarize: in a previous ANI incident discussion, Orlady and another editor committed to cease with following and contention and attacks and ANI incidents for a period. To the few editors reading here who are not aware, there is a long history of hatred and contention and following.

I don't know why they agreed to cease for a while exactly, but it did succeed in ending the previous ANI which maybe otherwise would prolong some negative attention for them right then. It puzzled me because I thought they enjoyed ANI reporting and contestation....maybe they were messing with my world-view....but no, here we are at ANI with another ANI report opened by one of them. A few days remain until Orlady and the other editor are released from their commitment and can resume around-the-clock ANI reporting if they wish, I suppose. Orlady violated that commitment several times since, just two of which are being discussed here. By opening this here, Orlady achieves another ANI report, and calls for sympathy for their right to contest and open ANI reports. I'd rather not. It's an interesting-to-some question, what should be done when an editor violates a commitment. I agree/concede that there can be differences of opinion, about what should be done to minimize the damage when they do. I made a judgment in both cases about what to do most expeditiously to reduce the damage and embarrassment in front of new wikipedia editors, etc. Others could judge differently. It's subjective.

What is the point for Orlady of having this ANI repor? Is it to bring attention to the injustice for Orlady of someone taking action when Orlady violates Orlady's commitment? I dunno. Some may want to turn to consequences to be imposed. We could debate what to do the next time that Orlady violates Orlady's commitment. If it helps people walk away, I promise to come back and consider whatever people's opinions expressed here are, before I make some response to Orlady's next violation. If Orlady chooses not to violate Orlady's commitment, we don't have to come back here again for second-guessing one another's responses to Orlady's violations. Whew!

I judge this all to be an embarrassment in front of the new editors watching, and this is unpleasant, and it defeats the purpose of having a ceasefire, to open a new ANI battleground. I suggest this ANI section be closed. Sorry, I don't want to play here, and would like not to reply further. --doncram 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, all I read above is WP:BATTLE. Personally, I WP:AGF'ed across the board. The above shows me that Doncram isn't ready for the community of Wikipedia dangerouspanda 01:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And I concur with that assessment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Doncram, regardless of whether or not you consider Orlady to be in breach of the committment, you do not have the option of removing her comments from anywhere but your talk page. Hopefully this is now fully cleared up for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Conscientious Objection

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

---

To whom it concerns,

Is it possible that I want to be forbidden from Wikipedia, (even requesting deletion of all my account) forever, as a regard of my conscientious objection to be here anymore? (if it's a right here)

If possible, what should I do?

Thanks. Barayev (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • You posted this on my talk page, and I've already answered there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick respond. Checking now. Barayev (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I used the term "Conscientious Objection" allegorically. So you're right, Wikipedia doesn't force anyone to be here. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to actually be blocked, see WP:BLOCKME. To just "vanish", see WP:RTV. Of course, it's simplest just to stop editing if you don't want to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

173.80.105.69 (talk)

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

---

This particular IP, who has already vandalized Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson a few times, keeps on personal attacking User:Reaper Eternal ever since they got blocked, and I informed Reaper Eternal about it, and he relinquished the IP's talk privileges, but the IP still managed to vandalize its talk page with messages like: "Fuck Reaper Eternal Fuck wikipedia Fuck Cluebot NG the only way that you wikipedia fucks are going to stop me is to permantely block my IP address you fucking wikipedia cunts i'll keep posting this until i get what i fucking want and that is a permante block i'm the only user of this IP address hahahahahahahaha." Here are the links to the attacks: [114][115][116][117][118][119]. ZappaOMati 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected for the duration of the block. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'revoke talk page access' tickbox wasn't checked. It is now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:StillStanding-247 Repeated refactoring of other users comments

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

---

1st refactor 2nd refactor

These are just two of the most recent refactor/hatting of other editors comments. S/he has been asked not to do this before. Could an admin please inform her/him this conduct is not appreciated and that s/he could be blocked if this refactoring continues?

User has been notifed.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this ain't cool, but I don't think this is on the level of ANI-worthy (yet), unless I'm missing something. I left a note on user's TP shortly before this ANI-section was opened. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Seb, it's my contention that the remark was uncivil and in no way conducive towards editing the article, but since you're a neutral party, I will leave it alone. LGR is, uhm, not neutral. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And as a side note, the second refactoring was using hat/hab as opposed to slashes. In other words, I was attempting to find a more acceptable way to block off the uncivil remark. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Short of BLP issues, you should not be refactoring anyone's comments. Nor should you be hatting them unless it is on your talk page. If you find a comment uncivil, try to work it out with them. If that fails, take it to WQA, if that fails then take it here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• He also did the same thing on Little green rosetta's own comment page [120] and I'm not sure why he felt inclined to do that either on Little green rosetta's own personal talk page. I've had my comments hatted by Still on his talk page but I never changed it back because it is his talk page as it is his right to do so. ViriiK (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• It's becoming a habit with this guy. [121] Needs to be nipped in the bud. Belchfire-TALK 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Er, in that thread it looks like you made an inflammatory comment (that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a "radical left-wing civil rights group"). A bunch of people asked you (appropriately) to provide reliable sources for that assertion. You responded that you had no intention of providing sources, nor any intention of adding the material to the article, and closed with an attack on the motivations of other editors.

    That's a misuse of the talk page on numerous levels: first of all, the talkpage is to discuss specific improvements to the article. If you don't have any intention of adding something to an article, don't use the talkpage as a forum to discuss it, especially if it's divisively ideological. Respond politely to reasonable requests (like, for instance, that you provide reliable sources). You're correct that StillStanding shouldn't have hatted the comment, but he's not exactly the only one riding roughshod over the talkpage guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't want this to be a pile on. I'd be happy with a "please don't do that again" and have this closed. G'nite.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but when you file an ANI report on me, it's normal for Belchfire and ViriiK to pile on. I'm their special friend. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:NOTTHEM. You refactor people's comments when you're not supposed to do so. There's been other instances of this other than those reported links. ViriiK (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're not blocked. But trying to deflect attention to myself or Belchfire does not change the issue here. ViriiK (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can remove comments from your own talk page, if they are removed in toto, but editing any other comments on any other page is not something you do. The only exception is if there's a serious violation of the BLP policy, but even then you're much better off bringing it to an admin's attention and letting them deal with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we're talking about removing comments, just hatting them. I know I've seen comments and even whole sections hatted on article talk pages before. Could you please point me at the right policy page so I can read up about this? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading WP:TPG#Others.27_comments but I don't see anything about this... StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• little green, I'd love to agree with you, but I cannot. This user simply has no respect for other people's comments. Just look at this - tampering with the diffs in an AN3 report. [122] Somebody should step through the diffs for that entire episode. It's abominable. Belchfire-TALK 05:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Then there's these: [123], [124], [125] As I said, this is a real problem. We could have a little more peace and harmony if it were solved. Belchfire-TALK 06:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that the real problem here is that you guys pile on to anything I'm involved in and do your best to get me blocked. This is getting old, guys. Move on and go edit some articles or something. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue here. You're being derisive now. The issue is that you think it's perfectly acceptable to refactor comments. ViriiK (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We disagree on what the issue is. I think the issue is that you keep trying to get me blocked. You think the issue is that I'm not blocked. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems everybody but you agrees the issue is that you're abusing the hat template, Still. Here's another example: [126] "I object to Still's hatting of my remarks. And have asked him to stop. I have every right to revert him. However I desire that this thread stay focused on the 4 reverts in the blue box above clearly establishing edit warring.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)" What's it going to take if you refuse to listen when people tell you to knock it off? Belchfire-TALK 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Everybody? No, that's Lionelt, who's just one of your guys. I listen to neutral people and to policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. That's pretty simple. template:hat ViriiK (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, you're talking yourself into a hole. Simply do not selectively hat, strike, remove, or otherwise alter anybody else's comments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, next time I'll just report him for incivility, not that it'll have any effect. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you. We're done here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

K. Michelle - Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Tassiduous blocked per WP:NLT and email access has been disabled. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I recieved two emails (dated 12th of August - I just checked my mail now) from User:Tassiduous, who has threatened myself via Wikipedia mail, in regards to article, K. Michelle -

12th of August Message #1:

HI, This is K.michelle's PR rep. Thank u for trying to correct this page, but this page has been going through a lot of vandalism, and most of the information completely wrong. The page is now being tracked and any person that is traced back to changing the page will be prosecuted for defamation.

12th of August Message #2:

Miss Star,

We have asked and warned you to STOP in the editing of this page. Several pages and private information have been hacked recently for my client. Legal information has already been submitted to not only trace all vandalism and defamation but to prosecute. We are very concerned about the safety and image of our client at this time. We will have your page traced by the end of the week. The page is completely false, and is enough to stand in the court of law,especially after we have asked you to stop. I do know that your page has already been linked to youtube where you continue to harass and stalk miss Kimberly Pate, and this is a crime.

Thank,

Kacieimages PR

Tassiduous had been continuously adding in unsourced content to the article in question (while reverting sourced content), and many users, including myself, had reverted the content and told Tassiduous that they may not add content that has no reliable sources. The article, in my opinion lacks notability anyway - perhaps, should it be deleted? Could I please have some assistance here? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Of course we can't verify that those emails are real, but per this edit summary, it's clear that legal action was taken. Ticket:2012081110007211 is also relevant for those with OTRS access. Through all of this, Tassiduous has still never pointed out any specific content that is libelous or defamatory, but rather declares that the whole article is such, and demands we agree with her. While I always respect WP:DOLT, we can't help people who refuse to communicate. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to changing that to email access blocked? --Rschen7754 04:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, under the fact that the abuse was email-driven. Feel free to revert. --Rschen7754 05:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good call. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Refusing to replace the article with marketing copy provided by someone's PR department is not defamation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Leo Frank Footnotes for height

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

---

There is a dispute on the Leo Frank article between 3 editors concerning Leo Frank's height. Steve Oney (2003) and Lindemann (1991) - both secondary sources - wrote in their books Leo Frank (LF) was 5'6" tall, but do provide any references for this information. There are two reliable sources that put 5'8" as Leo Frank's height, his 1906 Cornell University senior class year book (p344, p345), and his 1907 official U.S. passport (Ancestry.com). I am requesting that a foot note be inserted in the ref, about his height concerning two reliable sources, but Tom Northshoreman seems to be against the footnoting. Is a Cornell University college senior yearbook and U.S. passport considered a reliable source of information about a person's height? What do we do in a situation where a secondary source author makes errors that can be verified as errors with primary sources? I'm requesting a footnote be put in place on the Leo Frank article and need help with this dispute. Carmelmount (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a pure content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. I see the lengthy discussion on the Talk page. I suggest you try other methods of WP:DR. I confess, though, to being a bit curious about one thing. It's a very long article, and I just barely skimmed it, but why is Frank's height noteworthy enough to be included in the infobox? I don't see anything about it in the body. Did I miss something?--Bbb23 (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Kamrupi dialect and abuse of quote boxes

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

---

Currently there are seven quote boxes in the Kamrupi dialect page, inserted by User:Bhaskarbhagawati. The boxes float untethered to any text, and look like billboard advertisements that make the content difficult to follow. I asked the user to use footnotes instead to give the quotes a context ([127]), but he reverted to the quote boxes. It has been my experience that this user is very hard to engage in a discussion and past attempts at non-binding mechanisms WP:3O and WP:RSN have been useless in resolving issues. ([128]), ([129]) In the current case, an attempt at a discussion on this issue has been rebuffed. ([130]) If such uses of quote boxes are within Wikipedia style, I would withdraw this request for action. Chaipau (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP blanking text

IP is persisting in blanking articles etc: Special:Contributions/85.166.132.191, despite messages not to. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

List of airlines of India

Dear Admin, I am sorry to bring up this user User:Abhishek191288 again but he seems to be having some issues with a particular section in an article and keeps on getting back to me time and again (please check my talkpage). Worst is that he is getting personal and I am not keen at that. I request your help in this regard as this has been a long standing matter now and he refuses to understand. Can you please help once and forever. Thanks. Cheers AKS 19:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I request you to check the history in end Dec 2011 to first week of Jan 2012 of the article in discussion. Thanks Cheers AKS 20:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This editor fails to note that he keeps putting things in the article that an editor consensus last January said shouldn't be there[131] Check the section titled 'Market Share'. I also edit aviation articles, and weighed in today on the subject[132], and I agree with the January consensus. Please also note the comments on this editor's talk page[133]....William 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• WilliamJE, you are simply quoting the Talkpage of the article (where you have commented and so have I) and my own Talkpage without taking the trouble of going through the history of the page. Also, you need to explain to me why the financials do not belong there and which rule in Wikipedia says that? You have left this question out very conveniently. In good faith and unless the dispute is not resolved, I am not reverting the recent change that you carried out; despite the fact that the edits were under dispute and that being a senior editor, you should have waited for a real consensus to be reached before reverting anything. Cheers AKS 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• William, one last thing. If what you have stated is correct then none of these articles / sections should / would exist this, this, this and this. List can go on and on. Let's have one yardstick for Wikipedia and not have your opinion as a guideline (I appreciate your enthusiasm at the same time). Cheers AKS 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Admin, this is (yet again) a formal and direct complaint against User:Abhishek191288. Please see this. He has been engaging in edit wars in the past as well thinking he claims space on Wikipedia and has been blocked last year. In the case involving me (Jan 2012), he went to the extent of changing content using anonymous account. Moreover, he keeps on getting personal despite requests of discussing issues first before taking any actions. FYIP. Cheers AKS 21:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:CONSENSUS is that the information you're attempting to keep in the article does not belong there. Consensus can change, but that comes from discussing the addition of the information, not "fight to keep it in and demand discussion before taking it out". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• The editor who started this discussion I just reported[134] for possible 3RR violation....William 22:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Only three reverts that I see - that's not a violation. Four would be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:J Irvington

Can someone help me keep an eye on User:J Irvington? I'm quite sure this is the same person as User:ChicagoHistory1 and his associated accounts, which have caused lots of problems with copyright violations, as well as cut/paste page moves. (Changing "It is" to "It's" is a dead giveaway, as I mentioned in a previous SPI post.)

