Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751

You people better watch this like hawks

Tea Party provacateurs have filed and linked this AFD off of Drudge Report. Lots of people are coming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forward_%28Obama-Biden_Campaign_Slogan%29 Herp Derp (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean "fully protected," so only administrators can !vote? It looks more like it's "semi-protected." And the semi-protection is currently set to expire 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC), not in three days. Edison (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Two separate protections - the AFD is semi-protected for 7 days. The article itself is Full protected for three, since many of the shenanigans from the AFD were spilling over (or vice versa). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not the nicest of ways to speak to fellow editors. You people better watch this like hawks. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. The title reference was neutral enough. The "provacateurs"[sic] might not have been, but seems to be in context when you consider the political leanings of the source of the links. It was a good call to bring it here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I much prefer Antics, myself. But that's just me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't see anything at all wrong with "You people better watch this like hawks." Seriously, nothing. And yes, what Dennis said – very good call to bring it here. Good on ya, Derpy! Well done :D Pesky (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Community sanctions enforcement request: Delicious carbuncle

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.

---

(Note: this was originally filed at WP:AE but I've moved it here at the request of User:Lothar von Richthofen, as a more appropriate forum.)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prioryman (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

• 00:04, 2 May 2012?

This edit on a user talk page repeats exactly the same subject matter as the topic of the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard that led to the interaction ban between DC and myself. To summarise: DC has taken it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante "policing" my edits. He has stalked me on and off-wiki for nearly two years, even going so far as to create a "monitoring" thread about me on Wikipedia Review. This has led to repeated clashes on-wiki. An interaction ban was proposed by User:28bytes and enacted by User:ErrantX to enforce a complete disengagement between us. Under the terms of the ban, we are prohibited from "discussing each other, or interacting" at any venue. A narrow exemption is given for appealing the ban on the user talk page of ErrantX or to the Arbcom: "Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom." [1]

DC has blatantly flouted the IBAN by continuing his vigilante behaviour on a matter which is not remotely related to an appeal of the ban. This is especially egregious as (1) he has previously been blocked for breaching the ban [2] and (2) as noted here, "editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me ... aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia", which arbitrator User:SirFozzie has endorsed and asked to be enforced. [3] After DC's previous block, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise told him: "I would want to come away from this with one unmistakable clarification: if ErrantX spoke of his page being "exempt" from the interaction ban, that does not mean his page is a place on which you are simply free to continue your fights. The consensus on AN was for a full interaction ban, not an interaction ban with loopholes." DC responded that he "never had any other understanding". [4]

It's obvious from this incident that despite what he told Future Perfect, DC has not ceased stalking my edits and taking it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante. This is precisely the type of behaviour that necessitated the IBAN in the first place and is an absolutely unambiguous violation of a clearly worded interaction ban. With two violations in only six weeks, it's clear that he has no intention of stopping this obsessive behaviour and the only thing that is going to put an end to this once and for all is a substantial block for him. Total disengagement has to mean just that, otherwise this IBAN is meaningless. The admin who imposed the ban, ErrantX, has said that if another admin "want[s] to impost a block on DC for violating the IBAN that is fine by me."[5]

For the record, I have abided by my side of the ban and have refrained from interacting with DC, or commenting on or off-wiki on him or his interactions with others. I've said repeatedly that I want nothing to do with him and I've stood by that intention. This intervention by DC has come out of the blue with no provocation of any kind on my part. I'm deeply frustrated that despite my restraint and avoidance of trouble, this nonsense is still continuing despite the interaction ban which was supposed to end it. Please resolve this once and for all. Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreschi, how have I violated the interaction ban? Are you seriously suggesting that it's a violation of the interaction ban to ask for the interaction ban to be enforced? How am I supposed to deal with violations of the ban, then? I'd like to remind you that I am the victim of a violation here, not the perpetrator of one. I've been keeping my head down and out of trouble, and have done nothing to provoke DC into going after me yet again. I am not the one causing the problem. Prioryman (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are [the victim] which is what makes this rather tricky to handle. Had you not considered using email to request that ErrantX or someone else deal with DC's post, rather than creating more drama on-wiki? But I can see how you might not think of that. Hmm. Technically I think you're both in breach of your ban, but blocking people on technical grounds seems rather off. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately when I raised it with ErrantX he declined to enforce his own interaction ban - his words: "I've had my fill of "OMG DRAMAZ" (one reason I mostly ignored DC's comment) for the month, so I'll let some other admin inherit this headache." [6] This leaves me with no recourse whatsoever other than to ask "some other admin" to deal with it, which is what I'm doing here. I don't know who specifically to ask. I want nothing to do with DC and only want this person to leave me alone as he is supposed to be doing. I want to disengage from DC but he isn't disengaging from me despite the IBAN. Can someone please get this sorted out? Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

• Imposition of the interaction ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 19:02, 3 May 2012?

Huh. Well, my initial reaction is to block Delicious Carbuncle (96h) for violating his interaction ban, and then block Prioryman (96h) for also violating the interaction ban. Having done my homework on this, however, I see there is a significantly controversial back-story here, so I'll wait for others to weigh in and see what they think. Moreschi (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the block of DC would be per Prioryman's reasoning, since the post on ErrantX's talkpage is clearly not appealing or discussing the interaction ban and surely constitutes more stalking and harassment in violation of the terms of the ban. Blocking Prioryman would be because DR processes were specifically included in the terms of the interaction ban, and the correct course of action, if he wanted anything done about DC's post, would be to email ErrantX or an uninvolved sysop, rather than create more on-wiki drama here, at AE, ErrantX's talk, and Future Perfect's talk. But my reasoning on blocking Prioryman might be off, so feedback would be appreciated. This is a tricky one to handle. Moreschi (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm now significantly less inclined to block Prioryman, as we don't usually do purely procedural blocks when there was no intent to violate the ban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If AE requests are prohibited by the ban, that's quite unfair; either user could do something to the other, have the other report it as a violation, and succeed in getting the other one blocked for reporting it some way or another. It's only fair to permit either user to report alleged violations at AE. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would not be absurd if one of the goals of the ban is that neither party should be allowed to bring reports against the other, regardless of the actions of the other. Basically a "even if you see him torching a barn, you cannot call the police because we don't trust you not to abuse the police phone number" situation. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You're half-right. One of the goals of the ban is to prevent either party bringing reports against the other (in fact, that was at my own insistence). However, where your analogy falls down is that this is not a "torching [someone else']s barn" situation but a "punching me in the face" situation. I'm not raising this thread because DC has done something against someone else, I'm raising it because he's done something against me, in open contravention of the ban. Conversely DC is in the kind of situation you envisage, because his intervention on ErrantX's talk page was yet another attempt to get me sanctioned for what he sees, wrongly, as a violation of my existing sanctions. That has nothing to do with administration of the interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the edit for which DC reported me to ErrantX is this one, where I reverted a vandal who had changed the title of Battlefield Earth (film) - a featured article that I co-wrote - to "Battlefield Fuckstick". I hardly need to point out how petty and vindictive it is to try to get me sanctioned for that. Prioryman (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreschi, please go with your gut -- block both. 96hours, 96 days, whatever it takes. Nobody Ent 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair, I was not involved with the initial ban, so I don't have the full context, but the idea that two people don't get along to the point they can't even be trusted to call the cops when one is beating the other is not totally lacking in logic. Possibly common sense, but not logic. I would defer to Moreschi's proposed course. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How would blocking the victim of an interaction ban violation possibly be fair? I've been targeted for two years by this individual. He's been given an interaction ban with me which was supposed to have stopped it. He's continued despite the ban. How is that in any way my fault? Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a two-way topic ban, not a one-way ban towards him. That is a presumption that both parties are at fault and neither is the victim. MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a two-way ban, which I fully supported in the earlier AN discussion. I specifically called for a total disengagement, each of us ceasing to have any involvement with the other. That's not a dispensation of "fault" - I simply don't want to have anything to do with him. I've abided by my side of the interaction ban. He's violated it twice in six weeks and has already been blocked 48 hours for his previous violation. Draw your own conclusions. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• sigh* I'd hoped that this would not spin up again after I managed to drag these two users kicking and screaming apart before. Long story short; they simply cannot cope with each other. DC managed to keep away from Prioryman for some weeks; but then just posted to my user talk raising not only a valid matter I had neglected but, as prioryman mentions, another matter which indicates he is still sniffing around Prioryman. My inclination in such cases is usually to revert and leave it at that for the first few times - and hope that by keeping the matter de-escalated things will continue to stay nice and relaxed. However Prioryman has, yet again, risen to the bait and dragged this across various noticeboards (there was no initial request to me to take extra action). As I said to him earlier; a key part of the interaction ban is being able to ignore the other person, something he has failed to do.

The point of the IBAN was to stop the disruption across the project space that they caused by their clashing; as Prioryman has demonstrated, this has not worked.

Both these users need their heads banging together and to be set down in their respective corners. What to do? I'd be inclined to follow Moreschi's gut reaction - a longer block for DC for flagrant violation of the IBAN and its intention. And a block for Prioryman (24h?). With the hope that this impresses on them one last time that the community is fed up of their bickering match.

In terms of the restriction on noticeboards, that was finicky because pretty much both of them complained about the other misusing DR processes. Basically it was a pain in the neck. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because you (Prioryman) lack the self discipline to simply ignore it. No one (well, at least not me) is interested in refereeing the interminable squabble. The wise course would have been to simply ignore it until someone else figured out DC was violating the ban. Why do you care whats going on ErrantX's talk page, anyway? Nobody Ent 19:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I care because I've been targeted by DC for two years and I want it to stop. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no to a block on me - again, I am the victim here. I did not ask for DC to intervene. I have not had anything to do with him since the IBAN. I've followed my side of it. I'm sure you're fed up with the drama, but it is not my fault that DC has gone after me again. If you had enforced your own interaction ban, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead you invited DC to email you privately to report issues about me unrelated to the ban! How can that possibly be compatible with DC being instructed by you and the community to disengage from me? As I've said repeatedly, I want nothing to do with this individual and you seem to be blaming me for asking for his disengagement to actually be enforced. That is grossly unfair. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the impression that an interaction ban was not a good solution to this sort of a problem. If someone is stalking and harrassing, then this is a rather one sided problem. If to keep the peace both sides agree to an interaction ban instead of fighting out a lengthy dispute resolution process here (e.g. an ArbCom case), then that is in the Wiki-sprit of dropping the stick and moving on. But the problem then arises later, if this interaction ban is interpreted in general terms outside of the original context in which it was implemented. I have experienced this sort of a problem myself a long time ago here in relation to the issues regarding Brews Ohare's ArbCom sanctions.

I think that one should not impose interactions bans at all, and instead appeal to the fact that people here should behave as grown up adults. If people stalk and harrass, then that in itself is grounds for Adminstrative action. So, you can file reports at AE, but if you file misleading reports, then you'll lose te right to post there. An interaction ban is more suitable for a Kindergarten like setting, there putting fighting toddlers apart for a while can work. Count Iblis (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. I've given DC this very sternly worded warning telling him that future violations of the ban will be regarded as stalking and get him a very lengthy block. Prioryman is asked to report future suspected violations, should he so feel the need, privately via email to myself or another uninvolved adminstrator, rather than creating a massive thread on the drama-boards to the exasperation of all. Nobody gets blocked, largely thanks to a somewhat surprising outburst of charity and goodwill on my part, which will doubtless come as a surprise to everyone. Now, can I tag this as resolved? Moreschi (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, that is acceptable. I hope there won't be any further problems. The matter's resolved as far as I'm concerned. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What a load of absolute bullshit. I asked, more than once, for an interaction ban because of the persistent attacks from Prioryman, many of them containing demonstrably false statements. Perversely, the ban was only enacted when I asked on ANI for Prioryman's many sanctions to be fully and properly recorded. As usual, Prioryman's aim here is entirely self-serving. Moreschi describes him as a "victim". A victim of what? Of having the community hold him to the sanctions imposed on him? Of being asked to account for his edits which violate those sanctions?

I do not understand why anyone would object to having Prioryman's sanctions fully and properly recorded. When I asked for this in the original ANI thread, Prioryman refused to enumerate the sanctions of which he was aware. This is hardly a show of good faith. ErrantX undertook to follow up on this issue, so I asked him about on his user page, which was explicitly exempt from the ban, when it was brought to my attention that Prioryman was petitioning for one of his sanctions to be lifted. A sanction that is not recorded on WP:RESTRICT, incidentally.

Contrary to what Prioryman states, I did not ask for him to be "sanctioned" for this edit which is in violation of teh sanctions given to ChrisO/Prioryman in WP:ARBSCI. I asked that he be reminded of those editing restrictions. It may be instructive to point out that he has since made a further five edits ([7], [8], [9], [10], & [11]) in violation of the same restrictions.

Prioryman has a long and spotty history with violating or skirting editing restrictions. The problem here is not that I am monitoring his contributions for violations, but the violations themselves. ArbCom has tended to turn a wilfully blind eye to Prioryman's tendency for lying, sockpuppetry, and conflict because he is a fairly prolific creator of high-quality content. While I appreciate his positive contributions, his negative actions are harmful to the project and should not be excused. This type of bad behaviour is akin to a high-performing manager who sexually harasses their employees. Most companies have realized that this is not a good trade-off. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So in that one post here you not only managed to violate your interaction ban but also compare Prioryman to a sexual harasser. Well done. That has got you blocked for the next 75 days for violating your ban after being warned (and per your talkpage knowing full well that you were doing this and you would get blocked as a result) and for flagrant contempt of the restrictions you are under. I'm sorry, but it is very explicitly not your problem to deal with Prioryman's edits. That is our job. The community has decided that your attempts to monitor his contributions are disruptive and that you two need to be kept away from each other, and if you can't be bothered to abide by this, the next block will be for even longer. Moreschi (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That is totally undue - 75 days - clearly this dispute is a two way street - do you think such attack administration is beneficial to lowering disruption - well anyone can edit wikipedia and they will -even if you attack or not - they will come back and attack harder - this sort of disruptive administration will be the death of en wikipedia - Youreallycan 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, terrible block. I...wow. Arkon (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking it's ridiculous in the first place that ANI posts regarding enforcement of the interaction ban are being construed as violation of the interaction ban? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I just hope a clear minded admin steps in at this point. Arkon (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not just referring to DC's block, but Prioryman being accused of ban violation when he first brought this here. I can't remember this ever being standard in dealing with topic bans. I think this discussion should reset, exclude pointing at posts in the section as evidence of violation, and just focus on the reported events so we can actually deal with what transpired. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Prioryman is completely in the right to make a report about the violation. He followed the rules in the first place by contacting Errant, as he was supposed to, but Errant didn't want to do anything. And it wasn't that he saw anything unactionable, he just didn't want to be involved. So Prioryman took the logical next step and filed an AE report. I don't see an issue from him here. If DC violated the ban, then he was right to report it, since Prioryman is the one being harassed. Silverseren^C 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, the accusation of an interaction ban violation from Prioryman was due to DC posting on Errants page, which as you said, was as he was suppose to do. Then he went forum shopping, doing the exact same thing he was complaining about DC doing. DC comes here and responds in kind, and bam, block. Crazy. Arkon (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to correct you about being "supposed to" post on ErrantX's user talk page. The ban permits both parties to use ErrantX's page to raise issues concerning the interaction ban and only that subject. ErrantX did not enact the interaction ban in order to confine the dispute to his talk page - the ban is there to stop the dispute. Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to Silver seren's opinion that it was the right thing to do. Do you have a diff for the 'only that subject' part? I couldn't dig it out from the links on the iban logging. Honestly, Errant is as much to blame for all this as anyone. He took ownership of the issue when it was first raised, then ran away when the inevitable happened. Bleh. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see [12] for ErrantX's post imposing the interaction ban. It requires total disengagement in all venues but allows appeals against the ban on ErrantX's talk page or to Arbcom. The terms of the ban were reiterated by Future Perfect here. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Arkon (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is when someone disagrees with you and you go somewhere else to try again. ErrantX didn't disagree, he just didn't want to deal with it. A new forum was the appropriate move. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-action would seem to imply disagreement, or at the least, non-agreement. However, putting that aside, it doesn't change how bad this block is. Even his reasoning in the post above is incorrect on the facts, "the community" never decided anything about this iBAN. Arkon (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have left fairly extensive rationale for this block at DC's talk. It is more complicated than it appears and requires that you read through the archived discussions that lead to the original interaction ban that ErrantX imposed, which I strongly recommend that people do before commenting. These two are not supposed to fighting at ANI, nor reporting each other here, nor discussing each other anywhere, which is why 1) DC's post at ErrantX's talk was harassment, in violation of his ban and 2) arguably so was Prioryman bringing it to ANI/AE instead of reporting the original harassment through email, say. This is arguable, and you could argue that it's fine for him (Prioryman) to do so, but please bear in mind that the original intention of the ban was to stop them fighting in these forums.

• At any rate, after I have warned both, rather than blocked, DC then goes and posts here in loud, angry fashion, which is exactly what he is specifically banned from doing. Unsurprisingly, he gets blocked. I am extremely sceptical that this was a surprise to him. At any rate, if someone wants to amend the block length (to anywhere from 48 hours up), then please do so, but please do not unblock without talking it over with me first unless some vast and extremely overwhelming community consensus appears. I will be asleep for the next 8 hours or so, but back online then to talk it through some more if required. Moreschi (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• DC coming here to defend his actions following an accusation of ban violation was fine. His tone in doing so shouldn't factor in. A topic ban shouldn't preclude reporting violations of it, and if that's the case, it needs to be expressed explicitly in the ban terms that an admin's talk page or email are the only acceptable venues for reporting violations. If that's the not the case, the posting to ANI from either party regarding possible violation should not be used as evidence of violation themselves. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• (EC) *:Diffs for the assertions in the first part please? (Not meaning for that to be jerky, but I seriously can't find the exact wording implemented). Secondly, I don't understand why you would think DC should be unable to respond to this request. Unless I missed something, that was his first and only post to this section. This whole thing was the biggest baiting I've seen in a while, don't act surprised that someone rises to it. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have read through this entire thread, and frankly, I feel like I am a kindergarten teacher trying to control a bunch of 3-year-olds. This is ridiculous. DC's initial complaint on Errant's talk page is about reverting obvious vandalism. This is childish. Prioryman's response to this is equally childish. Ignoring it would have been the right thing to do. Given the interaction ban, I would be in favor of a short block for Prioryman (perhaps 24-72 hours). I am also in favor of a much longer block for DC, but 75 days is cruel and unusual punishment. I am going to reduce that to 10 days, which will be by far the longest block on his block log at this point. I'm not going to block Prioryman myself, but I think that it would be plausible if someone else decided to. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • On the matter of Prioryman's edits to Battlefield Earth (film): these are covered by his ARBSCI sanctions, which are:
  • 17) ChrisO (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • page moves • rights) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[161] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.
  • ChrisO (Prioryman) was the editor who originally took that article to FA status. Under the terms of his sanction, he is entitled to make edits for the purpose of "directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources". This is reasonably interpreted to mean that he is allowed to maintain his FAs in the topic area, and is allowed to revert vandalism thereto. By my reading, his recent half a dozen edits to that article did not violate his Scientology topic ban. --JN466 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from DC's talk SÆdon^talk): This is a ridiculous block that has little relevance to the issue at hand and will not stand. If Moreschi wants to play tough guy and refuses to unblock, I'm sure someone else will do so eventually. The community is not well served by admins who are more interested in reducing the "drama" than solving the problem. Prioryman's tiresome bleating seems to have distracted people from the central point that he agreed to abide by editing restrictions in order to be allowed to continue editing. He has repeatedly violated those restrictions and will continue to do so. This very thread is a violation of one of those restrictions. If the community was not serious about the sanctions, they should be withdrawn. If they are serious about them, they should ensure that they are properly recorded and that they are enforced. Framing this as a dispute between editors is really just ignoring what is at the root of the issue. Shooting the messenger will not solve the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Evaluating the block

This block by User:Moreschi is appalling. First of all, the interaction ban was voluntary. Secondly, ErrantX clearly stated that his talk page was exempt from it ("my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban)"). Thirdly, ErrantX promised he would make sure Prioryman's sanctions were correctly logged, which he failed to do, and DC was reminding him of. Fourthly, Prioryman is misrepresenting SirFozzie when he describes the interaction ban above as "one arbitrator User:SirFozzie has endorsed and asked to be enforced. [13]". SirFozzie stated that "folks under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request." This refers to folks under ARBCC sanctions; besides, DC did not comment on that request or at RFAR, but on ErrantX's talk page about ErrantX's admitted tardiness in doing what he had promised to do (and which was part of the interaction ban deal). Fifth, Prioryman has broken the voluntary interaction ban by posting here and at AE. Sixth, 75 days is completely, utterly, absurdly over the top even if there were grounds for a block. Seventh, looking at DC's talk page, it seems rather clearly the result of a rush of blood on Moreschi's part. Please!