Now, I've always believed that this editor has good intentions. Indeed, some of his recent contributions have been net positives, which is why I decided to let him edit. I don't even care that much about the multiple accounts. The thing that bugs me is that he continues to upload images with questionable licensing (eg, [135]). Plus, any significant prose additions from this user make me nervous, because he is not clear about sources, and some of the material I have looked at appears to be incorrect. I feel bad about antagonizing a user who wants to help, but he is causing a lot of extra work, and I'm not sure what to do. Zagalejo^^^ 20:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Um , i was only trying to help out, This is my first account. Just was tryning to contribute information to articles that i personally know about. I apologize if thats a problem. 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Irvington (talk • contribs)

What about User:X stamps? I see a lot of the exact kinds of edits, from just a few days ago, at the same kinds of articles (removing 299 from the district field, capitalizing "External Links", adding "4-year" to the lead, etc). Those edits aren't harmful themselves, but the fact that User:X stamps added blatant copyright violations makes me nervous about any images or text you add. Zagalejo^^^ 23:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, I really don't want to see you blocked, because you are working in subject areas that have been neglected, and I appreciate your enthusiasm. I just need to know that you can be trusted to tell the truth. Zagalejo^^^ 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

6 month edit war on Larry Klayman

• Larry Klayman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Escp99 (talk · contribs) vs. BigDog2012 (talk · contribs)

Seems they have been edit warring consecutively since Febuary of this year over an indictment (which appears to be sourced). Also looks if BigDog2012 also used account Jroberts36s (talk · contribs). Can't believe its gone on this long... --Hu12 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on a report at WP:BLPN about the same thing, I just locked the article for 3 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm one of the parties involved. The user BigDog2012 has been posting irrelevant, personal info about the person at issue, Larry Klayman, for quite some time, and has made the Wiki page more a magazine tabloid than a source of credible information. It's clear this user has a bone to pick. The user's edit history reveals he created the account specifically to target Klayman. There's also the fact the user removed negative facts about Tom Fitton, a former associate and (now) adversary of Klayman, and added some glowing language of his/her own - making it appear the user some connection with Fitton. Escp99 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And this explains your astounding edit war how? I see almost nothing on the article Talk page except one stray comment (in the wrong place) by BigDog. You haven't sought assistance or discussed the issues. The two of you just play ping-pong with the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I should add that my lock of the article coincided with BigDog's last reversion. That means the "Legal Troubles" section is in the article. I am a bit troubled from a BLP perspective about the section. Hu12 is correct that the section is sourced, but it is sourced only to primary sources, which is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Although I wouldn't normally pick which version to lock, I am considering removing the section based on policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I should correct myself slightly. The first reference, which I missed, is a press release from a prosecutor's office. However, every other source is a primary legal document, and the press release only pertains to one part of the section and involves charges that were ultimately dismissed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Legal Troubles section and posted on the article Talk page. If any admin disagrees with my decision, they are free to override it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting reinstatement of 2 football articles?

I had recently created two football articles for players based in the United States and Liechtenstein, but both articles have been deleted. The users that were involved are 'Sir Sputnik' and 'The Bushranger'. I was not given legitimate reasons as to why these articles were targeted, had hasty requests to be deleted at the same time, and were then deleted without conversation?

The only reason that I had been given was a concern that I read, which was not a concern at all as far as I am concerned, and reads as follows: " concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in fully pro league.)". I understand the second part of this 'statement' as there is truth to the fact that both of these players are not paid professionals currently, however, to just make a statement saying "Article about a footballer who fails" is poorly written and also flippant.

I happen to have a working relationship with the football club 'Orange County Blue Star' that the player 'David Ponce' plays for, and if you read the Orange County Blue Star article you'll see that he has been mentioned in the clubs history and is also on their current roster. The club plays in the United States soccer league system for the 'USL Premier Development League', where the Blue Star are a highly regarded club. The team has had many players, both past and present, that have started their careers at this club and have made names for themselves. I believe that since David Ponce has been mentioned in that particular article with such highly regarded players, that he also deserves to have his own article as well.

The other player, 'Diego Haas', of Liechtenstein, has also been deleted. When I created the article of Diego, it was around the time that he was still eligible to play for the 'Liechtenstein national under-21 football team', and he had several caps for this team at that particular time. At one time in his football career, he was regarded as one of the best youth players in the country and he had played for the club 'FC Vaduz' as well as 'FC Balzers' and he is now currently playing for 'FC Triesen'. All of these teams are Liechtensteiner football clubs and are part of the seven official teams in the nation. In his career so far, he has played for three of the seven clubs in the country and he has only recently turned 24 years of age. Furthermore, all of these clubs play in Swiss Football League and compete in the Liechtenstein Cup annually, which means that the clubs and the player himself have significance. He is also on the FC Triesen roster on the website that they have and the wikipedia article as well.

The player David Ponce is still currently at University, but in 2013 he will most likely be playing professional football. I know this privileged information because I am involved with the club, however, information regarding that matter will not be discussed further because it is privileged information as I said.

Can both of these articles please be allowed to be reinstated? I feel like both have been grossly misjudged. I put a lot of work into writing those articles and had put in my best efforts to make them look excellent for this website. I would like to add that there are far worse articles that I have read on wikipedia in the past, not only about football, but other matters in the world as well.

Thank youPatrick.shea9 (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, first of all, please give somebody time to reply once you've contacted them on their talk page (I've replied there). Secondly, you are required to notify people when you mention them on AN/I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your "privileged information" is worthless here without it being repeated by a reliable secondary source (you should also consider if you should be even discussing it in a public forum). Recreate the article if/when he plays professionally. As for the other guy, many editors who watch articles on soccer players often knee-jerk when they see articles where the notability could be questioned. Simply find plenty of secondary reliable sources (press coverage in languages other than English are acceptable) that discuss the subject in-depth. Have fun and good luck to those two. Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(note that the above is an opinion from someone who isn't an administrator. Also consider the any mention of Ponce can be considered a BLP concern regardless of if it is viewed positively or negatively)Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is a procedure for this, and it is deletion review. But i think I need to say that a request to undelete the articles based on your private information will probably be rejected there is very short order. WP goes by published sources and published sources only, especially for BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Principal adjoint moving pages and not getting a clue

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

---

Yesterday, Principal adjoint (talk · contribs) saw fit to move List of Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! Season 2 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to "List of Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! 2 episodes" with no reason given. As I am aware that the translated version of the title includes the word "Season", I moved it back (and listed the redirect for deletion), and left him a message. Today, I discovered he moved it back, again, claiming "There was no season 1!", and I moved it back, again, and left him a sterner message. This was met with another move a short time ago (removing the phrase "Season 2" entirely from the page title), and this message on my talk page. I sent him another message explaining why he was wrong in this regard and to not move the page, again. I've put the page on RFPP to request move protection until October (when the season will be named for international broadcast), but I do not think that even after telling him 3 times now that he will get the point due to a language barrier (I've just attempted to leave a message to him in his native French). What else can be done at this point? Because the speedy deletions I put on two of the redirects he made will likely enable him to move the page for a fourth time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

He is now making a malformed move request (using {{moverequest}}) based on his prior assumption that the title omits the words "Season 2" when I have given him multiple pieces of evidence to suggest otherwise. Someone please help me communicate with this editor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

He has very likely know broken WP:3RR because he keeps reverting me and now Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs). Some assistance would be nice at this point.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have move protected the page for a week, and fully protected it for 24 hours. If you could try to get some constructive dialogue going with the user in that time, that'd be great. Perhaps a wider discussion to establish a fuller consensus would be helpful, and could help the editor be part of the process. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, page is now move protected, and a wider discussion has been suggested. Can this discussion be closed? Or would you prefer that Principal adjoint be blocked for doing something you disagree with?--Shirt58 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Requesting reinstatement of 2 football articles?

I had recently created two football articles for players based in the United States and Liechtenstein, but both articles have been deleted. The users that were involved are 'Sir Sputnik' and 'The Bushranger'. I was not given legitimate reasons as to why these articles were targeted, had hasty requests to be deleted at the same time, and were then deleted without conversation?

The only reason that I had been given was a concern that I read, which was not a concern at all as far as I am concerned, and reads as follows: " concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in fully pro league.)". I understand the second part of this 'statement' as there is truth to the fact that both of these players are not paid professionals currently, however, to just make a statement saying "Article about a footballer who fails" is poorly written and also flippant.

I happen to have a working relationship with the football club 'Orange County Blue Star' that the player 'David Ponce' plays for, and if you read the Orange County Blue Star article you'll see that he has been mentioned in the clubs history and is also on their current roster. The club plays in the United States soccer league system for the 'USL Premier Development League', where the Blue Star are a highly regarded club. The team has had many players, both past and present, that have started their careers at this club and have made names for themselves. I believe that since David Ponce has been mentioned in that particular article with such highly regarded players, that he also deserves to have his own article as well.

The other player, 'Diego Haas', of Liechtenstein, has also been deleted. When I created the article of Diego, it was around the time that he was still eligible to play for the 'Liechtenstein national under-21 football team', and he had several caps for this team at that particular time. At one time in his football career, he was regarded as one of the best youth players in the country and he had played for the club 'FC Vaduz' as well as 'FC Balzers' and he is now currently playing for 'FC Triesen'. All of these teams are Liechtensteiner football clubs and are part of the seven official teams in the nation. In his career so far, he has played for three of the seven clubs in the country and he has only recently turned 24 years of age. Furthermore, all of these clubs play in Swiss Football League and compete in the Liechtenstein Cup annually, which means that the clubs and the player himself have significance. He is also on the FC Triesen roster on the website that they have and the wikipedia article as well.

The player David Ponce is still currently at University, but in 2013 he will most likely be playing professional football. I know this privileged information because I am involved with the club, however, information regarding that matter will not be discussed further because it is privileged information as I said.

Can both of these articles please be allowed to be reinstated? I feel like both have been grossly misjudged. I put a lot of work into writing those articles and had put in my best efforts to make them look excellent for this website. I would like to add that there are far worse articles that I have read on wikipedia in the past, not only about football, but other matters in the world as well.