• Unblock Delicious carbuncle, trout Moreschi. Not his finest hour. --JN466 23:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lessen to 48 hours, same for Prioryman They both screwed up, 48 hours for the first screwup seems ok to me. Arkon (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Block reduced to 10 days. I'd support a 48 hour block for Prioryman, but I'm hesitant to make that particular decision without further discussion. -Scottywong| communicate _ 23:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, I am the victim here. I am being stalked and harassed. I thought after the interaction ban was imposed that I would not have to put up with DC again. Instead, just a few hours ago, he posted that he was "reviewing [Prioryman's] contributions for violations of his many sanctions" [sic] [14]. That is blatant wikistalking, and is exactly what he was forbidden to do. ErrantX declined to act on this violation and said to take it to another admin. Timotheus Canens and Cailil on AE advised that it was the wrong forum [15] [16], and Lothar von Richthofen advised that it be taken to AN/I instead [17]. That is exactly what I have done. Why should I be sanctioned for following the advice of others and asking, once and for all, for this harassment and stalking to be stopped? What was the point of the interaction ban in the first place if it's not going to stop this individual's constant attempts to get at me? I am not the one continuing this dispute! Prioryman (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • DC violated the topic ban, and that gives Prioryman the right to report it. Seems like common sense to me. Though going forward, if reporting violations is limited to email or talk pages, the ban restrictions should be amended to include that. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • DC posted on ErrantX's talk page, which was agreed to be out of scope of the interaction ban. I don't think his posting there victimised you; you could have completely ignored it, or put your side in an e-mail to ErrantX, or indeed on ErrantX's talk page. No? --JN466 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thought experiment for Prioryman: what do you think would have happened if you had completely ignored DC's comment on Errant's talk page (about your edit to revert obvious vandalism)? Consider that it seemed likely that every other admin would have ignored his comment as well. -Scottywong| chatter _ 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I already answered that question elsewhere but I'll spell it out for you. DC has expressed his explicit intention to continue stalking my edits. Two days after he posted on ErrantX's talk page, DC posted here that he was "reviewing [Prioryman's] contributions for violations". The obvious implication is that DC is compiling some kind of dossier or case against me, either to post to ErrantX's talk page or on the "monitoring" thread that he is maintaining about me on Wikipedia Review. The interaction ban was supposed to prevent any interactions, and this specific type of interaction - his attempts to "police" my edits - is the exact reason why the interaction ban was imposed in the first place. (Read the original AN discussion linked at the top of this thread.) I've had no choice but to report this violation here because DC has made it clear that he intends further violations. Frankly I would have dropped the matter if DC hadn't been so explicit about his intentions to continue harassing me in violation of the interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock in exchange for DC agreeing to stick to the original agreement, i.e. no comments on Prioryman except about modifications of the interaction ban and that only on ErrantX's page, and reports of violations of the interaction ban only via email. This would mean that DC agrees that he is not supposed to report (perceived) violations of Prioryman's ArbCom restrictions, as these do not involve this interaction ban. Count Iblis (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point ErrantX should be removed from the process. This incident has demonstrated his unwillingness to enforce it. Arkon (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Undo block or block both DC and Prioryman DC deserved a right to respond to the ANI post to defend himself. He was blocked for making one post. As you can see above, Prioryman continues to post in this thread. Why was DC blocked and not Prioryman? There hasn't been equal treatment here. I would say either lift DC's block, or block the both of them for engaging in identical behavior. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked direct questions by Arkon, JN466 and Scottywong, which I've answered to the best of my ability. It's late now, and I'm tired, so I don't propose to contribute further to this discussion tonight. Prioryman (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is somewhat related...Prioryman, you have banned me from your talk page several times, yet you have appeared in almost every single administrative forum or noticeboard discussion to oppose me over the last six months or so which I initiated or was the primary player. If you don't want to interact with me, then why do you follow me around Wikipedia trying to give me a hard time? Do you think your behavior towards me is related to the way you are dealing with this issue with DC? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's I guess the paradox of this sort of a situation and why I think formal interaction bans or informal ones are not a good thing. You have (in general) two people who don't get along, precisely because they do adversly interact with each other, and then you want to do someting about the negative interactions by making an agreement to not to interact with each other. But the underlying problems are then not resolved, the negative interactions are just a symptom of these problems plus the inability to self-moderate when talking to each other. So, perhaps better to impose a "forced interaction restriction" where two such people are only allowed to collaborate with each other on a few articles for a while :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a compelling view. IMO, what is happening here is that DC is trying to resolve what he feels are some leftover baggage from Prioryman's previous account(s). Prioryman takes exception to DC's efforts. If WP's administration (represented in this case, I guess, by ErrantX) would give a definitive answer to DC's question, that might help things. DC didn't interact with Prioryman in this instance, he asked ErrantX to follow-up on his earlier request. Prioryman took exception to DC's question even though it was not in a forum in which Prioryman was participating and escalated the drama. The underlying problem remains...does DC have a legitimate grievance with how Prioryman's prior record of sanctions is being handled and is WP's administration addressing it? If not, should they? If not, then DC needs to be told so and the decision needs to be recorded somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• If there's a legitimate issue regarding Prioryman's sanctions, any one of the 48,272,893 editors who are not subject to an interact ban with him can follow up on it. That's the whole point. 28bytes (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Per my reasoning on DC's talk. SÆdon^talk 09:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block of DC. The difference between the two is this: Prioryman's actions in all of this were narrowly focussed on the perceived need to enforce the interaction ban, triggered by its previous violation by DC. DC's response above in this thread, in contrast, was not focussed on solving this present issue (e.g. defending himself etc), but on re-hashing the old dispute, i.e. repeating exactly the kind of behaviour that the interaction ban was meant to stop. Fut.Perf. ¤ 05:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Which block are you endorsing? The 75 or the now reduced to 10? Arkon (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Well, 75 was maybe a bit on the long side, but the next time something like this happens, a block of that length might well be on the table again. Fut.Perf. ¤ 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block DC should know better. He's certainly been around the block enough times. Furthermore, this entire mess is his fault in the first place. If he could restrain his urge to be wiki-mall cop then this entire thread wouldn't exist. Jtrainor (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block clearly still stalking the other editor and showing no signs of wanting to stop that behaviour. Agathoclea (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Some chronology

I may be in the minority here, but I think Moreschi was perfectly correct to block DC after all this. Here's what I see:

1. Prioryman going about his business, not bothering anyone.
2. DC posts to ErrantX's talk page to start yet another thread about Prioryman.
3. A bunch of pointless drama ensues.

If DC stopped posting about Prioryman, we wouldn't have to go through this garbage constantly. DC just needs to leave Prioryman alone, and if he's not willing to do that, a block is perfectly appropriate. Just take a look at his response to being blocked. Not even the slightest hint of recognition that he needs to leave Prioryman alone, just a bunch of WP:NOTTHEM nonsense about how awful Prioryman is, how "Moreschi wants to play tough guy", etc., etc. This is not a good thing. If DC is willing to acknowledge that he should not be starting threads about Prioryman, and commit to not doing it anymore, anywhere, I would support an immediate unblock. But he needs to get it first.

Quite obviously what got this particular episode started was DC posting about something Prioryman did that had nothing to do with DC, and DC was rightfully blocked for it. If Prioryman had started a thread about DC doing something that had nothing to do with Prioryman, then he should have been blocked too. But blocking Prioryman for requesting the interaction ban be enforced is a completely asinine idea: enforcing the interaction ban is the only way to get these two to shut up about each other. Just letting them test the edges on ErrantX's talk page or wherever leads to more threads like this. Whoever starts it gets blocked, period. DC started it, Moreschi blocked him, and if DC has a "light bulb" moment and gets why he was blocked, we can unblock him and hope we never have to see one of these idiotic threads again. 28bytes (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Perfect explanation. Silverseren^C 03:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, DC said to Errant that Prioryman's various sanctions are still not correctly or fully logged. Now, if that is so, don't you agree it should be fixed? It was part of the deal last time round. [18]. Yet it still hasn't been done. I can't agree that DC pointing that out, when everybody had forgotten – again – is entirely useless.

We must also note in the timeline that

• Prioryman e-mailed Moreschi today before Moreschi blocked DC [19].
• Prioryman posted to your talk page too and e-mailed you today [20][21] before you made your comments here, no doubt based on your involvement in the March interaction ban discussion.
• Prioryman posted to Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page [22].
• Prioryman posted to SirFozzie's talk page several times [23][24].
• Prioryman asked to speak to Carcharoth on IRC [25].

People tend to be wary when they see one party in a dispute contacting multiple admins, and then see some of these admins who have had personal contact with just one of the parties intervening decisively.

I also see Prioryman commenting in AfDs, since the interaction ban, shortly after DC has already commented, and in the opposite way: see [26], [27] (the latter being an AfD that DC raised, and where Prioryman then was one of the first to vote keep).

All in all, I do not see Prioryman stepping away. Evidence suggests that he is following DC's contributions, and sought to fully capitalise on DC's post – made on a talk page that was explicitly exempt from the interaction ban – by contacting half a dozen administrators, and himself violating the interaction ban to start noticeboard threads. Prioryman's aggression is on a completely different scale to DC's here, and very specifically focused on getting sanctions. I see no admin contacts initiated by Delicious carbuncle in his or her edit history. Again, in disputes like this, it's the editor who gives the appearance of canvassing admins that makes me more uneasy. We've seen this before, especially at AE, and it should not be allowed to work: justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done.

And lastly, I repeat that -- apparently -- we still do not have Prioryman's sanctions from his previous accounts properly logged. Perhaps we could keep in mind that we should achieve certainty on this point here, and perhaps Prioryman would be so good as to assist this time. JN466 04:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things: if there is unfinished business regarding Prioryman's sanctions, why can't you or Cla68 work with ArbCom or whomever to get it sorted? Either it's important, in which case WP:SOFIXIT, or it isn't. Am I correct that nobody – including you, Cla68 and ErrantX – have done anything about it since the last time DC brought it up? I have no idea if it's important or not, but the idea that it's only important when DC's bringing attention to it seems a little strange.

Secondly, Prioryman seemed perfectly fine with the resolution to this being a note from Moreschi to DC to knock it off. If DC had just acknowledged the warning instead of launching an AN/I tirade and posting yet another edit summary taunting Prioryman by linking to an old account of his (the exact same thing he got blocked for doing last time), we'd all have moved onto other things by now.

My preferred solution to this is that DC gets why this is not the kind of thing you do when you're under an interaction ban with someone, agrees to drop the stick, gets unblocked and we put this whole mess behind us. And then you, Cla68 and anyone else who's not interaction-banned with Prioryman can sort out the sanctions business. 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I just spent half an hour and have located a list of prior sanctions the arbitrators compiled here. If that's complete (and I have no reason to think it wasn't), then WP:RESTRICT should be up to date now, and we should be able to put this one to rest. Cheers. JN466 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, you don't see anything wrong with Prioryman messaging all those admins? Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@JN: thanks for sorting that out. Always nice when we can put things to rest. @Cla68: presumably he wanted to draw sympathetic eyes to the situation, kind of like you did by starting a Wikipediocracy thread about it. Probably a little canvass-y of both of you, to be honest, but I'm not too inclined to get worked up about it. 28bytes (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My intention with the Wikipediocracy thread was to put public pressure on Prioryman to stop being so obsessive about things, i.e. to correct his behavior. And that's the same thing I'm trying to do here. I don't post to Wikipediacracy with the intention of canvassing for support, because I know by experience that equal, if not more, numbers of observers of that forum are likely to go against whatever is being advocated there. That's why it isn't canvassing to post there, because everyone can see it. Prioryman didn't post in a publicly viewable forum, he emailed or messaged several admins. You don't see a problem with that? DC was blocked for making a single comment on an ANI thread. Prioryman emails several admins trying to get them on his side. Who has the higher moral ground here? Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a mod there, I presume you discuss editors and events here in private forums there, no? 28bytes (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting off track here.... Arkon (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, what 28bytes says. I would dearly love to give DC a "lightbulb moment" where he goes "aha!", and, Scrooge-like, finally sees what he is doing wrong. He simply does not need to make himself responsible for sorting out whatever problems Prioryman may be causing. There is an entire community of responsible editors, administrators and non-administrators, willing and able to do so. All he is doing is wasting everyone's time by causing even more dramaboard nonsense, caused by Prioryman - understandably enough, I think - feeling stalked and harassed.
• A couple misconceptions to clear up. Prioryman's email to me noted on my talkpage was relating to the warnings I gave them both - he wanted some minor cleanup, which I haven't done as events overtook this. This was before DC flamed out on ANI and did not contain any calls to block anyone. At this point Prioryman was actually happy with the outcome, which is definitely a point in his favour. DC, however, continued to unrepentantly press the issue and seems completely averse to disengagement, even when explicitly told "back off or you get blocked". I really don't see another way around this short of compelling that disengagement at the point of escalating blocks.
• If DC does have this eureka moment and commits, once and for all, to leaving Prioryman alone - ignoring him completely, not following his edits, just not mentioning his name on Wikipedia here at all, then I guess we can unblock him. I don't think this is going to happen, so as it is I'm fine with the 10 days' block Scotty put in place. YMMV on block lengths, as always. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

See statement by DC below. Part of that reads, "I will not mention Prioryman on-wiki, at all, anywhere, in any context, unless I have been told that I may do so. If I perceive that Prioryman has violated the terms of the interaction ban, I am apparently expected to start a thread on ANI asking for enforcement, but it is clear that I would be immediately blocked if I did this, so I will instead email an admin." Are folks happy with that? --JN466 16:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This leaves me in two minds: on the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable commitment, but he had made similar promises in the context of his last unblock too, and both then and now his comments show not the slightest sign of understanding that what he did was actually wrong, so I'm not really confident he won't be seeking some new loophole again. Fut.Perf. ¤ 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The only loophole I see is mentioning other accounts operated or believed to have been operated by Prioryman. That loophole could be closed. --JN466 16:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of others, quite similar to what happened here today. That's why I want the additional clarifications I sketched out in my proposal below. Fut.Perf. ¤ 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your wording looks okay, including Prioryman's addition. The only thing worries me is that I can't realistically see either of these editors ever making an ANI post about their interaction ban that would not somehow involve a comment on the other. Would you consider going with DC's preference, i.e. that either party would have to e-mail an admin, who can then raise the matter for community discussion (not sanction the other editor!) if they think the matter has merit and should be discussed at WP:AN? --JN466 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to leave these things on-wiki, because it's more transparent. I don't think it should be so difficult for a complainant to restrict their complaint to something simple and factual like: "X is interaction-banned from me. Today, he turned up on a page I had just edited, reverted me, and left me an aggressive edit summary. Can somebody please tell him no to?" That would be quite okay. What would not be okay is: "X reverted me and left me an aggressive edit summary. That's so typical of X again. He has been doing that for years, and he's overall totally disruptive. Remember, last year I had to report him for biting that innocent newbie! Oh, and he's also been edit-warring on that other page for the last few days." That would not be okay. Likewise, for the other party, it would be absolutely okay to respond with "Sorry, didn't even notice Y had been editing that article. My edit summary wasn't even directed at him". What would not be okay would be a response like "Ah, sure, that's Y again with his dishonest accusations. Don't you all see what a nasty piece of work Y is. By the way, I suspect he is in reality from Boise and has hidden sympathies for sword-wielding-skeleton theorists!" It shouldn't really be difficult for two reasonably intelligent adults to stay on the safe side in this. Fut.Perf. ¤ 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I now see in DC's latest posting on his talkpage [28] that he is still refusing to accept even as much as the idea that his posting on ErrantX's page the other day was a violation of the interaction ban – and that not merely because it was on the allegedly "exempt" page, but also because it wasn't "for Prioryman" but only "related to him". This shows to what lengths DC is prepared to go wikilawyering his way around the restriction, and how little prepared he is to let the matter go. He is still refusing to grasp that he is not only expected not to talk to the other guy, but also not to talk about him, and he is still determined to keep actively seeking loopholes. With this stance of denial on DC's part, I really see little basis for an unblock, not now and really not in ten days either. Fut.Perf. ¤ 12:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone had left this message on my talk page: "Per both your agreements I am imposing a binding interaction ban on you and Prioryman. Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom. I hope that satisfies everyone. " (my emphasis) I would have read that to mean that Errant's talk page is excluded from the ban. So would most reasonable people. JN466 14:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If it was only that, yes. But you are forgetting the very clear additional message given to him later, here. He knew that he was not supposed to use that exemption as a loophole for continuing the fight, rather than for making mere procedural requests if and when necessary. Also, you are forgetting that he is now claiming yet another, independent reason why he thinks the posting was okay. It is mainly this new, additional argument that shows he's unwilling to accept a change in behaviour. Fut.Perf. ¤ 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the above comment by User:Future Perfect demonstrates an inability to understand to simplest of instructions in the English language. Is there some remedial text on English comprehension that can be given to administrators, to ensure that such lapses do not occur in the future? John lilburne (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence that FPaS's interpretation of the ban represents community consensus; logically the wording used by the closing admin (ErrantX) should be considered effective. It's inconsistent enforcement that Prioryman received the same ban, was not sanctioned for for starting and making multiple edits to this ANI thread, and when DC contributes he is then first warned and blocked. Nobody Ent 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think in FPas we have something of Colonel Cathcart. John lilburne (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from ErrantX

Unfortunately I seem to have dropped the administrative ball on this. Apologies; yesterday was a awkward day for me. To give some background on this IBAN...

A little while ago trouble erupted at AN between these two editors - and after investigation it became clear that they simply could not leave each other alone. DC felt it was his role to police Prioryman's work and Prioryman couldn't seem to resist rising to DC's bait. After a fairly stressful effort I got fed up to the extent that I stopped trying to be accommodating to both of their demands and pushed an IBAN (partially at their request).

The whole point, I should add, was simply to get them to disengage and go their seperate ways. I'm a big believer in the idea that avoiding drama is generally the best way to go.

Following that IBAN, DC made this edit. Rather than re-escalate the drama I let it slide as a final shot fired in the war. Another admin disagreed (which is fine) and blocked DC. But fortunately the IBAN seemed to stick and the situation de-escalated. And just to put the record straight; the wording of the IBAN might have been a little lax, for which I apologise, but for the purposes of clarity I intended my talk page only to be used to discuss removing the IBAN or to raise violations.

Fast forward 6 weeks and DC opened a new thread on my talk page. In part following up on my undertaking to review Prioryman's sanctions (to those who mention this above; it was my understanding privacy concerns exist, so I asked Arbcom, privately, to look into resolving the matter). And in another part showing he had not stopped keeping an eye on Prioryman. I immediately removed the post to discourage drama and thought about it a little - my preference was simply to ignore the matter on the basis of a "first strike" (or whatever). Ideally Prioryman would have ignored the matter and that would be that.

But he couldn't; and what makes me feel he is uninterested in actually resolving this issue is that instead of asking me to take more pro-active action he sent me this and took the matter straight to Arbitration Enforcement (big escalation). Even at that stage I hoped it would de-escalate, but once this hit AN/I and Prioryman contacted a bunch of admins (I'm not sure to what purpose) things are clearly out of hand. The AFD links posted by someone else above are also compelling; if Prioryman is this concerned about being under DC's scrutiny I'd expect to see him take more care to avoid pages where DC is active.

What is unfortunate is this comment on 3rd May in which DC clearly misunderstands the point of the IBAN - which is to keep these two editors away from each other. I really had a {{facepalm}} moment reading that.

I'm not sure where to go from here; I'd be more compelled to agree with a block reduction for DC if he would undertake just to leave Prioryman alone, to ignore him and so forth. His recent postings seem entirely contrary to that. Equally it needs to be pressed on Prioryman that a critical aspect of resolving this is to ignore comments by DC about his editing - at least until such a point as they become widespread. I reiterate that had Prioryman undertaken to ignore DC's May 1 comment none of this would have happened and presumably both editors would have been happily having a stress free week.

I want to make one other comment which is that I'm in an awkward position here - I implemented the IBAN, but I don't want to be the sole arbitrator of it - I am lenient by nature and anyway one admin holding the keys to an administrative matter is bad practice. (it should be pointed out I also have recently interacted with DC on an unrelated matter, which clouds the issue further). The community needs to adopt this IBAN, or whatever other sanction, and deal firmly with these two. --Errant ^(chat!) 06:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that the admin who previously blocked DC, after what you called a parting shot above, was Future Perfect at Sunrise. (The block was made more than 12 hours after the edit in question, and was later undone by another admin.) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is of course also in the list above, among the admins Prioryman contacted today, but he is also in the old arbitration case which I cited above, which includes a specific arbitration finding that Future Perfect at Sunrise had advance knowledge of Prioryman's actions (which led to his desysopping in that case). --JN466 06:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not had any private communication with Prioryman for years, and dragging up that old Arbcom case is pretty far-fetched (there wasn't even any wrongdoing implied in that finding). In this case, his message on my talk page was nothing more than the mandatory notification which he was obliged to give for mentioning me on ANI. Fut.Perf. ¤ 09:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I now recall that you had another sanction against Delicious carbuncle overturned at AE a little over a year ago; and I see that Courcelles commented, in the decision to overturn your sanction on procedural grounds, "The process on this stinks all the way around". Prioryman was on your talk page immediately prior to your (also overturned) block of Delicious carbuncle in March as well. It just doesn't look good. It makes you look like you are part of the struggle, rather than an impartial arbiter. Cheers. --JN466 15:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Analysis

Chronology: Ban enacted, excludes ErrantX talk page. DC posts on ErrantX talk page, is acknowledge/removed. About a day later, Prioryman starts this thread, violates ban. DC replies, also violates ban, is blocked (fine block). Comment: neither editor seems to notice the beam in their own eyes as they're so focused on the mote in the others. Proposal; new, improved ban. Either editor mentions the other anywhere on Wikipedia (publicly or via email) for any reason, block for escalating periods of time. Nobody Ent 10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a tweak indeed, but a slightly different one. Truth is that an interaction ban is unworkable if there isn't some opportunity for one party to complain if the other party breaks it. However, we need to channel such complaints in a better way. We know that ErrantX originally intended the exemption of his own talkpage to serve as such a venue. However, he is now saying that he wishes to be no longer alone responsible for administering the situation (quite reasonable), and we have seen that DC has twice misused this venue for something it was not intended for, i.e. for resuming and re-hashing the original dispute. So, my proposal is: replace ErrantX's original wording of the exemption "If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban)" with something along the lines of: "Appeals of this sanction, or complaints about breaches of it by the other party, may be directed to WP:AN. In any such appeal or report, and in any follow-up discussion, the parties must restrict themselves to brief, matter-of-fact statements focussed exclusively on the resolution of the present situation, but remain otherwise bound to the original prohibition of referring to earlier perceived wrongdoings or otherwise rehashing their previous disagreements." Fut.Perf. ¤ 10:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with that wording, but suggest amending the last line to add the following wording (highlighted in bold), to prevent new topics of contention being raised: "... but remain otherwise bound to the original prohibition of referring to earlier perceived wrongdoings, rehashing their previous disagreements or bringing new complaints about matters unrelated to the operation of the interaction ban." Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason specifically my talk page was used is because noticeboards were a point of contention on the original issue - so it was an easy way to get it in place. As this isn't going to be resolved amicably, employing AN over my talk page is much better. If they both will now accept that then I think it is the way to go. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept it, but please see my comments below about practical steps that I think DC needs to take in order to prevent a recurrence of this episode. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's proposed addition makes sense. --JN466 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Truth is that an interaction ban is unworkable if there isn't some opportunity for one party to complain if the other party breaks it. It is from a certain point of view; X mentions Y, no one notices -- no disruption to Wikipedia. X mentions Y, someone notices, X is blocked for a while -- minimal disruption to WP. X mentions Y, Y complains/reports/mentions X, both blocked for a while -- minimal disruption to WP. Other stuff has been tried -- discuss on AN, don't discuss on AN -- lots of mudslinging and cliques and debate back and forth -- which all helps Wikipedia how exactly? Nobody Ent 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to take it to one's most trusted admin, off-wiki. ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 22:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What some secret hugger muggerings in dark corners, is that how it should be done? John lilburne (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That sentence does not compute. Try again. :) ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone give me DC address? I take a lot photographs of bugs during the year, and I don't think I have a anything from the Carbuncle family. I also photograph a lot of historical things, and I'm guessing that DC probably live near to some sort of fortification, so that would be a double hit, hopefully they'll also be a law court in the vicinity too. John lilburne (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking DC

I note that DC is being encouraged by a couple of individuals to appeal his block again (having been refused once already). I don't object to this in principle but I do have some practical concerns which I would like to be addressed before any unblock is actioned:

1. He hasn't acknowledged that he was in any way at fault;
2. He still seems to think that the interaction ban allows him to monitor and report my edits, which was the cause of the original dispute;
3. He has given no commitment that he is going to do what he was supposed to do and leave me alone entirely.

I don't want to go through this kind of mess yet again and frankly, after two flagrant violations in only six weeks, I have no reason to trust DC to uphold his side of the interaction ban. So I'd like to request that if DC is unblocked, he should be required first to explicitly and publicly acknowledge that he recognises that he did not comply with the ban, that he is prohibited from raising any issue about me that is unrelated to the operation of the ban, that he will desist from monitoring or reporting my edits to see if they violate any policies or sanctions, and that he will permanently commit to not discussing me or raising issues about me (other than in relation to the operation of the ban) on-wiki, off-wiki and via email. If he won't commit to those things - all of which are required by the ban, and all of which I'm upholding on my side of it - then he is not committed to the goal of total disengagement and there is every likelihood that this episode will be repeated. I don't want that to happen and I'm sure all the people here whose patience has been taxed would prefer to avoid it too. Prioryman (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How the hell is this -possibly- acceptable, given the reaction ban? Or is blocking for such a flagrant abuse of restrictions "too much drama" now it's been done by one of your mates, Errant?101.118.15.254 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — 101.118.15.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, random IP. Re Prioryman - yes, I agree with these points, and do not think DC should be unblocked until he gets his "eureka" moment (see my post above in the analysis section). With this said it's probably best if you walk away from it all right now. DC is currently blocked and I cannot imagine any admin unblocking at this point without a firm commitment to ignoring you in the future. There is little more you can productively contribute at this point to the thread without stirring the pot further. I'd take a break and go do something relaxing and therapeutic, either on-wiki or off. Moreschi (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I have nothing further to add anyway and I've already agreed to Fut Perf's refinement of the ban. Thanks (to you and others) for your efforts to resolve this issue. Prioryman (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way to handle an interaction ban violation is to take it to your most trusted admin, behind the scenes, and let them deal with it. ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied from DC's talk page:

I did not think that I was violating the interaction ban by making my post on ErrantX's talk page. If I had, I would not have made the post, or at least would have expected to be blocked. In fact, as far as I can tell, my current block is actually for posting in the ANI thread, which is completely perverse. ErrantX's talk page was explicitly excluded from the ban. I have no problem if people wish to change the terms of the ban to include the totality of Wikipedia, but I resent the implication that I was in violation of the ban as laid out. I will not mention Prioryman on-wiki, at all, anywhere, in any context, unless I have been told that I may do so. If I perceive that Prioryman has violated the terms of the interaction ban, I am apparently expected to start a thread on ANI asking for enforcement, but it is clear that I would be immediately blocked if I did this, so I will instead email an admin. I consider the current block to be completely unjustified, but I will wait it out if need be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC) --JN466 15:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Where a person reasonably believes that making a comment on an admin's talk page is proper, and the admin appears to also think it was reasonable, then the rest of ths contretemps is silly. Unblock, have some tea (or stout, depending on which you prefer) and defuse all of this balderdash. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the latest unblock request. My reading of the situation is that he still doesn't see the problem in continuing to review the contributions of someone he has an interaction ban with. ?ereSpielChequers 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I wish you had left it to someone with a less obvious connection to Wiki UK. --JN466 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

He should be indef blocked until he sees the light.Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams. --JN466 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool story. Blocks exist to enforce sanctions, not punishment. By most accounts either DC doesnt "get it" or is not willing to abide by the sanction he willingly agreed to enter. If he would acknolwedge the he messed up and agreeed not to do it again, then the block should be removed now, otherwise an expiring block serves no puprose as he still thinks he is in the right and this issue could surface once again. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DC has agreed to stick to the strict interpretation of the interacton ban and should thus be unblocked. If he stays blocked, then the only thing he will be doing here during the next week is argue about his block, which is PM related issue, and thus the opposite of what most here want DC to do on Wikipedia. From DC's perspective (however wrong that may be), there is a difference between the terms of the interaction ban he originally agreed to and the strict interpretation he is asked to stick to now.

So, when he is asked to acknowledge that he made a mistake, he is going argue that he did nothing wrong because he didn't violate the terms of the agreement as he understood it at the time. To me this sounds like a silly irrelevant discussion, what matters is that similar problems won't happen again. Count Iblis (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DC needs to acknowledge that he abused the spirit of the IB by using ErrantX's talk page to bait PM, and in the future if he has an issue with PM to take it off-wiki per the suggestion made by BaseballBugs. His wiki-lawering/mall cop crap isnt helping. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In this whole issue I side with PM, but it is quite clear to me that the spirit of the agreement between DC and PM was different from the perspective of both. PM wanted to stop DC from following him, DC continues to have problems with some aspects of PMs editing. An agreement was made between the two to stop the negative aspects of their interaction. But both sides had different goals here. What matters now is that DC has agreed to stick to the letter of the new proposal, which will guarantee that the same thing cannot repeat itself.

Otherwise, at best after a few days of heated debates, you may get DC to acknowledge that if the spirit of the original agreement was meant to imply that he wasn't supposed to do what he did, then he violated the spirit of the original agreement, but he would the not agree that that was the spirit of the agreement as he understood it at the time. Would that be enough to get DC unblocked? I doubt it, because it would fall short of "DC pleading guilty" in the sense of admitting that he willfully violated the terms of the agreement.

So, I really don't see the point of such debates. If there is any doubt about what DC should now agree to, just write up some unambiguous text that doesn't need any second guessing as to what the "spirit" of that is, let DC say that he'll stick to that and then unblock DC. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Would someone else mind reviewing my decline of DC's second unblock request? Another editor (other than DC) has expressed concerns that I was entirely the wrong admin to administer this unblock request and while I don't consider myself involved with either party to this dispute, for the avoidance of doubt it would help if another admin reconsidered DC's second unblock request. ?ereSpielChequers 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, not sure if you're asking for a review or for some action but, after scanning this entire report I don't think DeliciousCarbuncle should have been blocked in the first place. For one thing, monitoring edits is not the same thing as interacting with a user. And, second, IBAN explicitly allows the asking for clarifications and/or for the taking of some action against the ibanned editor. I think your decline reason was mistaken here (a rare one!) and, assuming that your intent on posting here at ANI was to allow another admin to overturn your decline, I'll do just that. (If you were merely seeking comment, feel free to restore the decline and the block.) --regentspark (comment) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Unless, I am misreading this [29] DC has an odd focus for "much of his efforts" on Wikipedia: other editors. This could be a source of the problem, as the job requires focus on content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the focus is an odd one. Reeks of conspiracy theories and the like. However, given the circumstances, perhaps there is some hyperbole in the comment. Disclosure: I just unblocked DeliciousCarbuncle. Though I think I've seen the name before, I have had no prior interaction with that user and am noting his/her presence on wikipedia for the first time :) --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat uninvolved editor request

Whatever happens to Delicious Carbuncle at this point happens. It seems like he did violate the terms of the IBAN, per a very strict take on the close here.

DC got in trouble for asking ErrantX if he had done everything he said he was going to do in his close of the IBAN thread. Part 1 was 'Impose a customized IBAN on these two editors', Part 2 was "follow up with Arbcom in the next few days to see about listing Prioryman's active sanctions appropriately".

These two things don't seem explicitly connected, but its an awfully fine line. Part 1 was obviously done. Can someone please go ahead and check Part 2 so that it can be off the to-do list? This will also remove the incentive for any editor to continue to focus on it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not good enough

Now that block editors are equally unblocked, rather than have a Raiders of the Lost Ark instructions (make the staff ten cubits -- then subtract two!) let's make a single, definitive, crystal clear statement of the ban. Nobody Ent 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't look at (each other)! Shut your eyes! Don't look at (each other), no matter what happens! -- paraphrasing from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Maybe each of them could imagine the other is the Ark of the Covenant being opened and if they interact, their faces will melt. -- Avanu (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Per both party's agreements, the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom, but reporting the other editor for perceived violations on wiki is not permitted." Nobody Ent 17:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A few follow-up requests for clarification:

1. DC has stated that he is monitoring my edits and has stated a wish to join an arbitration case or RfC/U (God knows on what pretext) against me. Is either activity permitted? Please make it explicitly clear whether this is compatible with the interaction ban.
2. What assurances have been given, on or off-wiki, on this matter, concerning compliance with the ban?
3. I suggest amending the last clause to "for reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with perceived violations of any restrictions, guideline or policy is not permitted."
4. Typo in the same line: "made by made", which I imagine is supposed to be "to be made".
5. I also suggest amending the end of the second sentence to: "at any venue, including user talk pages of third parties." Typo in the 3rd sentence, "then ban". Prioryman (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody's draft (although personally I would have preferred hypothetical future complaints/reports to be made in an on-wiki venue rather than per mail to an admin, but I can live with this version too.) I think the wording is otherwise clear enough. To Pm's questions: we have no control over what he reads or doesn't read, so trying to prohibit "monitoring" is probably futile. As for any exemption for potential participation in future Arbcom or RfCs, DC has said himself that he would have to ask Arbcom for that purpose, so basically that falls under the "appeal" category. I'd certainly hope Arbcom would not grant such an appeal, because if both of you stick to the restriction otherwise he couldn't possibly have any open business with you that would make his participation in such a process necessary, but of course he'd be free to ask for such an exemption via the appeals process. Fut.Perf. ¤ 17:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Per both party's your agreements the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue (to include any page on a website owned by The Wikimedia Foundation). If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom, but reporting the other editor for perceived violations is not permitted." I'm not aware of any assurances made -- but that is not the point. The point is to describe the ban with sufficient clarity that the involved editors understand the terms and such that, upon review, administrators will clearly know when a violation has occurred or not. Rather than list specific places than ban occurs -- complexity leads to loopholes -- I've simply defined "any" more clearly.

Wikipedia has no control of what happens off-wiki so I'm not including that in the ban. (If that's a roadblock, then someone else will have to finish the drafting because I'm not smart enough to actually write such a ban in a way that can actually be enforced.) Nobody Ent 18:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Prioryman, how would anyone know if he's monitoring you or not? Unless he says he's doing it, no way to know, so it's irrelevant. RfC/U counts as commenting or interacting, obviously. Would you like to have an RfC/U done on yourself?
2. Each of you pick a contact admin that is willing and you like to deal with if you see a problem with violations of the ban. Agree to do whatever they say on the subject or get blocked. You won't contact anyone else other than your designated admin. Off-wiki, can't control, its a non-issue.

I feel the following revision may express the community sentiment and provide absolute clarity to both parties:

"Per both your agreements the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with any perceived violations of Wikipedia restrictions, guidelines or policies is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom. To sum up, do not think about, mention, or obsess about anything to do with each other. Leave each other alone, and no one in the community should see any evidence that you acknowledge each other's existence."

How's that version? -- Avanu (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick with discussing the single version, which I didn't actually write per se -- it was mostly a copy/paste of ErrantX's previous IBAN statement, DCs unblock request and RegentSparks' unblock statement (which I guess means I just COPYVIO three editors.) Nobody Ent 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Its essentially the same as yours, but I reordered your sentences to make it more in line with the escalation order. And then added the summation, which is an entirely optional addition, but I think it expresses the sentiment very clearly. -- Avanu (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave out the "to sum up" part, in particular "obsess"; the interaction ban is needed precisely because it's not possible for at least one of them to not obsess about the other. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so:

Per mutual agreement of Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman, the community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor in connection with any perceived violations of Wikipedia restrictions, guidelines or policies is not permitted. However, if either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the terms of the interaction ban, that editor will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom.

-- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion In the unlikely event if one of the editors wants to discuss the policy and it requires interaction from the other party, that request should be initiated by email to an administrator. At that point, should an administrator wish to get involved they would open a thread on their (the admins) talk page and both parties would be exempted from the IB in that limited scope. The thread should also be limited to the *policy* and not other disputes. The admin should attempt to keep the thread narrowly construed and close it as soon as possible. In addition, community block lengths should be added to this policy so each editor knows the consequences and will think twice before violating the IB. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it better if we let administrators use their judgement if contacted by either party. My goal here to make a simple definitive comprehensive ban statement; I have every confidence once the terms are understood both editors will follow it so discussion of penalties would be moot. Nobody Ent 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, didn't look that closely -- (probably fixes the copyvio problem!). Let's trim the tail as CI suggests and the opening phrase isn't essential, and any mention should be prohibited, which gets us:

"The community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom."

That work? Nobody Ent 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to "If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban or has a question regarding the ban". Leave no wiggle room whatsoever Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"The community is imposing a binding interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle and Prioryman. Each will not comment on, or otherwise interact with the other at any venue within the scope of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Reporting or otherwise mentioning the other editor is not permitted. If either editor wishes to report a suspected violation of the interaction ban or has a question regarding the ban they will email any administrator of their choice. Per policy, appeals to the ban may be made to Arbcom."

Corrected for clarity as suggested. Nobody Ent 19:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to DC's not wishing to accept these terms and other editors editing my posts in violation of WP:TPG, I'm withdrawing from this discussion. Nobody Ent 02:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You all are making this too difficult. Just word it this way for both users and everything should be fine: "Until further notice, [user A] is restricted from commenting on, about, or to [user B] anywhere on Wikipedia." ?Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots? 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

DC has accepted those terms with that minor modification mostly because it makes sense that chasing him or Prioryman all over the various projects would be a hassle, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't know how it is a significant difference unless they edit a lot on the other projects, and if so, we can specify the project they edit on. I think if Prioryman agrees, we're done. Not sure what the big deal is. -- Avanu (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the only other possible point of intersection between DC and I is the Commons, where we're both active; but we've never crossed paths and there's never been any conflict between us there. I'm sure that if some issue or pretext does emerge the admins on the Commons can deal with it and be informed by the steps that have been taken here. The terms of the restrictions posted on my talk page seemed to be changing every 5 minutes at one point but now that they seem to have settled down, I'm happy to accept them as-is. Hopefully this time the restrictions will stick and there will be no more of this nonsense. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

With that said, both Prioryman and Delicious Carbuncle have agreed to the same set of text.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle&oldid=491052572#Ban_wording

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prioryman&oldid=491098774#Ban_wording

I hope the community can agree with their agreement and put this issue to bed now. -- Avanu (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

All you really need is for both of them to agree that the voluntary IBAN can be enforced as if the community had put it in place. That should do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 7 May 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:JCAla, source falsification and tendentious editing

I have to report a case of longterm tendentious editing and source falsification by JCAla (talk · contribs), who just broke 3RR re-inserting the following edit [30] (previous reverts of other edits: [31], [32], [33]) I'm not bringing this to WP:AN3 because the 3RR violation is only a surface sign indicative of his overall aggressive attitude. The source falsification is a lot more serious, and requires more long-term measures.

documentation of falsifying source use

For background: JCAla is an agenda editor whose main goal is the glorification of one of Afghanistan's civil war leaders, Ahmed Shah Massoud. The source in question here, the report "Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001" by the Afghanistan Justice Project ([34]), is a decent source on various atrocities committed in Afghanistan during the civil war period. I'm not aware that anybody has challenged it as an overall reliable source. JCAla has cited from it repeatedly in multiple articles. This report contains accounts atrocities committed on all sides of the conflict, and provides tentative assessments of the extent to which various leaders were personally responsible for them. Among other things, it describes the shelling and bombardment of Kabul by several parties as a war crime (p. 64f. "[a]ll of the major armed factions who were contending for control of the city were responsible for the indiscriminate use of a full range of heavy weapons"), and it investigates the responsibilities for these shellings in terms of the chains of command within each of the major factions. In this context, the report clearly implicates Massoud, then the leader of the Afghan government forces, as one of the main actors responsible (p.65: "Massoud is named repeatedly as directing operations"; p.68: "Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids"; p. 77: "The command centers of Jamiat / Shura-i Nazar forces [i.e. Massoud's] were within sight of Afshar, the intent of the attack appeared to be to drive out the civilian population from Afshar"; p. 79: "Shura-i Nazar forces bombarded Kart-iNau, Shah Shaheed and Chilsatoon with a heavy aerial bombardment and from the ground. As a result of this counter-attack more than 100 people were killed and on 120 wounded, most of them civilians."). The report also deals with a massacre and mass rape in a place called Afshar, committed by Massoud's forces. (pp.82ff.) Here too, responsibility is clearly being attributed to Massoud personally. (p.82: "as fighting took place in an area barely two kilometers from the general command post, and field commanders were equipped with radio communications, the general commander must have known of the abuses taking place in Afshar as soon as they started. Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses before the operation commenced, or to stop them once the operation was underway"), although it admits that (not unexpectedly) "it has not been possible to identify individual commanders responsible for specific instances of execution or rape". The report later talks about one individual victim of abuse by Massoud's forces, and sums up that (p.112) "[a]s in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered the abuses. However, they failed to take action against the commander and forces responsible, and instead attempted to cover up the crime." Of all these accounts, JCAla has seen fit to quote only one single sentence from this report, namely the one in the paragraph just above: "[T]here is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered abuses" (note the telltale falsifying change of "the abuses" to simply "abuses"). This quotation is presented as if it applied to all actions of Massoud's party during the war, rather than just to the individual fate of one rape victim. The falsified quotation is then presented by JCAla as supporting the claim that "Ahmad Shah Massoud did not order any crimes." As for the charge of indiscriminate shelling, JCAla has used the same report to support the statement that "Bombardment of the capital came to a halt" (as a result of Massoud's actions), but has completely left out any reference to Massoud's own participation in such bombardments.

I believe this is a very serious case of not merely source-cherrypicking, but downright source falsification. This is in the context of a very obvious, longterm tendentious editing agenda, which is easily visible in the present state of the Ahmed Shah Massoud article, largely the result of JCAla's work.

We have just been topic-banning Anupam (talk · contribs) for a very much less obvious case of longterm agenda editing. If we are to apply the same standards here, then a ban is unavoidable. JCAla has five separate prior blocks for disruptive editing between September 2010 and January 2012 [35].

Disclosure: I became aware of JCAla in the course of a recent dispute over the use of a non-free image, and only began to look into his editing during and after this dispute. If it hadn't been for my involvement in that, I would have simply indef-blocked JCAla myself, but now of course I can't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to need some time to look into Fut.Perf.'s claims and the sources to address the points one by one. I just want to recommend anyone looking into this to read the context of this mal-intentioned report first.

Fut.Perf. seems to be intent to ban me for he failed to get an image deleted he bitterly tried to get deleted. It went so far that even other administrators noticed Fut.Perf. bitter tone, stating "your nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader [JCAla]; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate."[36] You can see that Fut.Perf. went to Magog the Ogre's talk page[37], someone many people know I had a dispute with, clearly trying to get him to act against me because of our history. He could have asked any other administrator to look into this, but he asked Magog of whom he seems to think to know what he will do.

I want to point out that as far as I know Fut.Perf. never edited the Ahmad Shah Massoud article before he went bitter over the failed image deletion. When he came to that article, he put a NPOV tag without providing any reason on the talk, so I rv. Then he put a "dubious tag" behind a sentence, again with no reason on the talk, that is why I rv. Then he removed a direct quote, which I also rv. (I will self rv if asked to.) If he sincerely wanted to improve the article, he could have expanded the quote instead. He could also have started a discussion on the talk page. He failed to do any of that.

JCAla (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Next thing. Everything Fut.Perf. claims as alleged "evidence" for "source falsification and tendentious editing", relates ONLY to the Ahmad Shah Massoud#War in Kabul and other parts of the country 1992-1996 section of the Ahmad Shah Massoud article - nothing else. I invite anyone to read that whole section. If it has a weakness, than it is the following one, that it makes too extensive use of direct quotes from exclusively reliable sources. tbc JCAla (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion really belongs to the talk of that article not here as Fut.Perf clearly fails to point out any "evidence" for a supposed pattern of "source falsification and tendentious editing". Anyways, I see three main topics brought up by Fut.Perf., each relating only to one section of one article. For those topics Fut.Perf. uses exclusively ONE source to back up his claim. I have, however, combined the knowledge and information of many different reliable sources on these issues - which will paint a different picture than Fut.Perf. has tried to paint. The three issues seem to be 1) the shelling of Kabul, 2) the Afshar operation and 3) other. tbc JCAla (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not about "painting" this or that "picture", and it's not about what other sources say. It's about how you pretended to summarize this source. If you had simply omitted it, we'd have nothing to discuss now. But you brought it in, and you used it for supporting pretty much the opposite of what it actually says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently, Fut Perf has brought to ANI a questionable example of a dispute over a source with JCala and alleged tendentious editing without any evidence. I don't see why JCala would have any reason to be 'Banned' for merely allegedly misrepresenting a source. I'd like to personally see more tangible evidence of alleged 'tendentious' editing before any editing restrictions are handed out.Pectore^talk 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can let Roy Gutman from the United States Institute of Peace, and Director of the American University's Crimes of War Project as well as expert in the scientific research on war crimes do the representation of the sources on the issue for us - so neither Fut.Perf. nor me. Gutman won the Pulitzer prize in 1993 for his coverage of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where he provided the first documented reports of concentration camps. He is co-editor of the book, Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know and is author of A Witness to Genocide: The 1993 Pulitzer Prize Winning Dispatches on Ethnic Cleansing of Bosnia and Banana Diplomacy: The Making of American Policy in Nicaragua, 1981-1987. Gutman wrote in "How we missed the story" (p. 222) about Massoud (and I am giving the full quote here, so Fut.Perf. won't start his questionable accusations again):

The major criticism of Massoud's human rights record centers on the 1993 killing of Hazara civilians in the Afshar neighborhood of Kabul. This was Massoud's operation, while defense minister, to capture the military and political headquarters of the Shia Hezbi Wahdat in west Kabul after Wahdat leader Abdul Ali Mazari withdrew from the government and began secret talks with Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami. Massoud's Jamiat forces and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i-Islami sent in troops at five o'clock in the morning on February 11, 1993. Mazari and his commanders fled the University Social Science Institute, where they had their headquarters, by about one o'clock in the afternoon. Troops of both Jamiat and Ittihad undertook a search operation that investigators later described as "a mass exercise in abuse and looting." But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued. Was Massoud a "human rights abuser" with a"record of brutality?" In the seesaw fighting in northern Shamali in 1999, "there was a tendency in the heat of battle not to take prisoners," said Davis, who spent several months each year with Massoud's forces from 1981 to 2001. "But," he added, "atrocities in the real sense of that term I'm not aware of" There was "no pattern of repeated killings of enemy civilians or military prisoners" by Massoud's forces, according to Davis.

I guess that speaks for itself. JCAla (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We can also have a look at what two renowned journalists, authors and observers which were personally, physically present in Kabul and Afshar said.

John Jennings (Associated Press) in "Massoud" (published by Webster University Press):

"When Iran-backed [Wahdat] Hazara militiamen who had also been involved in ethnic cleansing and were allied to Hekmatyar began shelling Kabul's northwestern neighborhoods, Massoud worried aloud to his aides that driving them from their positions [in Afshar] would risk allowing some of his allies' camp followers [notably those of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] to commit atrocities against Hazara captives. On the other hand, he noted, the alternative was to allow Hazara militiamen to continue shelling much more heavily populated areas, and killing many more noncombatants, on the other side of the town. Understandably, he chose the former. In the resulting Afshar operation abuses [by Massoud’s troops] were minimal, as I saw for myself …Of course that has never stopped political opportunists (often masquerading as human rights activists) from inventing a “massacre”, that never, in fact, occurred. During the battle, I watched Panjshiris rescue a wounded Hazara woman caught in a cross fire … Next day I stumbled across one of Wahdat’s impromptu jails in the basement of an abandoned house, complete with three non-Hazara corpses, tied up with baling wire, and shot as the gunmen fled. ... Any popular movement, if it is truly popular, is going to harbor a criminal element, just because any large population harbors a criminal element. It is unrealistic to expect zero crimes. Yet Afghans, even Massoud's enemies, know that abuses by his troops were rare and punished [if possible] as often as they were caught. ... His enemies on the other hand undertook mass murder, looting , and ethnic cleansing as a matter of policy. ... Had Massoud not fought to hold on to Kabul, the human rights situation in Afghanistan and throughout the region would have been vastly worse than it was."

Edward Girardet (Director Global Journalism Network) in "Massoud" (published by Webster University Press):

"I was in Kabul many times in the '90s, including the edges of Kabul. … When Massoud operated in the north during the fight against the Soviets, and towards the end of the Taliban period, his Northern Front commanders he watched quite closely and controlled well, but in Kabul, no. … People who were supposedly supporting Massoud were just using his name to benefit themselves. … He could not control all of them."

What now? Are they all source falsifiers (although they were there personally)? There exists more than the source used by Fut.Perf. and I took that into account. JCAla (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I want to say in turn, that I find Fut.Perf. behavior very questionable. After a bitter, failed deletion process of an image including Massoud, in which he made repeated unsubstantiated personal attacks against me as well as others and he was noted for incivility and missing detachment by several editors and administrators, he goes to the Ahmad Shah Massoud article (which at least in the English version he never edited before, but of which I am one of the biggest contributors) clearly to pick a fight as shown by this questionable report here. In the failed deletion process several editors questioned Fut.Perf.'s behavior. User:Alanscottwalker said: "I don't think your incivility evidences your administrative competence."[38] User:Sandstein said: "The closing admin [Fut.Perf.] must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote."[39] User:Cavarrone said: "blame this behaviour."[40] User:S Marshall said: "Also, your nomination statement for this debate is unnecessarily bitter and too full of rancour directed at "keep" !voters and the original file uploader[JCAla]; it's not conducive to a collegial and reasoned debate. ... Please accept this now."[41] And User:Jclemens said: "If you want to talk "out of process" going from a closing admin to a re-nominator calls into question whether your original close was made with appropriate detachment. No, scratch that, it again questions that detachment--since the DRV questioned it and found your rationale wanting. Please, let it be."[42] Now, this report against the original uploader of the image he bitterly wanted deleted - that is truly questionable behavior. JCAla (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• JCAla, you've made comments in a way which looks like you've replied to yourself at least twice; in future discussions, could you please structure your response so that you do not seem to reply to yourself? That is, you may need to wait for others to respond before you decide to insert further comments. 18:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note I have proposed WP:Dispute Resolution to Future Perfect and JCAla on their respective talk pages. Hopefully some AGF, can be restored between the two, as this appears to be focused in a content dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (Same answer as on my talkpage): This is absurd. There cannot be a "content dispute" about taking a source that says "X was responsible for war crimes" and use it as a citation for the claim that "X wasn't responsible for war crimes". There cannot be a rational dispute resolution with a person who believes that if source A says P, and source B says !P, it is okay to claim that A also says !P, and who can see nothing logically wrong with that. It has nothing to do with "AGF"; this is a kind of behaviour to which a block is the only rational response. Did you even read the source and the article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The interesting thing is that your interpretation of what the report allegedly says varies greatly from what Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman, expert in the field of war crimes, writes the overall report says: "But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres". And I think the only rational response to your recent administrative behavior, be it in the nomination/review/nomination or be it in the reasons for this report seeking to get someone blocked indef (who uploaded an image you wanted deleted) because of a disagreement over ONE source, is a review of your administrative rights. ADDED: Now he removed this content, claiming that Steve Coll with "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" was not referring to something including Massoud, when he most certainly was. SOURCE: "... he [Massoud] was willing to drop old grievances and link his Northern Alliance with the exiled King Zahir Shah in Rome. ... "Talk to Zahir Shah," he urged. "Tell him that I accept him as head of state." This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance ..." (Ghost Wars, BY Steve Coll, p. 558) And he claims that Massoud was not part of the Rome process, when he most certainly was part of it. SOURCE: "Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years has lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander. ... Their current partnership was a measure of just how serious each of them approached this effort." ("Come back to Afghanistan: Trying to rebuild a country with my father", BY Said Hyder Akhbar, p. 20) JCAla (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      • FutPerf: I have replied on your talk page. I hope there can be a step back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction ban

As my proposal for Dispute Resolution appears to have spectacularly failed.[43] I propose an interaction ban between the two editors Fut.Perf. and JCAla, as they can no longer assume any good faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. How about examining whether JCAla has engaged in longterm tendentious editing and source falsification, as Fut. Perf. has alleged, before proposing something like this? These are serious policy violations that damage the value of the encyclopedia, but you seem to think this is merely an interpersonal dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have examined the locus of the dispute. I basically come down with User:Pectore (above) and given the personal interaction between the two, across several forums, I think it's warranted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note Somehow an edit conflict with JCAla caused my comment above to delete a comment of his. (That was not my intention and I apologize). I am willing to reconsider/withdraw my proposal (and say I was wrong to make it) but this is basically what AN/I currently has before it: Editor 1 edit summary: 'You've mirepresented a source.' Editor 2 edit summary: 'No I have not'. Then, no article talk page discussion (ala BRD). No editor talk page discussion. No, anyone of a half dozen notice boards to hash out the disagreement. Rather, an AN/I report that Editor two is bad. Then a long discussion about sources with the claim by editor 2 that he is representing a source as others have. This is not an Incident. This is not how editors come to agreement and understanding or honorable disagreement, unless they just can't deal with each other, in which case they should just separate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Alanscottwalker, this is not the normal way. If Fut.Perf.'s intention was to improve the article he would at least have started a discussion on the talk page, but nothing, not a single word. He came to an article he never edited before, did several controversial changes, and then immediately came here. That all happened in the context of that image deletion discussion mentioned above. Also, he has not established any pattern of supposed falsification, instead he comes here with a disagreement on one source hoping for the help of someone I had a dispute with. The comment I made above, which accidentally got removed, was the following. I invite anyone to check the following (less complicated) matter in which Fut.Perf. claims a second supposed source falsification.

Fut.Perf. removed this content claiming source falsification.

1) Fut.Perf. claims Steve Coll with "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" was not referring to something including Massoud, when he most certainly was.

SOURCE: "... he [Massoud] was willing to drop old grievances and link his Northern Alliance with the exiled King Zahir Shah in Rome. ... "Talk to Zahir Shah," he urged. "Tell him that I accept him as head of state." This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance ..." (Ghost Wars, BY Steve Coll, p. 558)

2) And Fut.Perf. claims that Massoud was not part of the Rome process, when he most certainly was part of it.