Thank youPatrick.shea9 (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, first of all, please give somebody time to reply once you've contacted them on their talk page (I've replied there). Secondly, you are required to notify people when you mention them on AN/I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your "privileged information" is worthless here without it being repeated by a reliable secondary source (you should also consider if you should be even discussing it in a public forum). Recreate the article if/when he plays professionally. As for the other guy, many editors who watch articles on soccer players often knee-jerk when they see articles where the notability could be questioned. Simply find plenty of secondary reliable sources (press coverage in languages other than English are acceptable) that discuss the subject in-depth. Have fun and good luck to those two. Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(note that the above is an opinion from someone who isn't an administrator. Also consider the any mention of Ponce can be considered a BLP concern regardless of if it is viewed positively or negatively)Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is a procedure for this, and it is deletion review. But i think I need to say that a request to undelete the articles based on your private information will probably be rejected there is very short order. WP goes by published sources and published sources only, especially for BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Principal adjoint moving pages and not getting a clue

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

---

Yesterday, Principal adjoint (talk · contribs) saw fit to move List of Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! Season 2 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to "List of Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! 2 episodes" with no reason given. As I am aware that the translated version of the title includes the word "Season", I moved it back (and listed the redirect for deletion), and left him a message. Today, I discovered he moved it back, again, claiming "There was no season 1!", and I moved it back, again, and left him a sterner message. This was met with another move a short time ago (removing the phrase "Season 2" entirely from the page title), and this message on my talk page. I sent him another message explaining why he was wrong in this regard and to not move the page, again. I've put the page on RFPP to request move protection until October (when the season will be named for international broadcast), but I do not think that even after telling him 3 times now that he will get the point due to a language barrier (I've just attempted to leave a message to him in his native French). What else can be done at this point? Because the speedy deletions I put on two of the redirects he made will likely enable him to move the page for a fourth time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

He is now making a malformed move request (using {{moverequest}}) based on his prior assumption that the title omits the words "Season 2" when I have given him multiple pieces of evidence to suggest otherwise. Someone please help me communicate with this editor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

He has very likely know broken WP:3RR because he keeps reverting me and now Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs). Some assistance would be nice at this point.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have move protected the page for a week, and fully protected it for 24 hours. If you could try to get some constructive dialogue going with the user in that time, that'd be great. Perhaps a wider discussion to establish a fuller consensus would be helpful, and could help the editor be part of the process. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, page is now move protected, and a wider discussion has been suggested. Can this discussion be closed? Or would you prefer that Principal adjoint be blocked for doing something you disagree with?--Shirt58 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Ambitious Stance by Kurdo777

Kurdo777 seems to be the advocate of several other editors, or might be a sockpuppet of someone as well. He always accuses some editors with nationalistic or any other reasons. I've just observed his recent edits and realized that he's here to have a specific purpose to help several editors in their reverts and give support on talk pages etc. I invite the administrators to check his recent edits, which all display that he's got a specific purpose. Or you might warn him to stop his improper or edit-warring actions. Thanks.

Please check his recent edits: (I added a few rvs by Kurdo777 below)

1. Revert (Removing referenced information)

2. Revert (Removing referenced information)

3. Revert (Removing a file and accusing an editor for being nationalist)

4. Revert (Removing a referenced source)

5. Revert (Removing a referenced source)

6. Revert (Removing a referenced information)

Kurdo777, requesting support from several editors and admins:

1. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)

2. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)

3. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)

4. Request (Requesting support from an editor)

5. Request (Accusing an editor called Greczia for being a nationalist.)

6. Request (We see that this boy has a bit turkophobia by accusing the editors.)

I think he should stop reverting the editors and add information with references. OK, wait for your comments. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a complicated topic and doesn't involve only Barayev and Kurdo. It involves many editors and many (probably related) articles. Many of these editors, including Barayev, are accusing each other of vandalism and sock puppetry. Many of them are edit-warring in the articles. I recently blocked User:Greczia for edit-warring. I have posted messages on various Talk pages telling editors to stop bandying about the labels vandalism and troll and other similar epithets. Barayev just a while ago made five reversions in five different articles of Kurdo's contributions, labeling each of them vandalism. The disruption across multiple articles is significant. I'm most familiar with Turkey (not the content, mind you) and have come close to locking it because of the battles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, I think most of the articles should be locked and the edits should be published after the confirmation of the admins. Also, I'd be glad that you can warn all those editors who are accusing each others and whelmed in edit-warring. Also, I see that several editors support each others with reverts. I hope you send a warning to all of them. In the meantime, I reverted Kurdo777 as he removed the referenced information (deleted reliable sources) by getting involved with accusations to the others, maybe due to the fact that he's a bit angry with several editors owing to his turcophobia. I get pissed off those people having overwhelmingly anti-semitism, turcophobia or islamophobia. In the meantime, I see that you blocked Graczia without a notification. I hope you can be a bit careful. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any support for your accusations of bigotry against Kurdo. I don't understand what you mean when you say "the edits should be published ..." Normally, when an article is locked, it is locked in whatever state it is in at the time, barring any policy violations. As for your baseless accusation that Greczia was not notified, I personally warned him of edit-warring; he removed the notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If he removed the notification, I apologize to you. I misunderstood. Sorry.

Please check this (User_talk:Kurdo777#Question) for bigotry of Kurdo777. An editor also asks him. Why does he remove a reliable source? He thinks all edits of some editors are all based on nationalistic perspective. So Sumerian can't be an Uralic-Altaic language as it's a Turkic related matter. So Samuel Noah Kramer's ideas were based on imagination? If you check his contributions, you'll realize what he's doing since the matter of Rumi. He suddenly appeared in Rumi (when Khodabandeh14 was blocked), reverted it as a support to his blocked friend, and since then he's just been attacking Turkic-related articles by reverting them. So what's that? I hope he can explain the matter, but I know he will again calumniate the editors (being nationalist or any other thing). Thanks. Barayev (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have worked with/against Kurdo777 many times and I agree it often appears that he coordinates a group of like-minded editors to beat down the opposition. I was thus very surprised on 24 June when he accused me of asking IRWolfie to back me up on a disputed article; the accusation was absolutely baseless. To me it seemed like Kurdo777 was projecting on me a tactic he had employed himself. I asked him on his talk page to retract the accusation but he never responded.
At any rate, this noticeboard is not the place for this concern. I think an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I just fully locked Turkey for 3 days because the battle continued.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the talkpage of Turkey there is clear consensus supported by source analysis that Turkey cannot be called a regional power without the qualifier "Middle-Eastern". Perhaps users like Barayev can be warned not to edit war without participating on the talkpage of the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your lock on Turkey, but I think three days isn't enough. My advice is to extend it to two weeks.

In the meantime, sorry for my last revert on Turkey as I misunderstood the matter vice versa. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was a misunderstanding my criticism of your actions has no place here. I struck it. Thank you for your clarification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Barayev (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful, or you'll violate the 3TY rule. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder Bbb23. Damn! :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Partly in response to Binksternet's comments, the problems here involve editor conduct and content. I know next to nothing about the content. Sometimes, the two overlap, although sometimes one can surgically remove a conduct issue from the underlying mess, e.g., violating 3RR. The more difficult conduct issues of possible bias (disruptive editing) and possible abuse of multiple accounts require a solid understanding of the content (for the bias) and a deeper technical analysis and historical perspective (for the sock puppetry). That's a lot of balls in the air, and ANI seems as good a place as any to manage these issues, assuming enough knowledgeable editors contribute to the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

adding false attributed information that does not exist by a nationalist socks

Let me defend Kurdo777 here as his conduct is perfectly alright as he is undoing false information. This is not a content dispute as I demonstrate below.

1)

First of all , on Sumerian_language article. There is a misquote (false citation) added for the book that states something else completely. The actual quote from Samuel Kramer is here: Kramer, Samuel, Noah 1963. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [136] pg 306:“In vocabulary, grammer, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone and seems to be unrelated to any other language, living or dead”.. It clearly says that Sumerian is a language isolate yet some users have added the opinion that Samuel Kramer has mentioned it as Turkic!

I deleted the citation by the nationalist users who claim that the language is classified as Turkish by Samueal Kramer. So this is a misquote of Samuel Noah Kramer. It is very wrong thing to attribute wrong information to an author who has stated the opposite opinion that Sumerian is an isolate language. So falsely claiming Samuel Noah Kramer has stated that Sumerian is a Turkic language is beyond "content dispute". It is simply lying. So where is the quote that Kramer claims Sumerian is a Turkish language!?! He only mentions that Sumerian in terms of structure is language like those of the Caucasus, Uralic and Turkic languages (also these are not they ones,..all Dravidian, and majority of African languages, native American languages are also agglunitative). This is typology but not linguistic classification ( agglutinative language). Kramer mentions Sumerian is a language isolate yet they have the audacity to misquote his book and say Kramer has mentioned it as a Turkic language!

I hope the admins do not see this as "difference of opinion". This is actually blatantly inserting and supporting false information! Yet these nationalists type have the audacity of calling this "referenced information"! Until when should Wikipedia put up with this oflying?

Please note the conduct of Tirgil34 (who is now Greczia).. on Scythians with similar behaviour.. [137] and in the mainspace page..

2) On bogus map in the article "ethnic minorities of Iran", the source is a nationalist fringe map that they keep adding: [138] (made by a turkish nationalist unscholarly activist based on non-academic source/manual). This it their map: [139]. Non-academic, non-RS source (which is not verifiable made by ethnic activists).

Here are actual academic maps from reputable sources and universities: [140] [141] [142][143] [144] (University of Texas and Columbia)

For example majority of Tehran, Hamadan do not speak Turkish nor is the second laguage of Gilan, Mazandaran and most of the places highlighted Turkish. Infact Half of my family is from Mazandaran area and Persian is the first language, then Mazandarani. Large part of Kurdish areas in Iran are made Turkish in these maps too (see the comparison of Norther Khorasan between the academic maps and the fake map). So what is Kurdo777 to do when some false map made by an ethnic nationalist from an ethnic nationalist unscholarly author (with no academic credentials) is inserted? That source they mentioned is a nationalist based source with no academic citations and contradicts the unbiased Western made maps above. The map has no scholarly backing and has no place in wikipedia.

3)

ON Azerbaijani people, Kurdo777 removed the source: (authors=Roger Howard|year=2004|title=Iran in Crisis?) because it is quoting an ethnic activist who claims 35 million people in Iran. Here is the source that was used: "Roger Howard (2004). Iran in Crisis?: The Future of the Revolutionary Regime and the US Response. Zed Books. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-1842-7747-55. "[...] reckons to be closer to 35 million than the oficial estimate of 14 million.""

But first question is what is the academic credential of the author? Second the author (Roger Howard) is quoting an ethnic nationalist-activist. Can such information be labeled as reliable? But quoting an ethnic-nationalist (it is like quoting Louis Farrakhan or David Duke) activist is not WP:RS for general information. So when totally bogus information was removed from Sumerians (Kramer stating flat out that Sumerian is a language isolate not related to any language family), they kept reinserting the misinformation as well. Also here is another false source inserted by these users: "Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2008). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1. Infobase. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-4381-2676-0. "... 32 million people in Iran..."" [145] The book claims that "During the first milenium, B.C.E, the Azeri Kuti tribe defeated the Akkadian ruler..". where as the formation of an Azeri ethnic group occurs after Islam due to synthetic of Turkic migrants with Iranian populations (around 500-700 years ago). This is an example of fringe source. So the Gutian people has been claimed to be an "Azeri" tribe by such a fringe source.

4) On [146]

There is a reference to a Farrokh website which has none of the claims made by these users. The actual website is www.gandchi.com which is not reliable on such matter. Actually, websites like these are not reliable. If someone is familiar with the article, they know that the Muslim Tats even have somewhat different language/dialect than Jewish Tats. It might be possible that the [[147]] (Juhuri language) speakers were at one time "Khazars", but they could also be immigrants during the Sassanid era as they are not Ashkenazi but Shepardic. Anyhow..those websites are not related to the Tat_language_(Caucasus) but might be related to Judeo-Tat. And furthermore, those websites do not meet WP:RS.

Again this is not a content dispute.. it is trying to make everything from Sumerians, to Scythians to Tats of the Caucasus as Turks. It is simply disruptive behaviour by Turkish nationalist editors. Such information does not exist in those websites (and secondaly the websites do not meet WP:RS necessarily). Where does it say in those websites that the "tats of Caucasus are definitely Turks"? So are admin going to note the insertion of false information by these users? Or do they think this is a "content dispute"?

It is either making up information (like Sumerian) or using fringe websites/nationalist activist sources (not academic reliable sources that meet WP:RS).

e) The problem is not edit warring but adding false information that does not exist or adding extremly unreliable fringe sources by a user that has all these socks:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aryan212
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kurdale
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mertface
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barayev
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/E4024
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gabriel_Stijena
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greczia (who admits in the bottom of his page that he is the previous user tigril who was vandalizing Scythians and making them Turks)

You have a bunch of Turkish nationalist (or likely one) claiming Sumerians, Tats, Scythians as Turks and adding bogus maps. And also attacking Greece/Iran related articles. They ought to be ashamed of their conduct which is falsifying information and attributing to authors who have never made such statements (or adding extremly fringe websites/sources with no academic responsibility). So Kurdo777 is simply undoing this massive sock attack and the admins need to ban all the mentioned names here as they are socks of the same user.

First of all, you always accuse the people who do not think like you. You need to be patient if you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not accept your calumniation about me or others. I believe that they are all different editors.