SOURCE: "Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years has lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander. ... Their current partnership was a measure of just how serious each of them approached this effort." ("Come back to Afghanistan: Trying to rebuild a country with my father", BY Said Hyder Akhbar, p. 20)

This is very easy to check and I invite anyone to do so. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(deindent) Support - This seems like a vicious feud between two users, one of whom is an administrator. That said, I am curious as to what evidence has prompted Akhilleus to allege "serious policy violations". Surely we are not just taking FutPerf at his word without diffs? I for one am not sure JCAla is even right in the content dispute, but I do not think anything fruitful is coming out of FutPerf telling him he is bad. Might as well let someone else tell him that if he is tendentious.Pectore^talk 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "if Fut. Perf. is correct, these are serious policy violations..." but I thought that was clear. Alanscottwalker is probably right to say that coming to ANI w/no attempts at dispute resolution isn't standard procedure, but this is where we are. Before proposing an interaction ban, it's necessary to check whether Fut. Perf.'s allegations are correct. If you don't check, and Fut. Perf. is right that JCAla is misrepresenting the content of his sources, then you're leaving the field open to an editor who's violating our basic content policies. Hopefully Alanscottwalker did this, but when I wrote earlier he hadn't indicated that he had examined the substance of Fut. Perf.'s allegations—and from your post I'm not sure that you have, either. Misrepresenting the content of sources is not a trivial thing—it's pure poison for an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And indeed, after reading the relevant portions of "Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001" by the Afghanistan Justice Project ([44]), I agree with Fut. Perf. that this edit by JCAla misrepresents the source. The Afghanistan Justice Project's report says that Massoud bears responsibility for war crimes, but JCAla's edit says "Ahmad Shah Massoud did not order any crimes." and cites the Afghanistan Justice Project as a source for that text. But this is the opposite of what the report says—as Fut. Perf. has already stated above, the report says that Massoud personally ordered military actions which amounted to war crimes.

Now it's true, this situation might have been solved by dispute resolution which resulted in the article accurately reflecting the source, so that the article says that the Afghanistan Justice Project says that Massoud is responsible for war crimes. Is JCAla willing to edit the article to say that? Well, in his last edit (which violated 3RR as Fut. Perf. notes), there's a (modified) quote from the Afghanistan Justice Project's report which says "[T]here is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [including Massoud] ordered abuses." But taking this quote out of context is misleading, because the report says "As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered the abuses. However, they failed to take action against the commander and forces responsible, and instead attempted to cover up the crime." So, no, I don't think he wants to represent the source accurately—I think he wants to misrepresent it in order to excuse Massoud from war crimes. But I'm happy to be proven wrong—JCAla just needs to edit the article to show that some reliable sources blame Massoud for atrocities.

I suppose this discussion should have taken place on the article's talk page. That's standard procedure, yes? But standard procedure often lets tendentious editors have their way with articles or entire topic areas for years. That's bad for editors who care about proper representation of sources, and it's bad for the encyclopedia. In future, though, I think that if Fut. Perf. sees a 3RR violation, he should probably go to the 3RR board instead of ANI...the 3RR board is more predictable. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion should have taken place, elsewhere. I think you make a lot of sense but, why did the discussion not take place elsewhere? If it's because the two editors cannot deal with one another, they cannot in good faith try to see each others points, and they will not commit to dispute resolution and consensus on content, then the functioning of this entire Project is endangered. JCAla may be entirely wrong but it's a crucial leap to say he has evil intent. He could be mistaken; he could have weighted the sources incorrectly; he could be negligent and in need corrective feedback; he could be trying to do something right but in the wrong way -- but this is not the place you begin that discussion unless one has already decided he is evil, and that's not how this place works or can work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the following suggestion as a compromise in this content dispute.[45] The article on the disputed issues now reads as follows:

"The Afghanistan Justice Project (AJP) says, that "while [Hekmatyar's anti-government] Hizb-i Islami is frequently named as foremost among the factions responsible for the deaths and destruction in the bombardment of Kabul, it was not the only perpetrator of these violations."[29] According to the AJP, "the scale of the bombardment and kinds of weapons used represented disproportionate use of force" by all the factions involved - including the government forces.[29]" [...]

"The major criticism of Massoud's human rights record centers on the 1993 killing of Hazara civilians in the Afshar neighborhood of Kabul. This was Massoud's operation, while defense minister, to capture the military and political headquarters of the Shia Hezbi Wahdat in west Kabul after Wahdat leader Abdul Ali Mazari withdrew from the government and began secret talks with Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami. Massoud's Jamiat forces and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i-Islami sent in troops at five o'clock in the morning on February 11, 1993. Mazari and his commanders fled the University Social Science Institute, where they had their headquarters, by about one o'clock in the afternoon. Troops of both Jamiat and Ittihad undertook a search operation that investigators later described as "a mass exercise in abuse and looting." But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued. Was Massoud a "human rights abuser" with a"record of brutality?" In the seesaw fighting in northern Shamali in 1999, "there was a tendency in the heat of battle not to take prisoners," said Davis, who spent several months each year with Massoud's forces from 1981 to 2001. "But," he added, "atrocities in the real sense of that term I'm not aware of" There was "no pattern of repeated killings of enemy civilians or military prisoners" by Massoud's forces, according to Davis."

— War crimes expert Roy Gutman, How we missed the story

In the context of personal assaults on civilians by armed faction members, the Afghanistan Justice Project notes:

"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [including Massoud] ordered the abuses."

— Afghanistan Justice Project

I added the general bombardment. I added Roy Gutman's summary of the source with regards to Afshar. And I elaborated further on the context of the sentence quoted. This should and could have been discussed on the article's talk page though.JCAla (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Still distorted, still quotemining, still false quotations, still tendentious. JCAla shows no signs of understanding what is wrong with his editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, really? What is false about these quotations? And what exactly is distorted? Like in the deletion discussion you seem to think that you have the ultimate monopoly on the ultimate truth. JCAla (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Still presenting the "there is no indication ..." quote as if it was a general statement referring to the totality of M.'s actions during the war, rather than exclusively to one specific incident. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not referring exclusively to one incidence. It says, "As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report" and does indeed say so in the context of assault of an armed group against a civilian. If we look at the source for the War in Kabul period, we only have this incidence and the looting in Afshar (ordered to be halted by Massoud according to source) as "other instances" of "personal assaults on civilians by armed faction members" of his forces. Or do you see something else in that source in that context for that period that fits into the category of personal assaults of armed groups belonging to his troops? This is correct:

In the context of personal assaults on civilians by armed faction members, the Afghanistan Justice Project notes:

"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-e Nazar leaders [including Massoud] ordered the abuses."

— Afghanistan Justice Project

JCAla (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not get more obvious than this. We are discussing here, and per another supervote, Fut.Perf. again simply removes without discussing it properly here first. I expect the same to happen to this edit of mine (which he before claimed as source falsification also) and please, I invite anyone to look if there is the slightest hint of source falsification in this edit, because there is none. JCAla (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: IBANs throw issues under the carpet, if an editor raises a conduct issue about another, it should be resolved rather thrown under the carpet. IBAN is an extreme measure and will just prevent one editor from scrutinizing another or following up at DR; regardless of the fact he's giving a narrow scrutiny (with explanation of it). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is no long history of disruptive interaction between the two editors. Plus, it makes no sense to penalize good faith reports made on ANI with an interaction ban. --regentspark (comment) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, when the above instructions say in bold letters: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." And that did not happen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Investigation of Fut.Perf. claims

• We are talking about one sentence here. So please refrain making any accusations of a habit of source falsification, if you present no evidence for that other than a disagreement over the use of that one sentence. This sentence was used by me in a very specific context, which was the context of personal assaults of armed members on civilians - the same context it is being used in by the Afghanistan Justice Project. "As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders ordered the abuses." This by no means is falsification, especially as I took into account what the others sources say. Now let us investigate the claims Fut.Perf. made one by one:

• Fut.Perf. claims: "The report also deals with a massacre and mass rape in a place called Afshar, committed by Massoud's forces. (pp.82ff.) Here too, responsibility is clearly being attributed to Massoud personally."

Roy Gutman, expert on war crimes, writes about same issue and source: "But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command."

Let us investigate Fut.Perf.'s claim, which is the true source falsification here and which obviously stands in stark contradiction to how Gutman summarized the source. We find the Afghanistan Justice Project's report of war crimes during the Afshar military operation (the legitimate military operation itself needs to be distinguished from the escalation/abuses after the operation had largely achieved its legitimate objectives) under the section: The War Crimes: Indiscriminate Attacks, Rapes, Abductions and Summary Executions (p. 85) which has three subsections.

Subsection: Summary Executions and Disappearances

"Witnesses interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project stated that a group of Hizb-i Wahdat soldiers was taken prisoner from Wahdat headquarters at the Social Science Institute by Ittihad-i Islami forces on February 11. In addition to these, a large number of civilian men and suspected Wahdat militants were arrested from the Afshar area after Ittihad captured it. The number taken is not known. One group of Hazara prisoners held by Ittihad-i Islami was subsequently used by the Ittihad commanders to undertake burial of the dead from the Afshar operation, after one week. This group of witnesses has reported that their relatives were among the civilian and military prisoners taken by Ittihad who subsequently disappeared and are believed to have been summarily executed by Ittihad forces. The Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to obtain only a few of the names of the victims. Some other men were taken from their homes. Witness A told the Afghanistan Justice Project ... The armed men – who were from Sayyaf and from Jamiat – were looting all the houses. Sayyaf’s people spoke Pushto; Jamiat spoke Dari. I sent my family to another place and I stayed at the house. At about 11:00 a.m. a commander named Izatullah (from Ittihad) came to the house ... Witness B told the Afghanistan Justice Project that Ittihad-i Islami troops had beaten her and arrested her unarmed husband ... Witness C told the Afghanistan Justice Project that the soldiers searched the houses looking for men. “I was taken to Paghman. [base of Ittihad] ... Witness M. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that at 7:.00 in the morning, when Ittihad-i Islami captured Afshar, a group of armed men entered her residential compound, and detained S., her husband. ... After he was detained, a second group of 10-15 Ittihad soldiers came to the house between ... Witness K, 75 years old, stated that troops affiliated to Sayyaf abducted him from Sar-i Jui ... The Ittihad troops then took him to Company (a Sayyaf-controlled area) on that day and held him there for two months. The commander who captured him was Ghulam Rasool, affiliated to Sayyaf. ... Witness G was briefly arrested and beaten unconscious by Ittehad troops ... Abdullah Khan, of Ghazni Province, 67 years old, was arrested from Afshar by Commander Aziz Banjar, a Sayyaf commander. The rest of the family had fled to Taimani during the main military operation. ...

Witness Sh. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that when Ittihad forces entered her house ...

Subsection: Rape by Ittihad Forces

During the Afshar operation, Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami forces used rape and other assaults on civilians to drive the civilian population from the area. The Afghanistan Justice Project interviewed many witnesses who described incidents of rape by Ittihad forces during the Afshar operation. Witness M. (see statement above) was injured in the hand and leg when Ittihad soldiers ... The Ittihad troops ...

Witness Sh. stated that after capturing Afshar, Ittehad-i Islami troops ...

Subsection: Indiscriminate Shelling and bombardment of civilian areas

"The Afshar area was subjected to heavy bombardment during the first day of the operation. The principal military targets would have been the Social Science Institute and the other main Wahdat garrisons. However, the Social Science Institute was never hit. The majority of the rockets, tank shells and mortars fell in civilian residential areas. As the command centers of both the Ittihad and Jamiat forces were within site of Afshar, it appears that the attack was intended to drive the civilian population from Afshar—which it succeeded in doing. The number killed in the assault (not including those summarily executed) is not known. Virtually every witness interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project described seeing bodies in the area. Indeed, the shelling and mortar fire was so intense, many residents hid on the first day, and did not try to leave."

Where is Massoud? Where is this personal responsibility for rape and executions? It is no there. "Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation" (p. 82)

Is this all then, an "appeared to be" when it comes to the shelling, when at the same time he let the civilians flee into north Kabul which he controlled? (Afghanistan Justice Project, p. 85: "Women and children fled mainly towards Taimani, in north Kabul, and they found shelter in schools and mosques in the Ismaili quarter there.") Also for the shelling, under the title "Shura-i Nazar / Jamiat-i Islami: Command and Control of Military Operations" it says "Massoud is named repeatedly as directing operations, whether they were involved short-range artillery, long-range rockets or giving orders to fighter pilots. Mohammad Qasim Fahim, then in charge of intelligence, is also named many times as a crucial link in advising where to target." Of course Fut.Perf. left out the last part of the sentence, creating the impression that every single target was named by Massoud personally, which anyone familiar with warfare will find ridiculous. Directing military operations as an internationally recognized minister of defense against militias attacking the capital, is that a war crime? He directed some of the operations which involved short-range and long-range artillery - others being directed by Fahim. The Afshar operation, however, was a middle-range artillery operation. What does the source say about middle-range? "He says the second type of rocket was middle-range... He said orders to fire these were given by division commanders, for example, Ahmadi, commander of Qargha Division, Panah Khan, commander of Jihadi army, Gada Mohammed Khan, commander of Tapa Sorkh Division and Bismillah Khan. “They launched rockets at Hizb-i Islami bases, such as military zones, military centers like Bagrami, Shah Shahid, and Kart-i Nau, Chilsiton and Wahdat areas like Afshar, Social Science Institute, and Silo and indeed any area in west Kabul that was under the control of Hizb-i Wahdat." So, did he personally command the middle-range as used in Afshar according to the source? No.

Conclusion: 1) No mention of testimonies of massacre by Massoud's forces in this source. 2) No mention of rape in Afshar by Massoud's forces in this source. 3) A mention of a shelling that "appeared to be" but was not directly commanded by Massoud.

We know from other sources that Wahdat forces which were being fought in the operation were positioned in the civilian residential areas as this was a war inside a capital city. We also know from other sources the number of people killed in the streets because of shelling and fighting which was 70. The source has gaps here. In the war crimes section there is no such thing as Fut.Perf. claims. Rather, under the section "Responsibility for the abuses committed during the operation" Massoud is mentioned in the following way, "The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations. He directly controlled the Jamiat-i Islami units" "Overall responsibility" and "directly controlling a military force" is the same as Obama or the leading General has for the War in Afghanistan. But none would say: "The report also deals with a massacre and mass rape in a place called Afghanistan, committed by Obama's forces. Here too, responsibility is clearly being attributed to Obama personally." Just because a report would mention that Obama is the Commander in Chief of the United States military and as such has overall responsibility.

Then we have: "Given the pattern of violence and ethnic tension that had preceded the operation, the general commanders could and should have anticipated the pattern of abuse that would result when launching an offensive into a densely populated Hazara majority area." We have a first-hand account about that issue from the Associated Press' John Jennings which was left out by the Afghanistan Justice Project:

When Iran-backed [Wahdat] Hazara militiamen who had also been involved in ethnic cleansing and were allied to Hekmatyar began shelling Kabul's northwestern neighborhoods, Massoud worried aloud to his aides that driving them from their positions [in Afshar] would risk allowing some of his allies' camp followers [notably those of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] to commit atrocities against Hazara captives. On the other hand, he noted, the alternative was to allow Hazara militiamen to continue shelling much more heavily populated areas, and killing many more noncombatants, on the other side of the town. Understandably, he chose the former. In the resulting Afshar operation abuses [by Massoud’s troops] were minimal, as I saw for myself …Of course that has never stopped political opportunists (often masquerading as human rights activists) from inventing a “massacre”, that never, in fact, occurred.

Then we have: "Furthermore, as fighting took place in an area barely two kilometers from the general command post, and field commanders were equipped with radio communications, the general commander must have known of the abuses taking place in Afshar as soon as they started. Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses before the operation commenced, or to stop them once the operation was underway." A) "must have known" is again weasel. Why "must have"? Would someone who is doing something wrong in a house or somewhere tell by radio communication "I am summarily executing a person right now."? B) Roy Gutman writes: "Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued." The Afghanistan Justice Project writes: "Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. ... ISA didclaim a Shia constituency and Hussain Anwari, as a senior [Massoud] ISA commander, was under pressure from Shia civilians to make some arrangements for their safety. The meeting ordered a halt to the massacre and looting ... It also called for a withdrawal of the offensive troops, leaving a smaller force to garrison the new areas. ... The meeting also seems to have been ineffective in halting the looting of the area, as the destruction of housing in Afshar happened largely after the meeting." So, Massoud did take measures. But as Ittihad forces were not under his direct control, they remained largely uneffective. Above witness testimonials clearly show that the vast majority of abuses was carried out by Ittihad.

This is everything about Massoud and Afshar. Now, where does the report talk about a "massacre and mass rape in a place called Afshar, committed by Massoud's forces". There is not once instance of rape in Afshar by Massoud's forces mentioned in that report. There is also not one testimonial about a massacre by Massoud's forces in that report. The only thing that is in there is looting, which Massoud ordered halted, and a shelling which "appeared to" but was not directly commanded by Massoud.

It is Fut.Perf. who absolutely quotes the citations out of context and by that gives a wrong impression. I. e., he quoted: "Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids". This gives the impression he was behind every single rocket attack, although above it clearly states that he was not involved in the middle-range artillery. The full citation quoted out of context by Fut.Perf. relates ONLY to the use of air force. "Shura-i Nazar and Junbish fighter planes were under separate chains of command. According to a former Shura-i Nazar artillery commander, Massoud himself gave the orders for all bombing raids, via Bismillah Khan. Until the Shura-i Hamahangi pact of January 1994, when Junbish planes became an enemy force, Massoud largely controlled the skies over Kabul." Was the air force used in Afshar according to the source? No, it was not.

The only responsibility which remains then was the fact that he planned the legitimate military operation that "The forces that launched the offensive in west Kabul on February 10-11, 1993 all formally belonged to the ministry of defense of the ISA. The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations." The objectives of that operation, far from constituting a war crime, are very clearly mentioned in the source, which Fut.Perf. chose to leave out:

"There were two tactical objectives to the operation. First, Massoud intended, through the operation to capture the political and military headquarters of Hizb-i Wahdat, (which was located in the Social Science Institute, adjoining Afshar, the neighborhood below the Afshar mountain in west Kabul), and to capture Abdul Ali Mazari, the leader of Hizb-i Wahdat. Second, the ISA intended to consolidate the areas of the capital directly controlled by Islamic State forces ... Given the political and military context of Kabul at the time, these two objectives (which were largely attained during the operation) provide a compelling explanation of why the Islamic State forces attacked Afshar."

Now, the operation only went wrong after its goals had been achieved and armed forces started to search the area. The source writes: "It was this search operation that rapidly became a mass exercise in abuse and looting, as described in the civilian eyewitness testimony" (quoted extensively above) "While it has not been possible to identify individual commanders responsible for specific instances of execution or rape, the Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to identify a number of the commanders who led troops in the operation." Of nine Massoud faction commanders (none of them Massoud personally who was not present personally in Afshar) involved in the operation, TWO were named as commanders leading troops which carried out abuses. Both, Anwar Dangar and Mullah Izzat, later left Massoud's forces. Anwar Dangar, a Pashtun only losely affiliated with Massoud's forces joined the Taliban against Massoud. Mullah Izzat was from the same place as Ittihad leader Sayyaf and subsequently joined Sayyaf.