In the mentime, let me give some information about Sumerian language though you cannot stand calling it Ural-Altaic-like language, which displays that your only resource is Google Books; so you look for everything in Google Books, and when you can't find something in there, you think it's wrong or pseudoscience. That's wrong; in fact, you need to have a large library to make researches. You're not a linguist though I'm a bit from the college. You don't have enough knowledge about the researches about Sumerian language, so most of the time, you just remove all the references, by claiming them unreliable. I can bring you hundreds of articles on the relation between Sumerian and Turkic, but I'm sure you'll remove all those sources because you'll not be able to find them in your tiny Google books. So it's really fun of you! You just accuse people, which displays that you have Turcophobia.

Anyway, let me mention some about Sumerian language, which is similar to Turkic languages in both vocabulary and grammar. If you check the document prepared by Prof. Tuna and Hubey, you'll realize the relation between Sumerian and Turkic languages.

There are hundreds of cognates between Sumerian and Turkic languages, but I'm adding only twelve samples as an example of similarity in vocabulary.

Sumerian > Turkish > English

di >> de >> speak

eş >> es >> blow

dug >> dök >> pour out

kur >> koru >> guard

sum >> sun >> give

tuku >> doku >> weave, knit

tar >> yar >> cut off

kiri >> kır >> field, garden

kur >> kara >> land

sag >> sağ >> good

zag >> sağ >> right side

ud >> öd >> time

There are also similarities between Finnish and Sumeriand; and also between Hungarian and Sumerian. All these similarities are mentioned in hundreds of articles. So all of them are nationalistic? Don't think each attempt to be nationalistic. You need to research not only in Google books, but also in jorunals, archives, and actual libraries etc. Barayev (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the following article "Sumerian, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Finno-Ugrian and Hungarian" (2009), Prof. Dr. Alfréd Tóth presents 731 similarities between Hungarian, proto-languages (Proto-Altaic, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Finno-Ugric, Proto-Ugric), and Sumerian.

He explains the method in his article: In this study I will prove that the so-called Sumerian Hypotheses of Hungarian is true. This does neither mean that Hungarian is the same as Sumerian (an obvious nonsense that had been asserted by some non-linguists), nor does it mean that Hungarian alone has Sumerian as its ancestor language. What I will prove with the present study is that at least 731 Hungarian lemmata which are shared by at least 1 more lemma in at least one other member of the Finno-Ugric language family can be traced back to Sumerian. I will show this by comparing the reconstructed Proto-Finno-Ugrian and/or Proto-Uralic forms to actual Sumerian words. It is also explained that Sumerian shows traces of vowel harmony (cf. Edzard 2003, pp. 99 ss.). And also between Sumerian and Hungarian there are strict consonant sound-laws which have been indicated to every lemma.

So will you still continue calumniating people? These people are fabricating everything for their nationalistic aims? I think that not those calumniated people, but you are really a bit nationalist or have prejudice against several subjects. You just pick up everything according to your own ideology. I'd bring you hundreds of articles, but most of them are unpublished on the Internet. So, you'll not believe me, but just calumniate me. Yeah, I push on a rope. Barayev (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim was Kramer was falsified and you guys were re-inserting him. As per your latest source, these are baloney sources which no one in academica takes seriously. For example: the word Saghir is a loanword from Arabic to Persian to Turkish. Or the word "tin" (body..) is actually Persian loanword to Turkish. Sorry but Sumerians are not Turks and no one takes this seriously. As you said: "I'd bring you hundreds of articles, but most of them are unpublished on the Internet".. So they do not belong to wikipedia but to your ethnic nationalistic forums. It is always some Turkish or Hungarian author trying to make the false claim. And this is exactly why the above user with his multiple socks below should be watched. By the way here is a fun one (Latvian and Sumerian) [148] (looks 10x longer than your list and Latvin is Indo-European!). Much longer than your list! How about Basque and Sumerian? [149]. How about Dravidian and Sumerian? [150]? How about Sumerian and Tamil [151]? That looks much longer too? Oh wait unlike Turkish, Sumerian is a split ergative language (like Kurmanji Kurdish). So maybe it is Kurdish? Unlike Turkish, Sumerian has all three affix, prefix and infix (Turkish has only pre-fix)..wait English/Persian have all three.. So maybe it is English? Oh wait I can make a funny comparison too.. Sumerian Pap..Latin Pope mean father.. Or Sumerian Abzu and Persian "Ab" mean water. Unfortunately, you are not aware of how modern linguistic works. Or Sumerian has the 6 vowels that Arabic has (unlike Turkish with 9 vowels or 18 vowels in Turkmen)..so is it Arabic. Please spare wikipedia with this sort of nationalistic editing. Also the Kramer book precisely said the opposite of what you guys were inserting. It is a fringe viewpoint and so stop pushing fringe viewpoint. No serious scholar thinks Sumerian were Turks. But unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a policy in dealing with this sort of nationalistic editing. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, falsification of the Kramer was demonstrated. And I stand by my claim that all the above users are the same. Anyhow, Kurdo777 had to deal with users that are pushing Sumerians as Turks. This is not a content dispute really, it is nationalistic editing.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain what does this man doing by removing two references and Ural-Altaic languages from the article? If any admin will not intervene with this unkwnown vandal, I'll resign. It's really an irritating behaviour! Please check the revert of 96.255.251.165.

In the meantime, this man doesn't have enough linguistic background. Latvian is related to the nearly extinct Livonian language of Baltic-Finnic sub-branch of Uralic language family. It might have borrowed many words from the neighbouring Uralic languages. Also, Louis Lucien Bonaparte and Michel Morvan claim Basque language might be Uralic languages. Moreover, there are some grammatical and linguistic similarities between Finnish and South Indian languages (Dravidian). You'll see if you research some linguistic papers, but you're prejudiced. Also, whose sockpuppet are you? Kurdo777 or any others? I invite admins to check all your edits,96.255.251.165. To end up my speech, you're really simple-minded with your edits. Barayev (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Psuedo-linguistics again. Uralic and Altaic are now considered separate branches (families). Also Dravidian has nothing to do with these. Neither is Latvian an uralic language. Please stop the psued-linguistic nonsense. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just pseudo-linguistics. Another rehash of the Sun Language Theory. --Folantin (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I will hepl you to get better sources. I think I've got some, but I am for two days away, so keep it COOL untill then. --Greczia (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My response

First of all, Binksternet's dispute with me, is totally unrelated to this scenario. He is simply fishing in muddy waters. It should also be noted that Binksternet has been stalking me for years, which explains his presence here in the first place, and that he has been warned and blocked for stalking of me on several occasions. [152][153] Now as for the topic at hand here, my edits were all in line with WP:RS and WP:Fringe, and meant to protect Wikipedia's integrity against nationalist POV-pushing by a group of W:SPAs that have raised a lot of red flags in many corners of Wikipedia, and appear to be sock-puppets/revert-only accounts, including the user who filled this report. I also discussed all my edits with, and notified several admins and experienced users in these topical areas who are familiar with the content. Please read the following discussions for more context.[154][155][156] Just to give a few short obvious examples, in once case, one of these users falsified a source [157], in another case, another one used a non-WP:RS source for which he was warned by an admin who is familiar with these topics.[158] This pretty much sums what we're dealing with here, and as I said, all my edits were in good-faith and in line with WP:RS, WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. What should be addressed here though, is the widespread sock-puppetry that's going on these pages by revert-only SPA accounts with less than 100 edits, namely User:Gabriel_Stijena, User:Barayev, User:Greczia and User:Kurdaleall every single of whom is engaged in Turkish nationalist POV pushing on various pages and topical areas from Greece to China, and all of whom appear to be connected to one another, and have been inserting sourceless or poorly-sourced fringe nationalist theories into these pages, and therefore compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo777, I have better things to do than follow you around and accuse you on ANI—this noticeboard is public space and it is on my watchlist. I post here often; there's no stalking involved. I came forward on this particular thread to support the initial poster because I wanted the board to know that his premise, that you might be coordinating others to push your views, is something I had also noticed. By the way, you still have not apologized for falsely accusing me of trying to make IRWolfie my meatpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In the last month alone, you have shown up on three or four different pages I've edited, and you've had no prior interest in whatsoever. Just as when you were blocked for stalking me, you always have some excuse like "I saw it on my watch-list" or "I saw it on X or Y's contribution list". Bottom line is, you've been stalking non-stop me for almost four years now. Amazingly, you're now supporting some nationalist sock/SPA/revert-only account with less than 100 edits, 80% of which are reverts, in a topical area, that as usual, you have no expertise in, just because I'm involved. This issue is not about me, it's a much bigger problem, and I'm actually the one enforcing Wikipedia's policies on WP:RS and WP:Fringe. User:Dougweller, an admin who actually knows something about these topics, summarized the main problem that editors like me, are dealing with, in the section below. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with nationalistic editing

One of the areas where we are weakest is in dealing with pov nationalism and editwarring. Almost every day I run into editors changing sourced text, adding unsourced material, using random webpages as sources for their pov, using other unreliable sources, attacking and reverting other editors, writing leads, etc so that Wikipedia articles state as fact matters that are disputed by academics, etc. We are very bad at coping with this sort of thing for various reasons. Lack of expertise in many of these areas is a big problem We used to have DBachmann but he isn't around much any more. No easy mechanism for dealing with pov edit warriors is another, as is the fact that few of us have the energy to do it (or the balls at times, blocks can be contentious. Plus it takes place on a multitude of little articles. I just ran across Lurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) today - have a gander at the contribution history. It's a mess. It is being fought over to make nationalistic points but who has the time or energy to find all of these? And sources that have been discussed in the past and dismissed as unreliable keep popping up, in part because of editors not understanding our RS policy and certainly unaware of past discussions, so we keep having the same arguments over and over. I realise that I'm not dealing with the specific complaints about editors but I am going out the door in 5 minutes and haven't had a chance to look at them in depth, but there is a serious problem here of which this is just an example. Oh - Kurdo, Binksternet, let's not let disagreements between you derail this please. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to comeup with a good policy.. perhaps 10 neutral admins who know the area can fix up articles one by one and everyone should agree to their edits. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We have plenty of policies, what we lack are admins that are familiar enough with the subject matters to separate the wheat from the chaff. As I've said elsewhere, this has been why I've stayed out, as I don't know the material well enough to referee. I guess in my spare time, I need to bone up on one or more areas, but this isn't trivial to get to speed on. What we need are more admins familiar with the controversial areas, that haven't gotten caught up in the drama. That is a tall order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis hit one of the nails on the head regarding a lack of expertise in particular subjects leading to these systemic problems. I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps we need some sort of an admin system where experts in a particular topic can get the tools for use only within those topics. I can think of at least a couple objections to my idea right off the top of my head, but it may be a decent starting point. Sædon^talk 01:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Won't have any effect - you can't use tools to solve content disputes. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There are technical reasons why you can't limit use of tools to specific areas, but I will say that what we really depend on is editors. There are some areas where I know certain editors are more neutral than others, and when they make a complaint, it is a neutral tone, and this helps tremendously. I still have to research, but they keep it short, point out the diffs, briefly explain the problem, and don't tell me what I should do but instead focus on why it is a problem (ie: it isn't about an ax to grind). Remember folks, we admins are no different than non-admins, except we have the tools. The admin bit doesn't make us smarter or experts, it just means we are pretty familiar with general policies and the community said they trust us, that is all. We need help from people who we can trust, that are familiar with the subject matter, but we need it from people who can and will act rational and in a fair manner, as if they were the admin themselves. In the short run (and maybe the long run) this has to be at least part of the solution. We don't want to interfere with content, we only want to keep it neutral so the editors of these articles can do their job, fairly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to chime in with my two cents here. As a subject matter expert in the real world I can completely sympathize with the need to do something about concerted nationalistic attacks on articles based on nationalistic crap. Because of the "rules of consensus", it's not always possible to establish a clear scientific baseline in some instances. Over time, science usually prevails over nationalism, but the frustration level often reaches the red zone long before then. The Randy in Boise problem is a real one when dealing with nationalism over science. I've just skimmed over this ANI, but the reference to Kramer in the context of Ural-Altaic is completely bogus. Kramer maintained that Sumerian was a linguistic isolate and virtually ALL reputable linguists follow him. --Taivo (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering yesterday if the WMF might have a role to play in this by reaching out to find experts in these fields. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no experience with how well that works, but anything that brings in neutral experts who can work within Wikipedia policy would be welcome. As Dennis said, we need editors we can trust.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem is there is little reward for neutral editors trying to deal with these areas; it just leads to frustration and burn-out. On the other hand, there are massive rewards for ultra-nationalists trying to get their POV across on the most consulted information website. They are often organised on off-Wikipedia noticeboards. Also, it's quite hard on Wikipedia to get banned for WP:SOAPBOX. Ideally, we should start blocking editors who contribute nothing but petty edit-warring over issues like the ethnicity of this or that famous person. But I don't hold high hopes for a resolution to this any time soon. I just don't think the Wikipedia model works in this area. --Folantin (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Outreach to attract and Editor Retention to back them up, we definitely need to try something. I'm sure it has already cost us many good editors as it is. WMF might be worth the effort. A young lady that works at the teahouse and WP:WER, and just got her admin bit, works temporarily for WMF, maybe she would be a good starting point to seeing what resources, if any, are available. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There was some kind of attempt to do something back in 2008: Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. Unfortunately it was a bit rubbish and nothing substantial ever came of it. --Folantin (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to contact a couple of people at WMF to see if they think its worth considering. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This request by Barayev (talk · contribs) is - frankly - ridiculous. I agree with Dougweller that there is a general problem with nationalism, especially in articles related to the Middle East and Central Asia. But the accusations against Kurdo777 are laughable. Honestly, these guys are claiming that the Sumerians were Turks. This is perhaps the most laughable nationalistic claim ever. And reverting this kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense should not be sanctioned, it should be honored. --Lysozym (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to reach an administrator regarding unsupported edits by 76.121.120.70 on Wineville Chicken Coop Murders

I wish to make contact with an administrator regarding recent edits that have taken place on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders wiki-page. I have posted a question on the users talk page a few weeks ago with no response. I notice on the article page, that an administrator has also posted a citation asking for specifics, with no response from the user.

I am considered an expert on this subject and have visited extensively with the Riverside Historical Society and the author James Jeffrey Paul, regarding the differences between the film Changeling and the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

Unfortunately, the film convinces people who watch it that the film was a documentary on the facts of what happened at Wineville, but there are many legal differences that exist. People come and post on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders page thinking that the film documented the real happenings at Wineville and this is not necessarily so. The current edits reflect the film version and not the historical version, which was decided by the California Courts in 1928. Over the past 2 years or so, I have edited repeatedly to reflect the true historical record as reflected by California courts, and not the film version.

I wish to visit with an administrator and have the incorrect edits removed. I could do so myself, but I have no interest in engaging in some edit war with a user whom has no interest in responding with factual support of their claims.

For the record, if the poster, 76.121.120.70 can produce evidence and supporting documentation regarding their claims posted, it would shed major additional light on the murders that took place in 1928, and would be a most welcome addition to people who seek to follow the Wineville Chicken Coop murders. Any of their supporting evidence, would be a major historical find regarding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Until such supporting and factual documentation would arise, it is important that the page reflect what the California courts and the Riverside (California) Historical Society reflect regarding the historical record in this matter.

So let's make contact and begin our own discussion regarding my concerns about removing certain edits that have taken place without factual information footnoted.

Beaconmike (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A look at Talk:Wineville Chicken Coop Murders shows reams and reams of OR from Beaconmike, plus two newspaper articles inserted verbatim into the talk page, very likely in violation of copyright. Looie496 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wineville Chicken Coop Murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• IP editor notified.
• What am I doing wrong with "{{IPuser|76.121.120.70}}"?

This appears to be what in Wikipedia jargon is called a "content dispute". This means it is about the content of an article, which is for editors to discuss, rather than something that needs the attention of administrators (yet).--Shirt58 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I just checked Talk:Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. I've removed the cut-and-pasted newspaper articles and revdel'd the blatant copyright violation they created. As for the rest: Beaconmike, it looks like you might want to read WP:OR, WP:OWN, WP:VNT, WP:THETRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the removal of the copyrighted material. I am new to the rules and shame on me for not understanding. Yes, I do have a 'content dispute' with another editor. However, I have left a message for the editor to respond, and they do not respond at all. That is why I have requested an administrator to become involved. Without source documentation that is based on historical record, the edits must be removed. I do not want to begin an edit war with another individual, so that is why I am asking for an administrator to become involved. -Beaconmike (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case you need to go to WP:DRN, as this is a content dispute (and, thus, not within AN/I's purview). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

He didn't need to go that far. I'm wondering why he hasn't reverted the IP's uncited changes and additions with a note on the their talkpage to discuss the changes. There really isn't a dispute here...the IP hasn't talked so far. If it were me, I'd just revert them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

UK nationalities and perages on List of Freemasons

User:Vtr1781249 has been making edits to List of Freemasons such that he is changing "English", "Scottish", and "Irish" nationalities to "British" if the individuals were born after the Articles of Union (see Talk:List_of_Freemasons#British_vs._English). The obvious issue is that the difference is one of the article subject's self-identification, not what an editor thinks. I would never consider Robbie Keane, for example, anything but Scottish, as he has made it very clear that that is his identification. Anyways, the result is that we are identifying list entry individuals differently than their own articles do. James Watt is described as Scottish in his article, and in this edit to the List of Freemasons, he is now British. As can also be seen from the above diff, Vtr also started creating article redirects for individuals which included "Sir" as part of the article title (see Talk:List_of_Freemasons#British_Honours and Sir Charles Lemon.

Normally, I'd say that this was a difference of opinion, except we're now running afoul of established policies, namely WP:UKNATIONALS and WP:NCPEER. I thought the matter had been put to bed on the list talk page with Vtr's agreement to desist in the first thread link, but today's edits clearly indicate otherwise. Therefore, as this is now a policy compliance item, I am requesting admin assistance. MSJapan (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the above, I would state that there were already prefixes of "sirs" in the List of Freemasons,before I added mine and such prefixes are as much a part of a persons name, as the terms "Lord" or "Duke of" etc are part of a peers name. I accept most Americans do not understand the British forms of address, but a good 75% of the world (i.e. the old 'pink' bits of the map) do. A military person who was ranked as General X or Admiral Z, would always be cited as such, I'm merely preserving logic here.

With regards to the issue of Nationality, a person born in either England, Scotland or Wales is British,(England and Scotland are a United Kingdom, and Wales is a Principality, not and never has been a country). In each of the examples in the List of Freemasons cited above, a citation from The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia was appended to each alteration, this academic publication lists all altered as British. It is clearly nonsense, (and factualy incorrect) to show otherwise. Vtr1781249 (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure many Scots would love to dispute their being British in very, very strident terms! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm equally sure that many persons in Northern Ireland, loath the thought as being identified as British, hence why in respect of Northern Ireland, I'd always refer to them as Northern Irish, but the fact remains, legally speaking the correct term above is British, unless of course we are referring to before the union of both countries, then either English or Scottish (or Dane, Viking or Celt) would be used Vtr1781249 (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

MSJapan's point is that we have guidelines that cover all this (such as WP:UKNATIONALS and WP:NCPEER)... which Vrt needs to follow. That said, I note that Vtr is a relatively new editor... so the question is, was he aware of these policies and guidelines? I assume not. However, if he engaged in talk page discussion more (and edit warred less) he might have been pointed to them sooner (and he might not have pissed off his fellow editors quite as much). Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And yes, the prefixes were there for some, but policy strictly forbids creating article titles inclusive of such; the changing of the link to Sir Walter Scott (a redir) from Walter Scott (the article proper)and the creation of Sir Charles Lemonis part of the issue that needs to be addressed. UKNATIONALS was definitely pointed out in discussion, as noted above, but NCPEER I only located today. NCPEER, however, directly addresses the title question at issue. MSJapan (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.... looking at Vtr's talk page, I note that he has received a lot of warnings for edit warring in the brief time he has been with us. It seems that a pattern is developing. Perhaps he needs an admin mentor or something. Blueboar (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer the above, NCPEER was only read this evening, after being requested to contribute to this page. You mention Polices & Guidelines, if someone would point out which is the Policy (which I accept is binding) and which is the Guideline (which is of course is only advisory in nature) I would be grateful? However, as I pointed out above, legally speaking the correct term, post Union, is British Vtr1781249 (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Anyway, WP:UKNATIONALS#Guide to finding UK nationality is the right rule of thumb here (Vtr1781249 should be advised that the distinction between policy, guideline and essay is a spectrum, and the important thing is how broadly the community respects a given rule rather than what "level" it's labelled at, which is fungible), which certainly does not support unilateral alteration of declared nationality ("legally speaking" or otherwise) based on a single source. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unlike pirate guidelines, ours are more like rules; the starting assumption is that they are to be followed. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Tag removal and failure to follow Tagging policy.9/11 conspiracy theories

User User:Arkon is starting an edit war by removing tags,9/11 conspiracy theories claiming various reasons and finally using irrelevant policy BOLD to remove tags for a section 2 editors believe is a NPOV violation. despite an ongoing discussion about resolving a NPOV issue on the talk page the user has ignored all comments.Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories‎. Wikipedia has golden rules to avoid edit war, if a cycle of reverts are happening (as oppose to leaving the tags until a agreement is made) then how is it constructive? A section has a problem, until the NPOV is fixed, the tags stay. --Inayity (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My comments are on the talk page. Arkon (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not good to edit your comments after they've been responded to, either. Arkon (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As are mine...for the record, plenty of articles have separate crticism sections.--MONGO 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is not the first time Inayity has made an argument in support of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories over the known evidence, claiming NPOV violations and other issues if their preferred version isn't accepted.--MONGO 05:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this at AN/I? The "dispute" is less than 24 hours old, and discussion continues on the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone restore Samantha Brick please?

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

---

This I think will be fairly uncontroversial. I did ask Alison, who was the closing admin of a previous AfD (in different circumstances to the current) to undelete but since she has better things to do than be on Wikipedia 24/7 AND I'm very confident she's the kind of lady who will be fine with any admin restoring if it's the correct thing to do I figure I'll take it to ANI.

Samantha Brick was, at the time of the deltion of her article, famous for basically being an IRL troll through the mechanism of a couple of Daily Mail columns proclaiming her beauty and disdain for fellow vagina-holders. Due to her only fame coming from those pieces, her article was deleted a few months ago, after an AfD, by Allie under BLP1E. No probs there.

However, since then the situation has changed - she's had, and indeed is having, the honour of appearing on Celebrity Big Brother, which in the UK is somewhere beteween receiving a knighthood and a baronetcy (although I only watch it for the dialogue). There's a pretty good argument for recreating the article, in other words, and if this is to be then it'd be nice to start that with a history.

So as the subject says - could someone restore Samantha Brick please? Egg Centric 23:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not even aware that she was appearing on Celebrity Big Brother so maybe she isn't yet as notorious as you believe her to be. If you have significant new information since the deletion that would justify an article then I suggest you present it at Wikipedia:Deletion review as it says at #3 of WP:DRVPURPOSE. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the DRV procedure. I saw that one of the first things to do is notify the deleting admin, in this case Alison. Since she hasn't yet replied and I know that she will be totally fine with other admins looking at it, I figure let's try to do things this way rather than waste time at DRV or whatever. Egg Centric 23:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Except this is not what AN/I is for, this is what DRV is for. Closing as an inappropriate venue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've unarchived (once) and will make this clear. Please read it

Yes, DRV is an appropriate, and quite possibly usual forum for this. But ANI is also appropriate. For the simple reason that I am asking for one - just one - administrator to do something. To take the place of Alison, as she would wnat you to do, and to undelete this page. It is not remotely controversial. It will benefit the encyclopedia. Please, please, let's not faff around with dotting i's and crossing t's. That isn't what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Egg Centric 00:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case you want WP:AN, not WP:ANI, as this is not an incident...and this still should go through DRV to establish a consensus for restoration of the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was not Alison who deleted it. She nominated it for deletion, there was a discussion at AfD closed by Black Kite, and he would be the person to ask. But this must go to deletion review--bringing it here is really ridiculous considering we have a well established way of dealing with these questions. I note BK suggested redirecting it and there is such a redirect. Personally, I have my doubts about whether the material in the Daily mail article is appropriate content, and whether that redirect was a good idea, but there are better places to discuss that also. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP User: 66.30.249.139 Flagrant Personal Attack

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

---

This IP has appears to have a personal problem with User:Kendrick7. See diff of personal attack and threat, plus diffs of article vandalism [159] [160]. Belchfire-TALK 17:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I would say the diffs that Belchfire calls "vandalism" were reverting edits that I'd say were tendentious (describing a partisan claim in the wikivoice as "informing voters"). They probably should have been rewritten rather than reverted but I don't see vandalism. CNN published an op-ed disputing the ads a couple days ago.[161] 66.127.54.117 (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

اردیبهشت

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

---

اردیبهشت (talk · contribs) is removing a scholarly source from the article Iranian cuisine and calls it "vandalism": [162]. The article was protected and I quoted the Encyclopaedia Iranica on the talkpage of the article. In all that time, he refused to take part in it. And now he is blindly reverting to a wrong POV version by purposely removing a reliable source, directly quoted from the most authoritative scholarly work on Iranian culture and history.

Besides that, this user has been asked by other users - as well as by admins - to change his nickname, using Latin letters only. Again, he is ignoring the request. Admin intervention is needed!