It is Fut.Perf. who is falsifying the source and who stands in stark contradiction to how senior researchers such as Roy Gutman summarized the source. - There is no mass rape by Massoud's forces in this source. - There is also no testimony for a massacre by Massoud's forces in this source. - There is no direct citation for Massoud commanding the middle-range artillery shelling as used in Afshar in this source. - There is looting by Massoud's forces in this source, ordered halted by Massoud. - There is no direct control of Massoud over Ittihad forces who committed the massacre and rape according to this source. Instead Massoud ordered the massacre committed by Ittihad to be halted, without effect. - There is an overall responsibility as minister of defense for the military operation with clearly defined legitimate objectives.

I am very open to include a line about general indiscrimate shelling during that period in the article which is indeed missing (but not the way Fut.Perf. tried to introduce it but rather in a way embedding it into the overall context of the actual situation such as "While the armed factions responsible may have had military targets in mind, those targets were based or were moving in primarily civilian areas. While they were still legitimate military targets, the scale of the bombardments and kinds of weapons used represented disproportionate use of force" and "While [Hekmatyar's anti-government] Hizb-i Islami is frequently named as foremost among the factions responsible for the deaths and destruction in the bombardment of Kabul, it was not the only perpetrator of these violations." and "Shura-i Nazar/Jamiat-i Islami officials have attempted to justify the bombing of Kabul carried out by their forces from 1992 onwards by saying that their troops represented the forces of the legitimate government and acted to defend that government Kabul from anti-government attacks.147 There is no question that almost immediately following its establishment in April 1992, the government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan ... was under attack".)

I also support using Roy Gutman's summary of the source in question in the article. Last but not least it needs to be noted that the source discussed in only one source out of many presented in the article. We have Pulitzer Price winner Roy Gutman citing: "There was "no pattern of repeated killings of enemy civilians or military prisoners" by Massoud's forces" Also, Afghanistan expert Edward Girardet and Associated Press journalist John Jennings as well as multiple other sources such as Mohammad Eshaq who says: "He [Massoud] not only did not order any [crimes], but he was deeply distressed by them. I remember once ... Massoud commented that some commanders were behaving badly, and said that he was trying to bring them to justice ..." When deciding what to add from a source this sources need to be taken into accout for due weight. JCAla (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

More examples of source falsification

It is becoming clear that distorting citations are a longstanding pattern with JCAla. Here's another example:

In this [46] edit, from 28 March 2012, JCAla inserts the sensationalist claim that Pakistani army and intelligence service are massively recruiting suicide bombers for the Afghan Taliban [among Afghan refugees in Pakistan]. This is allegedly sourced to this [47] report by Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a decent enough source. It is easy to see that the source says nothing supporting this claim. What it does say is that Pakistani authorities are putting violent pressure on refugees to return, and that reports about the methods of pressure are contradictory: some refugees say they were accused of being Taliban fighters; others say they were urged to become Taliban fighters. Nothing in all the report mentions specific attempts at recruiting suicide bombers. Thus we again have a crystal-clear case of wilful and tendentious misrepresentation of a source, of a magnitude that a simple error or oversight is out of the question.

Challenged about this contradiction on the talkpage by another editor, JCAla reacted with the same tactics as in this thread above: he began citing a whole smokescreen of other sources which allegedly did support his statement [48], seemingly oblivious to the fact that even if that was true, he had still been misrepresenting what this source had said. It is hard to decide if this apparent obtuseness to logic is a sign of malicious deception or a rather extreme case of incompetence. In any case, it is now clear this is a longstanding pattern, it's obviously immune to correction through normal talkpage discussion, and it's deeply damaging to the encyclopedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What a smear campaign ... Beside that the source says: "Another returnee, Abdel Qadir, said he was faced with the opposite challenge, when [Pakistani] intelligence agencies asked him to join the Afghan Taliban, allegedly supported by the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. ... “It is a step by step process. First they come, they talk to you. They ask you for the information … Then gradually they ask you for people they can train and send [to Afghanistan].” “They say, ‘Either you do what we say, or you leave the country.’” One returnee, Janat Gul, from Afghanistan’s Kunar Province, told IRIN recruits are taken in covered trucks to a training camp in the desert called Qariyat - which he himself attended during Soviet years - before being sent to Afghanistan to fight."[49] Then what do you not understand about "more refs to come"? The edit was one edit among multiple edits on that day, a work in progress. I read many sources and I have them in mind when I edit. I added them all in subsequent edits.[50] The section cited THREE different reliable sources in the version I left it for that statement.[51] One of the sources provided is the New York Times: "The evidence is provided in fearful whispers, and it is anecdotal. ... families whose sons had died as suicide bombers in Afghanistan said they were afraid to talk about the deaths because of pressure from Pakistani intelligence agents. Local people say dozens of families have lost sons in Afghanistan as suicide bombers and fighters. One former Taliban commander said in an interview that he had been jailed by Pakistani intelligence officials because he would not go to Afghanistan to fight."[52] I challenge you to show me anything wrong with the statement or the sources. You won't be able to do so. Instead you will start a new smear campaign for me to waste my time on correcting your false claims. JCAla (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note, I am out of this discussion for today. I do not have the time to counter a smear campaign the whole day by someone who has obviously made it his agenda to get me blocked and has nothing else to do. For people who want to look into this, please investigate three things: 1) "Massoud" and Fut.Perf. source falsification, 2) have a look at this section mentioned by Fut.Perf. above as I left it and as it has been standing for over a month now and see if you find anything falsified, 3) please have a look at the following example concerning the "Pashtun-Tajik alliance" where Fut.Perf.'s claim is most obviously wrong.

Fut.Perf. removed this content claiming source falsification.

1) Fut.Perf. claims Steve Coll with "grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance" was not referring to something including Massoud, when he most certainly was.

SOURCE: "... he [Massoud] was willing to drop old grievances and link his Northern Alliance with the exiled King Zahir Shah in Rome. ... "Talk to Zahir Shah," he urged. "Tell him that I accept him as head of state." This grand Pashtun-Tajik alliance ..." (Ghost Wars, BY Steve Coll, p. 558)

2) And Fut.Perf. claims that Massoud was not part of the Rome process, when he most certainly was part of it.

SOURCE: "Abdul Haq was working in concert with a group that included Hamid Karzai; Zahir Shah, the former king of Afghanistan, who for years has lived in exile in Italy; and Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander. ... Their current partnership was a measure of just how serious each of them approached this effort." ("Come back to Afghanistan: Trying to rebuild a country with my father", BY Said Hyder Akhbar, p. 20)

Have a nice day. JCAla (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting this back on track

So, with JCAla having managed to make this thread utterly unreadable, by obliterating it with 45 kB of smokescreen, I can hardly blame anybody for no longer following it, but still, could we now have some action? He's still edit-warring on the article even while this thread is active. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reported him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JCAla_reported_by_User:Akhilleus_.28Result:_.29; it's a straightforward case of edit-warring, but the fact that I commented here already probably means that people would think I'm involved in a "content dispute". I don't think this thread is going to accomplish anything worthwhile; it's clear to me that JCAla is cherrypicking sources and misrepresenting their content, and this means that this matter should not be considered a content dispute but a case of policy violation, but I doubt anyone else is going to put in the legwork to confirm that. WP:WALLSOFTEXT often have that effect. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so far. Well, I don't really see why you, for example, couldn't take admin action here. In any case, all anybody needs to read through is the evidence in the collapsed bit right at the top of the thread (which you already verified), and the top of the section just above. It's pretty easy to verify and pretty obvious once you look at the actual text. How could a case of disruptive editing possibly get any more obvious than this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Akhilleus reported him to get more uninvolved eyes on the conflict. Their opinions on the matter will likely vindicate your concerns about his manner of editing.Pectore^talk 23:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked JCAla for 72 hours; see here for my reasoning. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a good block on TE basis all by itself. It's harder to look into the (separate) source misrepresentation claims without access to the printed sources such as Coll's book, which I don't have but might try to find (Coll has been in the news recently). I thought JCala's filibustering in the deletion discussions about that Massoud picture was awful, and that Fut Perf's analysis of the situation with the photo was correct, though maybe Fut Perf is by now a little bit too directly engaged. Without wanting to rehash the whole thing, the DRV comments about "supervotes" seemed especially bogus: since AfD is supposedly not a vote to begin with, there can't be such a thing as a supervote. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The image dispute is not really directly relevant to the issue now – although I would agree JCAla's conduct there showed the same WP:SOUP approach, disrupting the processes to a point where other editors could understandably no longer see the forest for the trees. In the present case, the two falsified sources are both online, so verification isn't really that difficult. What JCAla says about the other print sources is quite irrelevant. The point is just that he's still not getting that if source A says X, you can't use it to support the opposite of X simply because there are other sources that support the opposite of X. He seems to be genuinely unable to grasp that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• While, I had hoped this discussion would take place in a less heated environment. JCAla, would appear to benefit from (re)reading WP:V, we cite sources directly for the propositions they have made; WP:OR, we do not aggregate sources to support new editor opinions; and WP:NPOV, we weight sources, according to standards. It is sometimes a hard and tricky balance, especially in "fog of war" articles and other editors might, from time to time be of the opinion that one is doing it incorrectly. Try not to be put off merely because the other editor says they are in all ways right, and you are in all ways wrong, because that is just generally untrue -- patience. Be willing to compromise. There can be honorable disagreement or plain misunderstanding, all the way around. On the other hand, JCAla apparently reads extensively and brings sources to the attention of readers, which is admirable, and useful. He also discusses sources and trying to weight them. He must generally stop serial reverting and follow WP:BRD, even when the other editor is doing "wrong." He should be made acquainted with the extensive, if sometimes slow routes of WP:DR, which is what I had hoped this process would lead to, especially since he is interested in that contentious part of the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

where to take this

This is the sort of detailed content dispute that does not belong at an/i , and I'm surprised it has continued so long. I don't like to take bold action here, but if any other admin agrees with me, this has to be closed and an rfc or a more appropriate board posting over the content issue taken elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute; it's a complaint about an extremely obvious case of sanctionable disruptive editing. There is no content debate to be had over the fact that if a source says X, it is blockable disruption to cite it in support of the opposite of X. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a content dispute in the conventional sense and that there does seem to be the possibility of disruptive behavior. But, looking at the entire thread, I doubt if it's going to get resolved here, at least not in its current form. There is too much to read and too many references and edits to examine for ANI, a forum that is generally better suited for behavioral issues. I suggest that either this be closed and the matter taken to an RfC/U, or a case be presented here in a simplified form. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The report is brief enough – it's just the collapsed bit right at the top, and the paragraph under "More examples of source falsification". It's two edits to be compared against two online sources, nothing more. The fact that JCAla has obliterated the thread with 30kB of smokescreen is itself part of the disruptive conduct, but it's quite irrevant to judging the complaint. It all boils down to "It was okay for me to claim that source A says X despite it really saying the opposite of X, because there are other sources that do support X". It's a Chewbacca defense, and as such it is itself part of the disruptive conduct. It would be entirely the wrong signal to give up this thread just because it's become unwieldy, because that would mean the disruptive WP:SOUP conduct wins, yet again. JCAla has consistently used this smokescreen tactics elsewhere, and has so far successfully evaded sanctions purely through having bored observers to death. Which other venue do you see that would be likely to avoid the same danger the next time? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FPS, this is a tough one. A pattern of source falsification would definitely be something to examine on ANI for possible sanctions against an editor. Your Massoud edit example is one example. If there are more, or if there are behavioral issues of other types like the ones that TopGun alludes to below, then perhaps an RfC/u is the best place to get them all out in the open and to use as evidence for community level sanctions. If the source falsification is a one-off thing, then nothing much is going to happen here. If you want some sort of resolution from this thread, you'll need to document a pattern of disruptive editing (source falsification, tendentious editing, etc.). While there are indications of both those things in this thread, it's not at the level where anything is going to be done. --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction: it's two instances of blatant source falsification I documented here, one that goes back to 2010 and one very recent. Add to this his attempt, during this thread, to reinsert the incriminated content, allegedly "fixing" the problem but in reality repeating the distortion (presenting a statement that applies only to a single episode in the source to make it appear as if it was a general statement about M's role throughout the war) [53]. So yes, it's a pattern. And as for the tendentiousness, I should think a single look at the article in its recent state [54] should be sufficient – the tendentious, glorifying tone is blindingly obvious. It can quite easily be seen in just about every edit by JCAla to that page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's a concrete example of the tendentiousness: [55]. In this edit, JCAla:

• gives a prominent place to a completely unnecessary, large literal quotation by a US politician, calling one of Massoud's opponents a "psychopathic killer" (not that I'd doubt he was one, incidentally…);
• uses an obviously partisan unreliable websource, http://www.massoudhero.com/English/biography.html (incidentally, either this page is in fact a wikipedia mirror, i.e. the use of it as a source is a circular self-ref, or JCAla has plagiarized from it, because parts of the early childhood parts of the biography are obviously identical to ours)
• uses a partisan youtube video by a US journalist for a statement that presents Massoud as the sole positive force in Kabul during the civil war
• using a Human Rights Watch report as a source for several things (apparently correctly), but completely omitting the one, far more directly relevant item that this source also contains, namely that Massoud was also implicated in war crimes.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FPS, you are wrong regarding at least one accusation of source falsification, Massaoud was taking part in the Rome process, he was killed before it came to anything sadly. See Far East and Australasia 2003 p72 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That question is not part of this complaint. I recognize the issue of how to treat Massoud's contacts with the "Rome process" is open to some legitimate debate, but I also do believe JCAla's treatment of it was factually misleading, making it appear as if it was an effective alliance brought about under Massoud's initiative, when from what I read it was more like tentative negotiations between two sides, the Rome circle and the United Front, which reached out to each other but effectively remained two very distinct and partly opposing sides of the conflict, never actually striking an agreement until the Bonn conference. But whatever the truth is, this is not part of the charges of clear and blatant source falsification I brought forward here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why is RegentsPark discussing it above? Personally I think this a storm in a teacup, he made a mistake on Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan in not adding the right references at the right time, but add them he did. If you look at the article history you can see he was making a great many edits and obviously made a mistake with the suicide bombers refs, hardly the crime of the century given he did add the refs later. And in looking at his reams of text above he appears to be correct with the other edits as well. Perhaps he needs to be checked once in a while to ensure he does not err again rather than ban him? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

tangentially related report and ensuing bickering

As old behaviour is relevant here I'm in right to point out the part I know, Fut Perf. (and others), can you also look in to these claims (I see you've taken a look in depth on others)... There was a dispute at Indians in Afghanistan which almost dead locked the article until a detailed RFC. Even in that (and during that RFC) there were instances of fake references which I pointed out. This should be considered along with other evidence. JCAla introduced highly controversial content which was already disputed on the talk page and was under debate under a blatantly misleading edit-summary which said it was a non-controversial change [56] (he sneaked in the sentence "India has no military presence in Afghanistan" in this edit along with the rest of it). Me being active in the dispute reverted immediately [57] correctly pointing it out in my edit-summary. I was later reverted by a few other editors who appeared in the middle of the dispute (how? this was a new article) and I was not even let to tag the reference as dubious even though I explained in much detail that the sources were fake in my !vote comment at RFC: Talk:Indians in Afghanistan#Military content issue. The sources attributed those POVs to the Indians while JCAla state those as facts, now that I rechecked... even the source he added later still attributes it to India [58]. One of the sources [59], ironically, stated that India was actually aiming to send troops to Afghanistan rather than stating that there were none. JCAla has previously edit warred to state as fact that was actually not so per the source. He has been accused by other editors of cherry picking, not adhering to WP:NPOV, and of WP:MPOV. Whenever taken to administrators, he added huge walls of text like above and later accused the actioning administrator to be non neutral or involved with him. Magog for instance, who was invited by JCAla ironically in a way that appeared as blatantly canvassing in an admin of choice; this was raised by me in a conversation with Magog who assured of acting neutrally, JCAla accused him of being "involved" after he was blocked/warned and attempted to take the case to arbcom. JCAla has ever since accused Magog of being involved with him even though an ANI thread concluded exact opposite and introduces me to any admin (done 3-4 times...) in precisely these words: "the only person I have disputed with other than a banned user Lagoo Saab" (just said this because I expect him to say that here too). Disclosure: I'm currently in (hopefully constructive) formal mediation with JCAla, but this is a conduct issue and is rightly suited here. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC) For the above (quite civil) note I left on a conduct issue, I've been returned with personal attacks accusations on JCAla's talkpage as a reply to this (since he is blocked). On asking politely to remove the attacks [60], he has simply reverted me in a rather smug manner, I'll like an administrator to prevent such attacks like "TopGun showing off his character" either by warning and asking to remove or by revoking talkpage access. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Why is the Indians in Afghanistan being discussed here, this being ANI and not DRN ? , first people bring content dispute to ANI and then when the other person starts defending with explanations, he is promptly accused by others of adding walls of text etc. Well before anyone decides to dig deeper into Indians in Afghanistan, as baited above, have a look here There are no Indian troops in the country, other than paramilitary guards at the embassy and consulates. And although India does not have troops in Afghanistan, Afghans worry that proposals for the Indian army to train local security forces would be a dangerous provocation to Pakistan. both quoted from "Afghanistan: India's Uncertain Road". Time Magazine. April 11, 2011. for a lot more please refer the Talk:Indians_in_Afghanistan#Military_content_issue-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC) This is with reference to the comment above. Top Gun's contention that the references provided for "There are no Indian troops in Afghanistan" were fake underwent a discussion on talk page which was closed by the reviewing admin who said that WP:BURDEN was satisfied and that the references supported the insertion of the fact that he disputed; thus Top Gun's continued assertion of the references being fake is wrong and a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As such, this comment of his should not count, as firstly, it is definitely not a case of JC Ala falsifying sources or of his disruptive editting, and secondly, Top Gun's stance is biased as he has been involved in a large number of disputes with JC Ala. I would request all participating in this discussion to closely examine the facts yourself and make up your minds independently regarding this comment of Top Gun. AshLin (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I already disclosed by involvement with JCAla if you read my comment. I find it quite telling that you two turn up at this thread right after my comment. I have also linked to the closed discussion myself so I've already referred to everything without hiding the closure. I still stand by the points I made as there is definitely falsification involved...not to mention the sneaking in of controversial information under a fake edit summary - there's no excuse for that. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC) And it is also quite telling that you pop up ranting about JCAla as he comes to ANI, given the history of bad-blood and edit-warring between you two.Pectoretalk 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I added something I felt was related to the issue raised also revealing my involvement. Edits which mask controversial content with edit-summaries stating opposite are a big no for experienced editors. My reference to above was in context to the way they appeared at the article itself. I'll not discuss that further because this report is getting too diluted lest the "walls of text" succeed. Though I'll remark that my report is more than just tangentially related, esp. the point raised again in this comment. That would be all from my side. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DrAlyLakhani's odd edits, serial reverting and lack of communication

Would someone please take a look at DrAlyLakhani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

A cursory look over his contribs will do, so not providing diffs.