اردیبهشت is perhaps one of the most aggressive POV-pushers in that respective section of Wikipedia, with a notorious anti-Afghan, anti-Indian, and anti-Mongol (in part aggressively racist) bias.

--Lysozym (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disinformation and false accusations made against other user's like this above individual has made against me are merely childish diversionary tactics and will not help further your politically motivated POV campaign against Iran-related articles. I invite any 3rd party to see the edits i have made to Mongolian language and Hazara people to see who is the one who has an apparently "anti-Mongol" bias. I certainly am not the one editing out the Mongol connection and trying to deny the Mongol heritage of Hazara people and incorporation of Mongolian words into modern Persian. اردیبهشت (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No disinformation at all, but provable fact. The link above clearly shows that you have removed a scholarly source and reverted the article to a wrong POV-version - obviously the one that serves your own nationalistic POV. This one is just another proof. Your edits in Hazara people and Mongolian language also prove that all you do is blind revert while you lack the most basic knowledge required. You do not even know the difference between "gh" (Ġ) and "q" and confuse Mongolian "āqā" (elder brother) with Turkic "āghā" (āġā) which means "princess" (such as in Arḡūn Āḡā). So how are you going to improve these articles?! And blanking your talk page does not mean that you can hide facts. Your disruptive behaviour has also been noted by other users! You have been warned! Do not push it too far, you may get banned. --Lysozym (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lysozym that the two edits linked above are definitely not okay. Reverting well-sourced edits as "vandalism" is not good, and the edits to the tables were pretty blatantly in pursuit of an agenda. Given that and the slow-motion edit warring on several articles (especially Iranian cuisine), I'm blocking for 4 days. Maybe, just maybe, that'll get his attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

173.174.159.84 More disruption

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

---

User:173.174.159.84 was blocked for 48hrs for disruptive editing on 30 July. He's now doing the same thing again, adding flag icons to infoboxes. [163] [164] User does not discuss changes or respond to warnings from me and Mabuska. User informed.  Tigerboy1966  22:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. Report again if they resume.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Nemambrata - SPA and edit warring

On 4 August 2012, User:Nemambrata was reported as a WP:SPA here [165], however, unfortunately no admin attention was given at the time, and the matter was archived without action. Nemambrata has continued to editwar on the same articles, and has not edited outside those articles, so is looking more and more like an 'advocate' SPA. The editing behaviour is spasmodic, only reappearing when a change is made to the articles they are interested in is made. They make one edit (usually to remove material they do not like) then a short time later return to remove all trace of the removed material (such as references from the Reference section), claiming that the references are no longer relevant to the article in question. Their motivation for these edits was unclear until today, although it was clear that the editor had considerable experience with WP and was engaged in advocacy on behalf of the 'honour of Serbia' or some similar 'pro-Serbian' agenda. However, this [166] edit shows this editor's motivation clearly, 'this is insult for Serbian people'.

This edit warring is occurring in the context of two successive move requests at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here [167](closed, no move), and here [168](still open). Even though the name of the article has not changed (and was the official name of the territory involved) and remains under discussion, Nemambrata has taken it upon himself to eliminate all mention of the title of the article from related pages (such as Template:History of Serbia, Serbia, Serbs, Axis occupation of Vojvodina, Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944, Serbs in Vojvodina, Banat (1941–1944), and even Serbia (disambiguation), either removing it completely or creating a piped link with his preferred term in the text of each article.

here are some additional diffs with examples of the problematic editing-

• On Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 I added the title to the page on 1 July, replacing a colloquial version (Nedic's Serbia), Nemambrata began edit warring in relation to this here [169] on 2 August with an edit summary of 'better', I restored it on 7 August with a request that it be left until the issue with the title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was resolved. Nemambrata immediately made an accusation of revert warring on the talk page here, Talk:Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 then removed the title, replacing it with his preferred one here [170] with the edit summary 'no answer on talk page for several days'. I must point out at this point that this is a pattern for Nemambrata, he makes such talkpage comments on nearly every talkpage he edits, but where he is engaged in discussion, his rhetoric escalates rapidly, suggesting that I am promoting an 'illegal name' etc. The following example shows this.

• On Axis occupation of Vojvodina, after disruption by a quickly blocked WP:SPA User:HuHu22 I added the title to the page on 11 July, [171] with explanatory note. On 2 August, Nemambrata changed this to his preferred version here [172]. I reverted here [173] and Nemambrata immediately reverted here [174], and immediately started accusing me of edit warring on the talkpage here [175]. User:DIREKTOR reverted Nemambrata two days later here [176], was reverted by Nemambrata here [177], who was reverted by User:MrX here [178], reverted by Nemambrata here [179], who was reverted by User:Drmies here [180] who indicated that User:Nemambrata's edits were premature and that the 'battle' was being fought elsewhere (ie at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia) and stated this on the talkpage, but Nemambrata reverted again here [181] with an edit summary of 'Neutral description is back. There was few days and nobody chalenged my reasons for this edit on talk page. Illegal German names of illegal entity should not be promoted all over Wikipedia and there is no consensus that this name is used anywhere'. Nemambrata then deleted the references for Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here [182].

• On Banat (1941–1944), I added the title to the page on 11 July, [183] providing clarification of what territory the Government of National Salvation operated in. On 3 August, Nemambrata removed the reference to the Territory in the inbox, replacing it with his preferred version. User:DIREKTOR reverted the edit on 4 August here [184], and within 8 minutes Nemambrata reverted DIREKTOR without discussion on the talkpage.

Despite his recent arrival on en WP, I consider that Nemambrata is an obvious WP:SPA with wiki experience who has some very strange ideas about what WP:BRD entails, and appears to be motivated to right what he perceives as 'insults' to the Serbian people. This editing behaviour is not constructive, and I believe it warrants admin attention. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't help to notice that his name is a Serbian phrase: it means, "I have a brother".[185] I can't say whether this is intended to be a reference to another account, but that's what comes to my mind, anyhow. Hope this helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have seen no evidence that indicates that this user is not here to push an agenda or that they are a net asset. Drmies (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As I've said before, the user appears as a textbook edit-warring, POV-pushing SPA. (@Correction: "Nemam brata" means "I have no brother" in Serbo-Croatian.) -- Director (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• This editor does seem to be disruptive and not editing in good faith in some cases. I'm especially concerned about removal of content and then circling back later to to remove citations. I have reservations though. Is is possible that his edits are actually improving the articles by making them more neutral? Also, it seems that other active editors of these articles may be POV pushing every bit as much as Nemambrata. I think that Nemambrata needs to do better at working with other editors to build consensus, but I see no reasons for a block or a topic ban, especially since he has only received two warnings on his talk page. — MrX 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• This user is part of big content dispute, where reporting users are on the "other side" of conflict. I am afraid that this may only be a way to eliminate opposing opinions, with questionable presentation of data. By simple history check, you may see several very bad faith moves on all sides of dispute. I also dont find this worthy of any admin reaction. Content dispute should be dealt with on a relevant pages, and not on AN/I. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WW neglected to mention that he is on the same side as Nemambrata in the RM at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I would also like to make the point in response to WW that I am not interested in eliminating 'opposition', I am interested in ensuring that editors are here for the purposes WP accepts, not personal POV crusades on a single issue ignoring all WP policies that don't allow him to push his POV. That is what Nemambrata is doing, and in my view it does warrant admin action. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• as far as the SPA is concerned, Nemambrata has made 140 or so edits since his first edit on 1 August [186], of which only a dozen don't involve the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (and they were almost all category tagging on closely-related articles). Nemambrata has clearly shown that this account is for one purpose only, to put right 'insults to the Serbian people', which is an inappropriate single purpose, and not consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Again this? Administrators, please read this page where I already gave answer to accusations of DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67. Both of them were blocked for revert warring in the past. I gave explanation for all my changes on talk pages of articles and in my edit summaries and these two editors simply reverted me in several articles with no their comments on talk pages and with no edit sumaries. Examples are here: [187],[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja,_1941–1944], [188]. Both users started to attack me and revert me since I registered my username in Wikipedia and this thread is just another attack. About my agenda: yes, I have agenda to make some pages about Serbia accurate and I do not support promotion of Nazi names in these pages. For some reason, Peacemaker67 want to promote in several pages about Serbia official Nazi name of occupied territory. This name was illegal, Nazi occupation of Serbia was illegal and all names used by Nazis for their occupied territories were illegal. Yes, official Nazi name should be described somewhere in Wikipedia and it is described on this page and on main page about history of Serbia and that is enough. There is no reason that illegal official Nazi name is promoted all over Wikipedia in various pages about Serbia and it is just what Peacemaker67 do. He promote Nazi name all over Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia place where this should be promoted? Peacemaker67, please say to administrators why you promote this name all over Wikipedia? What is your agenda behind this? About my username: it mean "I do not have a brother". Yes, it is stupid, but after some of usernames that I had wish to choose were already taken, I just choose one that is not taken for sure. No conspiracy here. I already gave explanation that I had edits in Wikipedia (both English and Serbian) with IP number in the past and my experience come from that. See that DIREKTOR also accuse user:Alexmilt to be “WhiteWriter's acquaintance”. This just show behavior where DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are try to accuse everybody who do not agree with them to be socks, SPA accounts or parts of some conspiracy against them. About my edits: my interest is World War II and I had many changes about one thing only because my changes were reverted by Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR and I was forced to waste much of my time to this. I will work on other things related to World War II in future. Nemambrata (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• ". This name was illegal, Nazi occupation of Serbia was illegal and all names used by Nazis for their occupied territories were illegal. " - Wikipedia is not censored, and we do not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Heroin is illegal lots of places too but we still have an article on it - and under that title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Bushranger, it is good that Wikipedia is not censored but if there are two opposite points of view about something then Wikipedia should not favor Nazi point of view. I never say that Wikipedia should not have pages about entities that Nazis created in occupied Yugoslavia. But from point of view of international law and from point of view of WW2 Allies and most countries from that time Yugoslavia legaly was still in existence during entire WW2. That mean that if Wikipedia have description in pages that some parts of Yugoslavia or Serbia were in illegal Nazi entities then Wikipedia will favor Nazi point of view. This is what Peacemaker67 do. He promote all over Wikipedia this illegal Nazi territory and he write everywhere that Serbian cities and regions were part of that territory. It is not correct. Serbian cities and regions were part of occupied Yugoslavia which was illegally partioned by Nazis. Wikipedia should not ignore this point of view and should not favor Nazi point of view. About name that Peacemaker67 promote: Name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is not just illegal Nazi name but it is almost not used in English sources, it is disputed by several other editors of Wikipedia and there are many other names that can be used in English for that territory and all other names have support from more sources: [189]. Nemambrata (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps the name should be Occupied Yugoslavia in World War Two. Or, better yet, have seperate articles, one on Occupation of Serbia during World War Two, and one on Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia - note, for instance, Wikipedia has an article on Manchukuo, whose status under international law was likely somewhat similar to the region in question here... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with Occupied Yugoslavia in World War Two or Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, but the problem with Occupation of Serbia during World War Two or Axis occupation of Serbia(which was recently created) is that it is ahistorical. There was no geopolitical entity called 'Serbia' between 1918 and the 1941 invasion, so no 'Serbia' to occupy. The Germans used the term 'Serbien' in the title of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia for their own reasons, presumably because there had been a geopolitical entity in that area called Serbia prior to 1918. Also Bushranger, can I ask (as you are active here dealing with reports), do you know if there is there a reason this report (and its predecessor SPA one) has not received admin attention as yet? It seems other more recent matters have received admin attention much quicker. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Fair enough on the historical terminology. As for a lack of attention, it could be that there's only a few admins who consider themselves knowledgable enough in the area to chip in? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem With Feedback on WOAY-TV

This post on the WOAY-TV feedback page is beyond unhelpful and borderline abuse, but I can't mark it as abuse, unhelpful or anything, can't hide the post either. When I try, it just moves me back to the top of the page with no action taken. Not sure if this is a problem with the Feedback application, code or what, or if it is just affecting this page, but it needs to be fixed, else the Feedback application is useless. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it's hidden, but I can see it briefly before it hides, and the text is still visible in View Source. Nice if there were a cleaner way to deal with this... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it would be nice that once something is marked as "Abuse", it would be removed altogether by an admin or a non-admin tasked with watching the Feedback pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Huh; I can't see it. Apparently the tool is turned off for that article? I'm not sure how the post got there except as a result of a bug we had a few weeks back. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting SarekOfVulcan. I too read the hidden post because I managed to hit Print Screen before it hid itself. Live long and prosper. :) • Jesse V.^(talk) 15:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• The easier way is to turn off JavaScript in your WWW browsers and re-load. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