He has a strange penchant for adding <small> tags in places where they are seemingly not needed (and has been reverted multiple times and explicitly warned, see most recent message on talk), adding information that doesn't seem important and has made a total of 0 talk pages edits.

He reverts without leaving edit summaries and I have had to warn him about edit warring in the past but he has never communicated on his talk page.

Looking over his talk you can see that he's been warned on numerous occasions about numerous problems, all relating to Islam. Perhaps he doesn't understand the concept of a talk page or doesn't understand that other editors (and not bots) are leaving him messages. I don't know but hopefully it can be sorted out here. Will notify user momentarily. SÆdon^talk 23:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the lack of sourcing used to justify changes he's made. I don't know anything about Islamic history (outside of a bit of commonly known stuff) and it looks as though an expert in Islam may be needed to go through and check his edits to make sure they're accurate. SÆdon^talk 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, looking at his talk page is better than looking at his contribs. He isn't approaching 3RR, but it looks like the reverts and edits he does are problematic, and some of them have been extreme POV violations, like this. He has been warned 9 times, invited to the Tea House, and here. I don't think he can hear very well. Would like another opinion, but a block may be needed until he communicates, to prevent further POV deletions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, they've had a final warning. The next time they do it they'll be blocked. Unexplained removal of content, combined with an utter lack of communication, that's blockable. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • What made me want to consider blocking now what the types of edits, very POV. I'm not sure we want them editing at all until there has been a chance to talk to them and explain NPOV more fully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can't comment on the POV issue, I know so little about the subject, and I have trouble even understanding his edits. However, Drmies's comment seems well taken to me. He doesn't explain his edits and he doesn't respond to any of the warnings. Also, as Saedon says, he never contributes to other Talk pages, let alone his own. My guess is he's clueless about some of this stuff, but we can't make him communicate, so WP:COMPETENCE is a justification for blocking him (bad edits and no indication he'll collaborate or improve). Like Drmies, I'd wait for him to transgress the final warning. He hasn't edited for several hours. He's certainly not so destructive that there's any real urgency.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• A block for competence is about the last resort, IMO. Indeed there is no urgency right now. An editor can be blocked for being completely incommunicative, but that also is a last resort. I don't like preventative blocks (which is really what it would boil down to), and I hope that they'll see the light. If they don't, and they continue, we'll probably block. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, wait it out and see what he does when he comes back. I didn't bring this here to get a block, just to force a discussion. If he resumes we'll have to force a discussion by blocking, but I'm hoping that he will see the error of his ways and respond here tomorrow. SÆdon^talk 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think we ought to give him an unequivocal final warning. IMO, he already broke the WP:3RR on Muhammad were he was reverted over 3 times and yet he continued making unhelpful edits. So, is this leniency worth it? I mostly concur with Dennis and Bbb23 above.  Brendon ishere 07:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The user stopped reverting on Muhammad after I had left him a 3RR warning so that's moot (also stale, that was sometime last week iirc). Blocking is a measure of last resort on WP; we do it because we have to after all other avenues have been exhausted. Occasionally we will block to get an editors attention but generally in circumstances that are more extreme than these. It's easy enough to revert if he starts up again tomorrow, we have nothing to lose by waiting for him to respond. Is the leniency worth it? Yes, that almost any editor can be redeemed is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. SÆdon^talk 08:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This diff might help clear the air. User:Saedon issued a warning at 02:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC) and reverted his changes at 02:01, May 1 2012 (UTC). But the user didn't stop there and didn't try to communicate. He made 5 more edits which were equally unhelpful and required another reversion. I don't understand what User:Saedon is trying to insinuate here with the word "moot". In any case he kept on making unhelpful edits to other Islamic articles.

FYI, I'm not saying we should or should not block him. I am not saying anything about the block. That's not for me to say.  Brendon ishere 09:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DrAlyLakhani has a set of beliefs about events in the 7th Century that he/she probably learned in a madrasah (Islamic school). It is very likely that his/her teachers could find proper sources for his/her extreme POV statements. If this user could be persuaded to provide citations to proper sources, it would make the articles better. However that should not entitle him/her to expunge the articles of the other POVs.

A permanent block probably will not work. I think this user would respond better to gradually increasing temporary blocks. As he/she edits in surges (see Special:Contributions/DrAlyLakhani) a 24 hour block would probably go unnoticed. A 7 day block would catch his/her attention though. What we want to achieve is for this user to learn how he/she needs to behave to be an effective editor.

The reason I think that a permanent block is unlikely to work, is that I suspect that he/she would perceive the permanent block as unethical, and therefore see nothing wrong with creating a new user name to get round the block.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Toddy, am I right to assume you understand the subject? If so, what's your opinion on the accuracy of his edits in general? Is this the kind of thing where we may have to consider nuking his edits or are they accurate enough to overlook until proper sources can be found? Would you call his editrs WP:FRINGE? SÆdon^talk 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The area he/she edits in is fundamental to the splitting of Islam into many sects. There are different opinions and versions of the truth held by these sects. Wikipedia should try to present objective truth (with citations), and present different points of view about that truth (with citations) and without giving undue weight to some of them.

DrAlyLakhani's edits concerning the rebellion of Hussein ibn Ali against Caliph Yazid I in 680 AD are a POV. As a POV they are valid. But they are not objective truth; and there are other POVs that are just as valid.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I concur with Toddy above. Most of the user's additions are not backed by reliable sources and unreliable. This user clearly is not here to build an encyclopaedia (complete lack of communication and indifference towards the warnings does tell us something).  Brendon ishere 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"The reason I think that a permanent block is unlikely to work, is that I suspect that he/she would perceive the permanent block as unethical, and therefore see nothing wrong with creating a new user name to get round the block." - Sounds reasonable to me.

Could we perform a "duck test" as a precautionary measure without transgressing the boundaries of good-faith? The reason I say this is, that user (Dr-Aly-Lakhani) created an account on march 29(didn't edit much that day).
Then on march 30th edited over 15 times acquiring 5 general notes of caution (level 2 warnings) and 1 more serious warning about defamation (level 3). Then the next day didn't edit much. On April 5th made 8 edits, all of which were unsourced but got no warnings.
Thereafter, he made 17-18 edits from 20:57, April 8 to 07:08, April 9 most of which were without the backing of reliable sources and were subsequently removed or remained unnoticed. However, he was not warned. Then he didn't make any changes on wikipedia in the weeks that followed.

Then again, out of the blue made he edited 130+ times (including several reversal of legitimate edits and inclusion of unsourced content, POV-statements, etc) from 21:29, April 30 to 19:56, May 1, due to which he received multiple serious warnings (I issued one "final warning" after studying his modus operandi, but that was later removed by User:Saedon, perhaps it's because he thought Aly's contributions were not deliberate, as he told me on my talk page).  Brendon ishere 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that screams sock yet, so that might be considered fishing at this stage. I did notice the odd editing pattern, but have yet to connect any dots there. The edits he has made are POV, and what makes them NPOV violations is that they were unsourced or he has removed different viewpoints wholesale. He may be doing this with the best of faith and in accordance to his beliefs but it is still disruptive and non-neutral in nature. Some days, yes, he is capable of making a great number of edits, which makes it more problematic. I would disagree with Drmies in part, as preventing disruption (be it vandalism, NPOV or otherwise) is a proper use of short term blocks, with the only question being: "has this person passed the threshold which requires we do". I think they are right on the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COMPETENCE — At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to malevolent intention or incompetence. We ought not to spend much time trying to figure this out, because many of our trolls do their trolling by feigning incompetence. I think the whole point is that the user is either incapable of recognizing his own incompetence when pointed out to him (through several warnings), or is incapable of changing his disruptive behavior. So, WP:COMPETENCE can be a valid reason for blocking him at this point. One cannot let it go on forever. If he responds to the warnings and changes his behavior then fine, although I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Sooner or later it has to stop.

Primary rationale for blocking users from editing is to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, disruption to Wikipedia.
A longer block may be justifiable as a deterrence to stem the likelihood of repetition of similar behavior in near future. But, whether the admins should block him now or wait for more evidence of disruptive behavior? I don't know.  Brendon ishere 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Shoot him now! Shoot him now! Equazcion ^(talk) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Brendon, even though you've only been here a month and a half (at least with this registered account) you should know that we don't shoot on sight, and we typically don't extrapolate to the point where we find a good reason to block as quickly as we can. "A longer block may be justifiable as a deterrence..."--no. "Let me block you for a long time now so you won't do it again"--that doesn't make any sense, and if I were blocked and given that rationale, I'd start socking on principle. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

“you should know that we don't shoot on sight” - I am not the one who wrote, “Shoot him now! Shoot him now!”
“.."A longer block may be justifiable as a deterrence..."--no” - I humbly disagree. Don't get me wrong, I adhere to the view that blocks are not punitive, but it's equally true that they can be used to deter disruption.
You know better than me that blocks are preventive in nature and they can be used to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior. At least that's what blocking policy says.

And also, you're the one who earlier said, “unexplained removal of content, combined with an utter lack of communication, that's blockable” and I agreed (I must have misunderstood you somewhere, I realize now).
“"Let me block you for a long time now so you won't do it again"--that doesn't make any sense” — Where exactly did I say, "block him for a long time now so he won't do it again"? Where did I ask anybody to block him at all? I said that blocking may be justifiable as a deterrence and I simply paraphrased what you said earlier.
Wasn't I clear enough when I wrote, "whether the admins should block him now or wait for more evidence of disruptive behavior? I don't know". I wrote I don't know whether he should be blocked now or later. Besides, I almost quoted what blocking policy says. So, pardon me if am a bit astonished by your abrupt change of attitude, albeit I respect your views.  Brendon ishere 17:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think if you follow the link that Equazcion provided, you will find he was being facetious. Admittedly, his comment made me both wince and smile at the same time. I think we all are talking different shades of grey here, and just express it differently. Best to just wait and see what User:DrAlyLakhani does next. Hopefully, he will come here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What he as done next is to carry on regardless, reverting, introducing POV and his beloved small type. If you are going to do something, please do it.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the line, “The shrine of Hasan's tomb was destroyed by 20th century extremist Salafi Saudis.” will qualify as an abjectly gratuitous POV claim. BTW, Aly added the word "extremist". Is this not a proof of more disruptive behavior? Or, should we wait for more? He also reverted saedon's last change to the article Muhammad al-Mahdi with the description, “Saedon [..] explains the picture, and fancies up the quote format. His name is Muhammad, and title Mahdi. Also this format now matches exactly with other imams' pages”. He had previously removed the whole section about "Ahmadiyya view" without explanation (which were later restored by User:Saedon) and he repeated that same thing with this reversion.  Brendon ishere 18:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He is using edit summaries now, and I have left him a personal message asking him to communicate with others. Again, his edits are sometimes problematic, but adding summaries shows he is at least listening, so I'm inclined to be a little more patient now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Here it says he reverted User:Toddy thrice, User:Saedon twice and User:Bbb23 once between 17:14 - 20:03, May 7 (UTC). And on May 6 he reverted User:Edward321 twice and User:Toddy once along with numerous additions of unsourced content and POV claims. Hence, I don't think that his edits are only sometimes problematic. "Sometimes" would be an understatement.
      But, "[h]e is using edit summaries now" - nice! Okay so it's all decided. Good to see we've reached some sort of consensus here. Oh and, his summaries are not helping his disruptive behavior. Nevertheless, I'm hopeful that our courteous leniency and indulgence towards this disruptive behavior will fetch something positive out of all this. So, good luck!  Brendon ishere 07:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Whenever possible, I would rather help an editor who has the potential to become a good contributor, to become so. Keep in mind that leniency is another word for WP:ROPE, and what they do with this is up to them. He still has not communicated, even though he is leaving summaries. He isn't into 3RR yet, but that isn't the fine line we are looking at anyway. I'm still troubled that he refused to communicate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
        • "Whenever possible, I would rather help an editor who has the potential to become a good contributor, to become so." - I honestly admire your attitude. I'd like to see more admins like you who are not too hasty in reaching any conclusion. I also hope that you're right. I don't expect everybody will be as pessimistic as I am towards certain disruptive editors. But remember, the effectiveness of your attitude hinges upon the potential to become a good contributor. I don't see it in User:DrAlyLakhani and I pray that I be proven wrong this time.
          Anyways, you must closely watch every one of his steps (which I am sure you're doing).
          Wait: On second thought, has he not broken WP:3RR more than one time, one between 21:29, April 30th (UTC) and 19:56, May 1st (UTC) (on article Muhammad) and then again between 21:13, May 6th (UTC) and 20:18, May 7th (UTC) (on article Hasan ibn Ali)? If yes, then what kind of an example are you setting? Are we not being unfair to those who have been blocked, in past, for over-stepping the same line or even less?
          All this for what, for an editor whose competence is, at best, iffy? Please ponder the possible implications of your decision to wait.  Brendon ishere 15:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I will not ever block another editor who violated 3RR a few days ago, and I will complain loudly to another admin if they do this outside of the confines of WP:3RRN. See WP:BLOCKING This would be seen as punitive, is against policy, and undermines the trust of editors and admins. Laboring the issue won't make me more inclined to do so. User:DrAlyLakhani has finally talked on his user page, and I have asked Toddy1 to work with him, so we shall see what happens. I would rather wait and be wrong, than not wait and be wrong. Any day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Denis Brown. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers would seem to apply in this case.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DrAlyLakhani has just blind reverted Toddy1 again.[61] I don't think DrAlyLakhani is listening. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to be out of pocket for a few days, so if action is needed before Sunday, it will have to be someone else. I had anticipated this would be resolved by now. At this point, if another admin wants to block, I would understand their reasoning. I'm not going to because I won't be around to answer to it, and that isn't a fair thing to do in a more complicated case like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@toddy,
You agree with dennis brown? Do you think it would be tantamount to biting a newcomer if we block DrAlyLakhani? Okay, I admit, I didn't expect this. Anyways, your view is respected.

@Edward321 and Dennis,

if WP:INCOMPETENCE applies anywhere, then it's here. I'm confused, where is the stopping point, if Aly hasn't crossed it already?

It's clear-cut disruption and we're knowingly allowing it to go on, why? It disrupts progress towards improving or building the encyclopaedia. Is our indulgence or tolerance worth the price?  Brendon ishere 09:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

IP Acting Very Strange.

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_talk:24.112.202.78 Has been making a large number of votes in various deletion debates. These votes are all worded in a way that fails to assume good faith and a good portion of them are confrontational in nature [63] I would list them all here but there are numorus and easy to see in the user contributions. After I pointed out how stranges this Ips behaviour is it appears that the IP is now stalking me, voting in this AFD [64] after pointing out that a Sockpupet investigaton was being asked for on this IP [65] The IP then left this sockpupet meesage about me on what seems to be a random IP talk page [66]. This IP appears to have no other motivation then to cause disruption and get attention. Here is the message they left on user Reyk talk page in repsose to the sockpupet investigation [67] and the wonderful message they left on their own talk page [68]. Have no clue what is going on here but it seems to not have the best interests of the project at heart. Ridernyc (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

that tp comment does not seem typical of the suggested sockmaster. But it by itself would be cause for a block if it repeats. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP has now moved on to vandalizing my talk page with warning templates. Ridernyc (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I observe a common thread in the history of the contributions. A thread of "keep everything MMA based at the status quo" appears to be present. Write it off to yet another MMA enthusiast who would burn the entire encyclopedia to the ground in retaliation for the MMA articles being removed (ergo their "delete all concepts of notability" comment). Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Obvious, but who? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Now confirmed as a sock of User:A Nobody, which should come as a surprise to absolutely no-one. Reyk _YO! 02:16, 8 May 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.

Stripping wikilinks to dab pages?

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.

---

Is it considered acceptable editing for an editor to make a bulk run across wls to dab pages, and rather than disambiguating these links, simply removing them? In this case it's to terms that are "so simple" there is no more specific article, but the dab page itself has a sentence that's broadly adequate. This is in particular reference to Bazonka (talk · contribs), where I noticed this as Oscillating turret - he's removed it twice already. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This should really have been raised at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, not the Admin noticeboard. Anyway, links should not normally point to disambiguation pages. I was undertaking a WP:DPL cleanup, amending links to the Flank dab page. The first definition on this dab page is "the side of either a horse or a military unit" - a meaning that does not have (or deserve) its own article; therefore links to it cannot be disambiguated. This is the meaning of flank used in Oscillating turret. Because no article for this meaning exists, I simply removed the link. I have now replaced it with a link to the Wiktionary definition of flank instead. Bazonka (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If the concept is so simple it doesn't have an article even though it has a dab page for related stuff, then the links probably fail WP:OVERLINK ("Avoid linking plain English words"), so removal seems quite adequate to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Plain English words don't generally appear in dab pages at all. The term here is "flank", in the specific military sense. That's more than a "plain English" term, and quite a suitable subject for an encyclopedic article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In what way is the wiktionary link (a whole range of terms) better than even the dab page link? This dab page included a clearer definition of "flank", in this context, than the wikt page, and it listed it first as the most significant as-yet un-articled definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:DPL, particularly point 8 in the "How to help" section. If you are not happy with this, then perhaps you should create a new article entitled Flank (military) or similar. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the fullness of time, Flank (military) is the appropriate action - but that's not going to happen today. In the meantime, given that this is an appropriate topic (i.e. unlinking in inappropriate, and wiktionary is no better than the current one-line note on the existing dab page) then this link should be preserved as going to the dab page. This is better than a redlink, even a redlink to a better article name. This is better than no link - the article still benefits from some expansion of the term.

The real problem with stripping wls from articles is that it damages the web of articles. It's easy in the future to create Flank (military). It's pretty easy to disambig in the future and find that there is now a good article target to disambiguate to. What would be really difficult would be to take the set of articles that have been link-stripped in the past, and then (once the good target becomes available) magically recover the list of candidate link articles - MediaWiki has no way to recover these. This is why the stripping of appropriate links, even when they're to disambig pages, is harmful. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Flanking maneuver and/or its redirect, Flanking? Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Andy, You should raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation - AN/I is not the appropriate forum. I understand your point, but currently red links or no links are the only acceptable options.

@Nyttend, I think flank in the sense used in Oscillating turret simply means the edge of the military unit, whereas Flanking maneuver is an attack on the flank. Not quite the same thing, but perhaps they can be combined into one article somehow. I'm not actually convinced that Flank (military) would meet WP:N, but then I'm no expert in this area. Bazonka (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Third link in Flanking is to flank. If Bazonka thinks that Flank (military) is non-notable, then I'm sure that Flanking would fail even more obviously, as a mere subset of the term's use. Try that at AfD and see how far it gets.

This is not about flanks though, it's about the eroding effect on a web of already linked pages by applying an over-simplistic policy. The policy might belong at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but bulk damage belongs at WP:ANI. This is at most a trivial "improvement" to un-disambiguate a term like "flank", so why is it allowed to erode the web of page links like this?