2007–2012 global financial crisis

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

---

Someone needs to come down to Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis and User talk:RegentsPark before references to wp:admin and wp:own are going to fly around. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the form of the title was had at Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis; User:RegentsPark closed it, more or less properly. However, advocates of a new title don't accept it and continue to agitate, both on Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis and User talk:RegentsPark. They can cite a number of statements in the popular press which refer to the "financial crisis of 2008." User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have kept my post here rather vague, exactly because this crisis, spanning some 11 sections up to now, over at least two talk pages and two admin noticeboards, has a simple solution that does not require any understanding in economic affairs, only Wikipedia policy. I could bring hard evidence to the table, but choose not to do so, for now, due to my respect to the good work that RegentsPark and Fred carry out on a day to day basis. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, I encourage you to bring hard evidence for any fault you see with my close and my good faith reopening of the move discussion here. I'm not a big fan of insinuations and much prefer to see any faults of mine aired rather than letting them remain hidden, particularly when I don't see them myself. --regentspark (comment) 19:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark, any evidence I had regarding you is already documented on your talk page. I have no further evidence to bring to your case. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. There is that detail that has brought my post here. In my view, due to wp:coi RegentsPark should not have asked us all to repeat our arguments for his benefit. This demand has been excessive and led to a waste of editor energy that would be otherwise directed at improving articles. But further, as we have already complied with that demand, a move seems in order, and it is not clear to me why he would want to delay. Fred had already posted in other sections, and had ample opportunity to bring evidence to that RM review. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, and I do hope I will have nothing to add after this, there is that issue with wp:retain. That policy was specifically written to deal with English variety title disputes. It favors the Status Que on the assumption that the name dispute has no real significance for Wikipedia. As I understand, RM closers in the past have chosen to stretch that policy to all name disputes. I had a pretty long discussion about this issue at talk:Requested moves, suggesting that it is rather in consensus that wp:retain can and should be used when the possible improvement in the name seems minor, but not when it may have non-trivial implications, either for Wikipedia or the outside world.

If we want to only count the amount of disruption this prolonged dispute has caused, I believe that one can easily see that wp:retain does not, and should not hold in such cases. Bottom line: even if RegentsPark is right and there was no consensus on that 10-2 RM, still there is no policy basis to conclude that the Status Que is the outcome favored by Wikipedia policy, and one would have to suggest why, the hell, would we want to favor the Status Que in such a case. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To get to a the central point... RegentsPark closed a RM discussion with a "no consensus" when 10 out of 12 users favored a move and 10 out of 12 supported an alternative title. Obviously these discussions are not based on consensus not votes, but an admin needs a really strong reason to ignore such a one-sided breakdown in supports/oppositions. Several of us don't accept RegentPark's rationale on this and another admin should review this.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add one more thing after reviewing the talk page for this article. RegentsPark based his decision on the article title on his own rationale that we should cover all possible years that might be associated with the crisis. No one else made this argument. This was his own point of view, and he imposed it over the consensus.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Like Bkwillm, I was pretty stunned when, what looked to me like a straight-forward !vote of 10-2 was apparently ignored. But I'd like to say the even though User:Yaniv256 is clearly a very knowledgable editor with his heart in the right place, he is a bit of a newbie and somewhat excitable (but don't worry, he'll get over it). I've discussed this with RegentsPark, and what I think happened is that he just missed it. A fastball right down the middle of the plate, and somehow he called a ball, high and outside. I suppose everybody misses a few, but he kindly agreed to review the close of the RM and ask editors for clarification of their positions. I now sympathize greatly with RP. When asked for clarification, they (or we), though we almost all agree that the current title is way out-of-bound, quibble about trivia. Most of us seem to know the economic terminology, but can't expect every admin too. On the other hand ... (joke about economists). I'd let RP finish this up. We've put him in a difficult position, so maybe he could ask some other admins for help.

If I may digress, one of my favorite funny phrases in Russian is used where we might use "The umpire needs glasses" and very roughly translates to "turn the ref into soap." Hillarious, but almost certainly a bad idea. It really doesn't help anything to turn the ref into soap, and the next ref is likely to be worse.

All the best, 20:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) back to sign my name, after a quick trip to the soap plant. Smallbones (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with Smallbones, every minute of delay has a cost in terms of editor time and effort. If some of that can be saved, I can not see why we should not attempt to do so. The minute RegentsPark realizes that he was out of line, this would all be over. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, you have out done me in bad taste, and that is no small compliment. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough. The case has been open for nearly four hours with no action on the part of RegentsPark or even a defense of his case. Not to mention Fred, who continues to discuss irrelevant issues on the wrong section while we all await his word in the RM review. If such disruption was caused by new editors they would have been blocked, not only reverted. There must be a limit to how much prejudgment the system applies. The time to act is now. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Five. Great time for that long needed wikibreak by RegentsPark. Speaking of Five, why don't we all pass the time by forming a circle around the Pillars while RegentsParks uses them for a nap? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Six. Just like the number of Conduct policies on that infobox that hungs at wp:own. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry. I had to take my kids to the park (nice day here) and then drive upstate. Apologies if I have been remiss but I don't really get paid for all this. As far as I'm concerned, I reopened a move discussion to see whether I've misunderstood things and that doesn't really need a defending. Frankly, I consider your remarks here and those of bkwilmn above and on my talk page in bad taste and rather disruptive. Apologies again, but that's what I think. --regentspark (comment) 01:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, this is the second time you've pestered the noticeboards with the attitude: You must do what I want right now. The first time was here, after which you pointedly tried to get yourself blocked. I'm not sure what you're here for these days, but improving the encyclopedia no longer seems to be high on your list of priorities, since your name keeps appearing here and on AN in regard to trivialities. I suggest that someone of your intelligence ought to put it to better use, by returning to editing mathematics articles, or articles in other subjects that interest you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And you still count all of that as my disruption. Wow, I did not know how wrong accounting can be. And coming from a trained economist that is not a small feat. By the way, Seven, like the number of lights in the Menorah (this is a cross reference to that other AN/I debate I have been using to pass the time). →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Eight. Run out of smart-ass remarks. Need to do a better job at being a jerk for next time.→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, your repeated comments here are disruptive. Stop. Somebody with knowledge in the area will get to it - your repeated demands that somebody get to it now only raise the probablility level of your being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And to that open threat of disrupting Wikipedia (again) just to punish me for speaking my mind, I'll answer with a classic quote that is more than appropriate:

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

— Dirty Harry, Dirty Harry,1971

→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nine. Nothing to add. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do need to sleep at some point and would not want to fail my duty to tell this admin board what a bad job I think they are doing. Being bold I'll adventure a guess: Eleven, smart-ass, Twelve, smart-ass, Thirteen, I had a really good one for Thirteen, but what can you do, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen. There you go. See you on the other side of the jump. Feel free to not do as I say, or do as I say, whichever meets your arbitrary fancy. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, there's absolutely NOTHING urgent about either a move or a move review - you've been advised of that before. Nothing is currently preventing the article from being found or edited. If you disagreed with the closure, your very first step was to discuss with the closing admin. If you were unhappy with the policy-based responses you received, there's a process of Move Review. Being a bit of a nasty person towards admins because they're not acting as quickly as you mistakenly believe needs to be done is disruptive, and unwelcome on a community-based project. As the old saying goes: you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. dangerouspanda 10:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He outright stated his refusal to use move review. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that no admin feels that it is their duty to address this case in a timely manner. The continuation of this pattern will leave me no choice but to appeal to ArbCom. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 15:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have listed a move review request: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August 19.--Bkwillwm (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Twenty-four: Hey, you! Hive mind of the eusocial, communist, Wikipedia cult. You plan to wear me down, and probably will, but before that happens I have a song for you. This day will be mine as soon as when you read my song you will have no choice but to hum:

(Note:Copyvio song quote removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang

• Given the above disruptive behavior, which was requested to be stopped, then warned about, then final warninged, which drew this response; which also extended to posting copyvio song lyrics which were removed and warned about, said warning bringing a blanket declaration of bad faith by all admins and then reposting the same copyvio song lyrics on ANI and making comments such as this that are openly labled "insults", while also bearing in mind his two previous trips to AN/I [190] [191], it's clear that, regardless of the validity or not of the original complaint (which I am not assessing or prejudicing one way or the other with this action) Yaniv256 has decided he's here for the drama and is not here to be constructive. Accordingly I have blocked Yaniv256 for 31 hours. Any other admin can freely extend, reduce, or undo the block if they believe Yaniv256 can contribute constructively or is, alternatively, wholly WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support the block; I warned him as well, and I agree that Yaniv256 at this point is more focused on the drama than being constructive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• When I saw the RM thing and the request to have himself blocked, I assumed it was a one-off frustration. But it's looking increasingly like he's only here for trolling/admin-baiting. I think a 31 hour block was lenient, though I think it's reasonable to give him that chance to prove us wrong - but I can see an indef not being far away if he carries on like this afterwards. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256 has asked for his comments on his talk page to be copied here....

"The Bushranger is hiding that the true cause of the block was my last edit, which falls, as many of my edits and rants, squarely within Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines. This is not an appeal of my block as I, personally, am quite fine with it. It is you, the reader, who should contemplate if you are fine with it, and if this might not be a good time to act before that answer that is currently in your reach blows away.→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC

"Just to make sure that I am well understood. Unless someone reverts this block, I will have to recognize that what I have done was indeed disruptive, and will never, ever edit again. That will be my choice. You have a choice too. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)"

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As should be clear, the edit he mentions had precisely zero to do with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It seemed clear enough to me, yes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yani obviously fell into disruptive behavior, but I doubt he is trolling. He was participating in a rather boring discussion on how to date the financial crisis. This discussion was cordial and Yani made fruitful contributions. After the discussion closed, he had a civil and reasoned discussion with RegentsPark (User_talk:RegentsPark#RM_close_review). I doubt a troll would through all this just hoping an admin would stick to a controversial decision so that he could rant about it. I think Yani simply grew impatient with the Wikipedia process for resolving this dispute.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but did you check the links to the previous AN/I discussions he's been involved in? This isn't the first time he's done this sort of thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Sage94

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

---

User:Sage94 seems suddenly to be obsessed with posting buttocks-obsessed porn throughout Wikipedia. I suggest an immediate block per WP:NOTHERE. See today's contribution history [192] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

96.48.57.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in article body of PlayStation Network - Diff Jim1138 (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NLT is about threats to sue Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Someone venting against not receiving a refund from Sony may be inappropriate and may be uncivil, but any legal aspects are down to Sony's lawyers, not ours. Mogism (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And they're IP-hopping too, so blocking won't stop them - I've semi-protected the attacked article for a short while. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it looks like a number of different IPs in different areas are edit warring over those edits. But the originator was User:Dougxman, who has made no other edits, so I have blocked as a vandal-only account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• It appears to be nothing to do with Wikipedia at all. See Special:Contributions/PSN mods are fascists, which username speaks for itself, and Special:Contributions/Dougxman. The legal threats are not against the Wikimedia Foundation. They are against Sony and SCE London Studio. Ironically, the person making the edits seems not to comprehend that Wikipedia isn't PlayStation and that a Wikipedia article isn't a vehicle for dialogue with its subject. Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Wow, thats pretty harsh tough. The contributor does realize that the articles are not actually part of "SONY"? and they don't read them for feedback. Anyhow, not a legal threat by Wikipedia standards.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well, we've got two registered users and at least 3 4 IPs (which geolocate to Canada and to different parts of the US) all edit warring to get the same thing back in - it really doesn't look like an innocent mistake by someone who has found the wrong web site. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Just for the record, the IPs geolocate to Medford, OR; Maple Ridge, BC, Canada; Laurens, SC; and Seattle, WA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Defaming, false accusations and nasty name calling in personal attack by Jim10701

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

---

User:Jim10701 has made reputation-damaging and untrue accusations against me on his talk page: Morrison lede discussion and "mad, tormented dog" Really? - That's one of the worst remarks I've seen about anyone on WP. (And I've seen some bad ones!)

Also the first of these other two contributors is at the very least violating WP:CANVAS and at the most, IMO, these two are sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) of Jim10701.

• 177.18.188.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 189.27.251.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The only time I have ever encountered Jim10701 is on the current version of the Van Morrison talk page: Talk: Van Morrison#Lede. That's it! I have not commented on any of the editor's talk pages and none of these three accounts mentioned have made any edits that I reverted at any time. That can be checked out on the history of the article and on their talk pages. And my contribution history will show that I do branch out from the VM articles and have been trying to help with WP:GAN articles and other biography articles when I have a little time. Thanking whoever can help me, in advance - I would have liked to ignore it, but I really can't, it is much too hurtful. Agadant (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I looked over some of the history here. My summary is that 1) Jim10701 made a blatantly unacceptable and egregious personal attack in the diff provided by Agadant and 2) Agadant has been demonstrating some sense of ownership of Van Morrison based on a misplaced determination that it not be changed significantly from its content when it reached GA status.

The first deserves sanctions. Seriously. That was completely unacceptable. I'll leave what kind of sanctions up to my fellow-editors, because that irritated me so much that I'm not sure where to start.

The second deserves a trout and a request to back off on the matter. For one thing, Good Article is not the pinnacle of article ratings, so if we want a GA to be A-class or even an FA someday, we have to accept attempts at improvement. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Personal attack? Yes, probably. Defamation? You're really stretching it there. Best not to accuse someone of that unless you can prove that it's materially damaged your reputation. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'd agree, that's a pretty egregious personal attack. In my opinion, there's no question that something needs to be done. I'm not sure what level of sanctions it merits, but at the very least I'd expect Jim10701 to apologize to Agadant and retract his comment if sanctions are to be avoided. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• What I wrote I wrote on my own talk page in response to an invitation from another editor to revisit the Morrison page. I was describing to that other editor the behavior by Agadant that caused me to be unwilling to revisit that page under any circumstances. I meant it as an accurate description of how his (or her) behavior made me feel when I made what seemed like a good-faith effort to bring objectivity to the page. I agree that my description was harsh, but they were harsh feelings I was describing, and I tend to use colorful and graphic language where others might be more restrained. I meant only to say as clearly and accurately as I could how I felt and why I was unwilling to accept that other editor's invitation. I have no vendetta against Agadant, I was ONLY expressing my feelings and why I wished to avoid any further contact with him or her, and I did not mean it as a personal attack, defamation, or anything else like that. I am truly sorry he or she was offended by what I wrote. However, I will not apologize for attempting to express my own feelings on my own talk page in response to a specific invitation from another editor. If expressing my personal feelings in the only way I know how to do it on my own talk page in response to such an invitation from another editor is forbidden at Wikipedia, then I have indeed trespassed against this institution and deserve whatever punishment it determines is appropriate.--Jim10701 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I neglected to address the sockpuppet accusation. I have never used a sockuppet and, to be honest, I'm not even sure what a sockpuppet is or how to use one if I had one. But I do know that neither of the IP addresses listed above is mine, I did not enter anything here under either of those IP addresses or any other but my own, and I don't believe I've even done that in many years. I have never done any editing here under any name except Jim10701. I used occasionally to forget to log in before editing, but I don't believe I have done it at all since the reminder started appearing when editing anonymously. I know it's a foundation of Wikipedia, but I don't like anonymous editing and I would no longer be comfortable doing it. If I were, wouldn't I have written the things I wrote about Agadant behind a cloak of anonymity? The fact that I wrote those things as myself on my own talk page should lend some credence to my assertion that they were meant only as expressions of my personal feelings and not as an attack on another editor. If I were out to get Agadant, wouldn't it have been more effective to do it anonymously and in a more public and more anonymous forum than my own talk page? If malice toward and defamation of Agadant were my motivation, I was awfully stupid to do what I did where and how I did it.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• • No one is going to make you apologize. But if you just redact it then we can all move on.--v/r - TP 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "redact it"? This is my first experience with this process, and I'm not familiar with the terminology.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just delete those words, strike them out with <s></s>, or use the {{redacted}} template.--v/r - TP 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How could any one, even a kindergarten pupil, not consider that calling another editor "a mad tormented dog", "not a good editor but a psychopath" and the misrepresentation? (I won't say lie) that the other person was 'warring", not worthy of apologizing for, when the offended person states that they were unjustifiably attacked and feel damaged by it and would feel much better if the guilty party admitted they went too far and said "I'm sorry". I would jump at the chance to apologize to anyone I said such harsh remarks to, if I ever did. Agadant (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here and what not, but if you really think you can compel anyone to apologizing then you're going to wait awhile. Any honest apology needs to come from Jim10701 if he chooses to do so. However, he is entitled to his opinion and just because we have a policy against expressing that opinion so harshly doesn't mean he can't hold it. If you are concerned, perhaps you need to reflect on what brought Jim to that opinion of you. His apology isn't going to fix whatever is between you. You both need to focus on the content of the article and not each other. He redacted the comments and since this was a first offense, I just don't see anymore reason to discuss this. The thread should be closed.--v/r - TP 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you seem to be taking sides and to accuse ME of trolling to copy what i wrote here, in case he didn't see it, is really confusing to me, if I want to believe you are not. Originally, I did nothing but tell Jim10701 on the talkpage why I thought the reliably sourced description that is unique to that artist and adds to the article did not warrant being deleted as he chose. To say that makes me a 'psychopath' and a 'mad, tormented dog' and that I was 'warring" is outrageous but I guess he won't ever think so now, huh? Agadant (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Agadant. I didn't mean to.--Jim10701 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that when you weren't required to. We all make mistakes, myself included, so let's just "let it be". Agadant (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

TheAnonymouszpen's request for quick administrator action

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

---

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Jim1138 is abusing his powers, and wrongfully accusing me of vandalism. I'd like to hear a response fairly quickly if you wouldn't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAnonymouszpen (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick response given as demanded:

• User talk:TheAnonymouszpen#Your request for rapid administrator action

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bit o' rope v. wp:ain Jim1138 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Iamgeorgebently

I wanted to inform you with important information about this user, Iamgeorgebently. He told me he is Patdan10, makin a new account. I saw him create the account for myself. I wanted you to be aware when making your decisions about how to deal with this vandal, in case he continues. Us441(talk)(contribs) 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, unfortunately since it has been a year and a half since Patdan10 last edited (before being blocked) there is no way to technically verify that they are the same person. Patdan10 was blocked for being a vandalism-only editor, and Iamgeorgebently has made only one edit (which also appears to be vandalism) and if they continue as they are they will be blocked for vandalism anyway. Vandalism that is so blatant almost never flies under the radar, fortunately. -- Atama頭 02:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of edit-warring behavior by creating a content fork

Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was engaged in a spate of edit warring yesterday with regard to the Todd Akin article. Earlier yesterday (23:19, 19 August 2012‎), User:LuK3 requested page protection for that article due increased vandalism and problems that were likely to come out of the attention from the article subject's remarks on rape and pregnancy. Later in the day, I requested full page protection after several editors began an all-out edit war to push for additional material without regard for BLP concerns. Report was filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Casprings and User:JamesAM reported by User:Avanu (Result: Protected).

Ed17 granted a 3-day full protection for the article at 05:38, 20 August 2012. Casprings proceeded to create a content fork of the article at 00:44, 21 August 2012‎ titled, 2012 Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy.

I believe this action is in opposition to the spirit of the edit warring policy and is ignoring consensus efforts at the original article. -- Avanu (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The event involves more then Mr. Akin now. It clearly meets WP:N for an article. Casprings (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note...

...I've noticed several times recently that users who have been blocked haven't been notified on their user talk pages about the block. Now in some cases (where it's socks) this might be understandable, but in other cases it just seems to have been forgotten. While I'm pretty sure it's not required, per se, it's courteous to say "you've been blocked" even if it's just with a Twinkle tag, I think, instead of letting the user find out when they try to edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• If I do that, trout me. It actually bugs me a bit that the SPI scripts do not put a notice on the sock's talk page when we block them. We can go an manually add them, but often there are many socks in a single case and that is a pain. It does always put a notice on their user page, however, so I suppose that is supposed to suffice. It would be better if it has another checkbox to give a generic "you are blocked for $x, see ((WP:SPI/sockcase))" for the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you notifying the blocking admins? For my part, if I forget to notify a blocked editor, I would want to know. It's almost required. See WP:EXPLAINBLOCK - just underneath ("Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page.") Perhaps we should change that to "Generally, administrators must notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page." The "generally" gives an admin some wiggle room but conveys the notification more strongly. I'm not sure how a user is expected to know how to appeal a block without a notice unless of course they're a recidivist and have lots of experience. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends if you use some of the templated blocks themselves - they will see a block notice when they try to edit (I think) dangerouspanda 00:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I could block you and we could test that ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I know of at least 1 editor who would love that dangerouspanda 01:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've just been adding the "congrats, you've been blocked" tags myself, but from now on I'll send a ping in the direction of the Forgetful Joneses. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If adding notices to sock talk pages is a pain, perhaps the blocking should be done by a different admin.--Rockfang (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• An automated blocking notice, as an option, is a good idea; for one thing, it always struck me as less than helpful that the "reasons for block" aren't exactly in the same order and wording as the list of blocking templates. Or we could have different levels for blocking templates: "Hi, I'm Drmies and I blocked your account. Please leave a note on my talk page if I hurt your feelings." Drmies (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• "I apologize that I did not find your vandalism as amusing as your friends do - I'm sure that the fault is in me, and not you - but since life is unfair, I've blocked you anyway, which will give you and your friends a concrete reason to feel oppressed by The Man." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's The Man, man! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The templates give them the appeal mechanism as well. Secretlondon (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment One of my machines is in a big range block right now, so I can confirm that when someone is blocked and tries to edit, the "you are blocked" screen has some links about block policy and how to appeal. It also gives the block reason, username of blocking admin, block expiration time, etc. In fact that address is under two different blocks (one specific to en.wp by an en.wp admin, and a global one by a meta admin) and the block message gives the specifics for both. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Minty10200, User: 198.60.121.1 continued reverting of Dual Survival article

User:Minty10200 keeps reverting the Dual Survival page to unsourced or information from non reliable sources about Dave Canterbury being fired [193] [194] [195] [196][197][198][199]. These edits involve deletion of fully sourced material. Attempts have been made to engage with Minty10200 in talk and on their personal talk page but user does not appear to understand Wikipedia reliable sourcing policy and instead makes personal attacks, claims I am censoring the "truth" as an argument. I made attempts to locate reliable sources for the information user insisted on and added these to the page but no reliable source could be located that Canterbury was fired, only that he was no longer with the show. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit behavior continues [200] edits involve deletion of three sources and replaced with unsourced information. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the changes based on WP:BLP and WP:OR, and added a BLP warning on the users talk page. Nothing else to do yet, unless edit warring continues. Could possibly block for WP:3RR as well, but lets wait and see how the user reacts to this warning first. Blocking should be last resort. Try discussing on the talk page as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried discussing on the talk page and added what I could find that could be sourced to address their concerns but user seems more concerned that the "truth" is being censored then properly sourcing their information. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Now User:198.60.121.1 continues to make the same edits [201], I suspect it is the same user as they have made the same edit in the past [202]. Another user has restored the page but I am concerned of the behavior continuing. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

IP User 198.60.121.1 continues to revert the page [203] [204] --JournalScholar (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for reporting this. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Question I am confused by the time stamps...was this post moved here from somewhere else? Ditch ∝ 23:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the third go round on WP:ANI. The other two times it received no attention. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So someone is just cut-pasting this to the bottom of the ANI thread? That seems disruptive in itself, but I'm not really familiar with the policy on that. Perhaps an Admin could address some aspect of the OP's (re)posting here to avoid continue deja vu for the rest of us? Ditch ∝ 01:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and as far as I know there's no policy against doing that. It's actually not all that unusual for an archived thread to be brought back to ANI if it doesn't get a resolution. People only get grumpy when someone does so after a request is resolved, but not to the poster's satisfaction. -- Atama頭 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize as I was not attempting to be disruptive but rather resolve an ongoing issue and to provide the historical evidence of the problem. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Behavior continues [205] --JournalScholar (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Page is now being potentially vandalized [206] [207] [208] [209] --JournalScholar (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a week, that should dissuade anyone from editing anonymously to reinsert violations of WP:BLP (which I assume is what Minty10200 is doing). If they continue to try reinserting negative unsourced information about a living person, the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard would be a great place to get attention. -- Atama頭 02:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The amount of attention given to the reasons behind one of the co-hosts leaving the show is a bit undue in my opinion. The fact that he is leaving and will be replaced certainly deserves a mention, but the somewhat controversial behind-the-scenes circumstances that led to his departure really has nothing to do with the show itself. This is an article about the show. The hosts have their own BLP pages. Ditch ∝ 02:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Undue or not, such negative information about a living person absolutely requires a source per our policies. I would like to point out to JournalScholar (as was previously pointed out on the article talk page) that vandalism requires ill-intent. I don't believe these edits are vandalism, I believe the editor truly feels they are improving the article with that information, but it is still a violation of BLP. -- Atama頭 02:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree on your points about vandalism as defined per Wikipedia and would call it disruptive editing in violation of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOR. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)