I'd also note that in one of these edits (a toad or frog) the linked term "flank" was simply replaced by the unlinked "side". Now that might be an appropriate edit, it's certainly a simplification, but when editors do these large-scale auto-runs of edits, the trouble is that they end up editing outside their areas of expertise. Is "side" an appropriate synonym for "flank" when applied to toads? When applied to horses? (I've heard "flank" used many times in relation to horses or cattle, but never their "side"s). If such a simplification, because the term "would[n't] meet WP:N" and is merely "plain English", was applied to the military context, that would certainly be incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Andy, if you have a problem with Wikipedia policy, then you should discuss it at the relevant policy page (in this case WT:D). If you have a problem with a particular editor, then you discuss on their talk page, and then bring it here if necessary. In this case the "bulk damage" as you call it is happening because I am following policy. I do not appreciate your implication (by raising it here without even attempting to discuss with me first) that I am wilfully damaging Wikipedia. This is not the place to discuss it in any case. Bazonka (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• "red links or no links are the only acceptable options." - i.e. disambig pages mustn't be linked to.

I'll just leave that here. It's sheer dogmatic nonsense, the triumph of policy over utility. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bazonka — notability isn't applicable to redirects. Links to disambiguation pages are almost never helpful; they're useful in hatnotes and when we're trying to provide a list of other topics — e.g. a lot of Ohio township articles link to disambiguation pages to provide links to townships with similar names. However, this type of link appears useless in my mind. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend - we do not link to dab pages. The best possible solution would seem to be to link to Flank (military), and to create a stub article to stop it being a red link. But only if Flank (military) is notable enough to be a stand-alone article, and not just a dictionary definition (like I said, I am no expert, so there may be much more to flanks in the military sense). Flanking maneuver a.k.a. Flanking is certainly notable as this is a description of a technique of military tactics - much more than just a dictionary definition. Bazonka (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as Nyttend here - links to disambigs are never optimal, but per WP:IMPERFECT we have to work with what we have today, not what we wish we had instead. Very often this disambig page is the best link target available right now - especially if it would depend on an as-yet unknown disambiguator, or when the disambig page (as here) already contains a small dicdef of the term.

WP:IMPERFECT has a couple of implications for us: firstly work with what we have, not what we wish we had. Secondly, work so that we move towards what we'd like to have, rather than away from it.

I don't much care what's on a disambig page - that's one page, in an obvious location, it's easy to fix it in the future. However the pages linking to this are another matter - there are many of them at obscure titles. They are the hardest things to fix, because they're the hardest things to find - especially if their links are removed. So if we take the goal of WP:IMPERFECT that we should move forwards, we need to preserve these links (even to disambigs) until we have somewhere better to point them - not merely to remove them quickly in the hope that they will return in the future - because they won't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here's another example. Carpentry Joinery terms and Linenfold have now had their correct links to joinery changed to an incorrect link to joiner because the dab page for this group happened to be at joinery rather than joinery (disambiguation). This link is now simply incorrect - apart from joinery having more relevant content to joinery than joiner does, joiners (after a historical evolution of roles) now perform carpentry rather than joinery.

This simplistic interpretation that "all links to dab pages are so bad they're better removed or made incorrect than left at a dab page" is harmful to both content and linkage. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A link to a disambiguation page is an error waiting to be fixed, and it is always an unnecessary error. Consider the wide range of alternative possibilities. If the term is really merely a dictionary definition, link to the Wiktionary entry. If it is a notable topic, link to an article on the topic, link to an article section that encompasses the topic or dicusses it with enough detail to accommodate the link, change it to a redlink signifying that an article needs to be made, actually make the article that needs to be made, or (in the case of terms unlikely to merit an article but deserving some encyclopedic treatment), make a glossary of related terms within the topic and link to the appropriate section of that glossary. Merely linking to a disambiguation page is no better than adding a factual error just to make an article look like it contains more facts. bd2412 T 14:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the thread. The case here is about what to do when we don't have an appropriate target at this time. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have read the thread. An "appropriate target" is not necessarily an article on the word "flank"; it might be Wiktionary, or it might be an existing broader article that notes the relevant meaning; there might be an existing broader article that should note the relevant meaning, to which adding such a note would be no work at all. It might be creating a red link pointing to an article that does not yet exist. All of these are better options than keeping an errant link to a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that you don't include simply deleting the link as an improvement over linking to the dab. However that's what has been happening here.

Also moving the target to wikt: only works if wikt: has a better target article than WP's dab. For flank it doesn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the link is appropriate if the link is an example of WP:OVERLINKING; however, if another article contains some useful information, it is certainly better to fix that link then delete it altogether. As for Wiktionary not having a better target, I remind you that Wiktionary is a wiki too, and a sister to this project. If a Wiktionary page is lacking a sense of a word, add it there. bd2412 T 03:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#ANI thread on Stripping wikilinks to dab pages; AN/I is not an appropriate place for policy matters. Bazonka (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Bazonka is an involved party, and his opinion alone might not be deemed sufficient, I endorse his view that there was no reason for this topic to be brought to ANI in the first place and there should be no further discussion of policy here. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:21, 8 May 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.

Aggressive, highly charged and highly personal editing by the user:WP Editor 2011.

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.

---

Aggressive, highly charged and highly personal editing by the user:WP Editor 2011, with highly-charged personal language used, especially at the summary box, a possible misuse, such at these, at [69], [70] and [71].

Little history of material and substantive primary, contributive editing, with a lot of secondary editing, often of a dubious nature, applying his own personal rules as if they were that of Wikipedia, and in effect, P.o.V.-pushing, such at this, at [72], and these, at [73], [74], [75] and [76].

Aggressive pedantry, or nit-picking, such at this, at [77].

Inappropriate use of a re-worded, personalized/personlised template from Wikipedia for use in a personal attack against myself, such at this, at [78].

Dubious edits to articles pertaining to a certain personage in Australia known by the name Natalie Tran ([79], [80] ). Wikipedia:AXE, and also of course wikipedia:BLP.

Is he is in fact just a little too young for all of this, or is he just has nothing very much really to say or to write about? Blocking, at least of a temporary sort (if not also topic bans, at least for the Natalie Tran article), is indeed, and is hereby, requested. I thank you. — KC9TV 01:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I find you a little out of line bringing this to ANI. I find no evidence that you have attempted to resolve this situation outside of this venue. Many of your examples are poor, i.e. his edits to Natalie Tran. The user was attempting to maintain NPOV with his introduction of {{dubious}} and commented that a talk page discussion should take place if someone disagreed. The editor does appear a bit gruff at times, but I see no reason that this needs to be discussed here and blocking and/or topic bans would be completely unnecessary. Even if it was deemed necessary, they would be punitive rather than preventative. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at all of the diffs and I looked at the recent history of the Tran article, and I see nothing that warrants a block or a topic ban. Some of WP Editor's edits are odd, some are a little misguided, but nothing stands out as justifying coming here for administrative action. Also, some of your characterizations of the edits are simply wrong. I'm not sure why you think he's "a little too young". Your own user page says you're in college. Assuming you're traditional age, you're not exactly a senior citizen. Not that any of that matters much. WP Editor hasn't made many edits and hasn't been here very long. You've been here just a very short time (at least with this account) and made even fewer edits. It strikes me that you're being nit-picky about his edits, for whatever reason. Maybe he needs some guidance, but given your post here, it should probably come from someone other than you. You might also think about obtaining some help, with editing, with interaction with others, and with dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. All right. Fair enough. One of my earlier disputes was of a religious one, and therefore understandably heated, as they are. Just have and take a look at boards of Catholic Answers! My interlocutor, albeit a vicar, belonged to a minority and controversial sect within the Church of England, in England, with "unique", non-mainstream view-points ("more [Roman] Catholic than the [Roman] Catholics"). I ultimately pretended to "defer" to him, because ultimately, he was, and is, still (for the time being at least, I suppose) technically a vicar in my own Church (until he decides to "up-sticks" and "join the Tiber Swim Team", as they would say). Britons, especially Englishmen, often say "sorrys" and "apologies" to one and other without any real sense of actual remorse, or any real or actual intention of offering any real or true apologies, anyway. (The habits of crazy Englishmen, the crazy English, you might say.) Not very different from the discourse between trinitarian and non-trinitarian Christians, I suppose.

But I still find this, a supposed standard warning massage, yet it was in fact a re-worded personal attack, at [81], rather (a tad) inappropriate, and certainly has little place in Wikipedia, other than in jest. — KC9TV 02:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Britons, especially Englishmen, often say "sorrys" and "apologies" to one and other without any real sense of actual remorse, or any real or actual intention of offering any real or true apologies, anyway." Ahem! Brit here ... for that comment? ;P Pesky (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

His language was a little harsh, particularly when he referred to your opinion as being uninformed and when he said "you are bizarre"; however, it was also inappropriate for you to use another editor's name as the section title on the talk page of an article. He did use a standard warning message, and then added a rationale at the end. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Two (and in this case, three) wrongs do not make a right (and he should had issued the warning BEFORE butting-in and putting his "two-cents", or "two-pence" in by making a rant upon a third person's talk page, at [82]). A personal attack was still a personal attack. By not attempting to make any further replies to him, at least that I am not escalating the matter any further. Any disputes that I might have with that particular cleric probably do not belong to Wikipedia, and should be "off". We are still waiting for this particular subject's response of course, in expectation, but I am otherwise content with this as it is. I must say, however, that this, at [83], were inappropriate comment and behaviour, surely, no? (And did that, and his other edits to the article for Zhi Gang Sha, yet to be identified by self, in fact, based upon some sort of private religious bias upon his part?) — KC9TV 03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

After reading your initial comment, I had left a note on WP Editor's talk page. I did express my disapproval of the edit to User talk:Messenger Jean. I apologize for not making a remark here to that regard earlier. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Anyway, I suppose that we would have to hear from the user:WP Editor 2011 before the case is closed, correct? And can I, short of getting an extended delete, receive a permission of some sort to refactor that particular conversation at talk:Church in Wales, please? No place really for Wikipedia. I thank you. — KC9TV 04:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what precisely you want to refactor, but you were already reverted once by another editor for removing comments from the Talk page. It's generally wrong to refactor, although there are some exceptions, but you would have to be very confident that your refactoring fit within one of those exceptions; else, you'll get in trouble. Read WP:TALK.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Do we still have to hear from the user:WP Editor 2011 before the case is closed? — KC9TV 04:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I can't even tell whether this is serious. The guy who I accused of writing crazy propaganda had created an account just to turn an article about a Chinese faith healer into a strange advertisement for the guy and his methods. You, KC9TV, were indeed out of line in your dispute with the priest/vicar/whoever he is and I had no interest in the issue other than to tell you not to behave like that. So I'm a stickler for the rules? So what? I can't imagine why or how I should be punished for that. Good job convincing me you're not bizarre. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

Even not as an administrator, I have to say this, that but it is NOT up to you to accuse him of writing quote "crazy propaganda" unquote, amongst other things. I am not sure what rule had you actually broken by this, and I am not sure that I ever care very much. Even not as an American, I am sure that there is such a thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in the Bill of Rights of the United States. I could had been both a Chinese and a believer in his methods, for all you know. Do you now care to withdraw part of that particular remark, and that particular previous remark of yours, which ARE indeed offensive, with or without prejudice or apology, or do you not? — KC9TV 09:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the First Amendment? I'm not American, you're not American and Wikipedia isn't run by the US Government, so how is that at all relevant? You're just arguing for the sake of it. I do know you're not a believer in the methods of the Chinese guy, since you were arguing about the way you worship in the Anglican church. Did you even read what the editor wrote about the Chinese faith healer? Your complaint on this page is ridiculous and I haven't edited the Natalie Tran article for months. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

I am a little astounded. Perhaps we should just wait calmly, quietly and patiently for further administrative comment; and for the record, I was referring to the freedom of religion, and not so much the freedom of speech. — KC9TV 11:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look through all the diffs presented myself, I'm also not really seeing anything that can be actionable. Pesonally, I don't even find any of those remotely offensive or anything that is being reported, but that's just me. Ryan Vessey pretty much summed it up by saying that his comments may have been on the harsh side, but nothing that would be more than remotely, marginally borderline uncivil. The edit summaries are very far from being a misuse of the typical edit summaries. I've seen ones that have been little more than a litany of abuse and some so severe that the entire revision was deleted by admins. As for application of their own rules etc is usually a lack of familiarity with the manual of style. Rather than raise a hue and cry about that, a quick check of the manual of style and a pointer in that direction would have been far more helpful. Editing a template is often done. Templates are used with such regularity that they become near machine language despite the addition of a signature at the end. Adding in a personal comment reminds the receiver that it is not a bot dropping the template, although a reminder to [{WP:DTTR]] would be useful. As for their edits to Natalie Tran, there's nothing remotely violating POV pushing, axe grinding or BLP there at all. Their definition of an alumni/alumna by the way is actually accurate and adding in a dubious-discuss tag shows a willingness to talk about that assertion. They could have just as easily edit warred to remove "prominent" from the lede. The reference to the First Amendment, whether it be about free speech or freedom of religion, doesn't relate at all to..well anything. However, if that person was Chinese and a believer in that practice then they'd have a conflict of interest, fyi. None of us have "rights" on Wikipedia, only privileges. To be entirely honest, I'm not seeing any merit at all in this report. WP Editor 2011 could be a little less gruff and KC9TV could do with discussing this first on the user's talk page first.Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, rather the letter and the general spirit of it. Anyway, it was probably, well, wrong, or at least not tactful, of you, or the user:WP Editor 2011, to make reply to the feedback made by the user:Messenger Jean, at Special:FeedbackDashboard/32171, by claiming that he was writing quote "crazy propaganda" unquote, regardless of what he had in fact written as feedback; and I must say, that this edit, at [84], unless that there are some good explanations for it (and unless that I am in fact mistaken as to its context), can only really be a prank, or practical joke, and should be removed, if not already so, and if not also by Oversight. There might, or might not be something going on in the Natalie Tran-related articles; the administrators think not, my jury is actually still out, something that probably only you and you alone would possibly know whether there is or not. It hardly matters, and the only time I was even in that Country was when I was still a minor, and for less than two weeks, and I of course knew, and know, practically nothing about that particular person. Now, look, I am in fact at the moment suffering from a major bout or episode of sickness (or illness), well, at least it makes me feel like as if I am a little close to death, actually, and that I have some other things to do and to take care of, if I am in fact fit and well enough to do them, that is; and, well, let just all agree that whilst that given the then heated and potentially escalating circumstances it might not had necessarily been erroneous as such to bring this matter up upon the ANI, both I and the WP Editor 2011 might both in fact had made a big and terrible mistake of some sort indeed, previously, and that, well, let's just all forget all about it, as if it had never happened, as best as we can, and put this all behind us. I do indeed and do hereby WITHDRAW my now denied and rejected request for any such things as blocking or topic-bans. I suppose that this is in fact all I have to say in this matter, and an unfortunate matter at that (as well). That is it, for me. I at least, shall have no objection to the closure or future closure of this discussion. With apologies to the administrators, I rest, your servant. — KC9TV 14:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That diff at Stereotypes of African Americans could probably be explained reasonably. "Restrained" could mean physically restrained or restrained by court order, so in that case asking for a clarification is pretty sensible. Of course, that's just my take on it. I'm from Australia and I've not heard of the Natalie Tran, but then I don't know many of the supposedly famous personalities on that site. All in all, it may have been somewhat premature to bring it to ANI without at least first discussing it with WP on their talk page but many editors who are unfamiliar with ANI often think it is the first port of call in a dispute. That being said, I'm going do a non-admin close as per your request and end this by hoping that you get well soon. Blackmane (talk) 15:03, 9 May 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.

Kim brownn

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.

---

Kim brownn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I recently recieved an email from this user, using the EmailUser function. I do not think I can release the contents, however it said the following things. First, they say that they are a WMF staff member. Second, they said they were adding me to the mailing list. Third, they asked for my Username, Password and Email Address (not going to be a WMF staff member). Finally, they said they were going to add me to the user list and confirm that I am a Wikipedia member. Is it a hoax?

If appropiate, I will provide a copy of the email here. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant hoax I would say. WMF members would NEVER ask for passwords or email. Let me add on: A user that was just created earlier today is a WMF member? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Their email is @rediffmail.com - not @wikimedia.org --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the email was sent at Tue 08/05/2012 11:16. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's about a blatant as a phishing hoax as I can think of. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Plain unadulterated phishing. No WMF member of staff will ask for your password, just as no bank will ask for your account details. Peridon (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your statement, Peridon. Should I proivide an email copy, if appropiate? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth forwarding to the WMF. For information, they were blocked earlier (not by me - I was just going to) with talkpage and email access denied. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction - talkpage access is allowed. Just in case there is an explanation. Peridon (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What WMF email? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't post it here but look at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us for one. Someone with more contacts might give a better one. Peridon (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Forwarded to info (at) wikimedia (dot) org. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:12, 8 May 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.

Premature close of RM

I proposed an RM for History of Champagne here. It was closed after one day by Amatulić here, despite the fact that closure rules specify a seven-day voting period. The reason given is because there has been some discussion of related issues at Talk:Champagne. There will always contentious discussion somewhere on Wikipedia. And RM can be closed pre-maturely for this reason? I do not see a reasonable basis for this decision. Kauffner (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for the early close is given in the closure rationale as well as the following section Talk:History of Champagne#Re-opening. Basically I felt it crossed the threshold of WP:POINT to carry an ongoing dispute over to another page. I have no problem if other admins disagree with my reasoning, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked Amatulic for advice since I was already planning to go to the WP:RM page to ask that Kauffner's move be closed. Simply put, Kauffner's actions have been troubling. After first expressing a desire to lowercase the word Champagne throughout the main Champagne article, he tried to unilaterally cram these desires into the article once he encountered opposition and concern on the talk page to the idea (Sort of turning BRD into Discuss, Find Opposition, Do it Anyways). Thankfully, he only did this once but as Kauffner has been having difficulties getting consensus to do his desired changes on the Champagne article, he then seems to go with a back door route in seeking a RM request on a secondary article that, if changed, would create 1.) an inconsistency with the current Champagne article (which currently capitalizes Champagne like many reliable sources) and 2.) a heavy handed "de facto" precedence that he could use to trump consensus and discussion on the Champagne article. This seems like an unfortunate, and a tad bad faith way, to circumvent the natural Wikipedia process of discussion to gain consensus. We should get consensus on how the primary Champagne article should be capitalized before we go changing the capitalization of secondary articles like History of Champagne. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I just commented on the article talkpage - fully support the early close based on simple grammar. "Champagne" is a proper noun; period - just like Bordeaux. The phrase "méthode champenoise" eventually became shortened accidentally to "champagne", but what used to be common usage (it isn't anymore) does not make it correct (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since WP:POINT was brought up for proposing the RM at the History of Champagne, I think I should raise something that has been nagging at me since reviewing the revision history for Champagne. I have a growing concern that Kauffner is engaging in starting conflict just to make a point. While I believe in sticking to the main elements of the debate and keeping within the top three tiers of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, I have been curious about two things. Why Champagne and why now? Before March, Kauffner has had little if any vested interest in wine articles. While I will agree and argue that all are free to boldly edit and contribute to any article, the timing and nature of the current effort is puzzling. Looking at Template:History of Vietnam, the entries show the word 'dynasty' not capitalized, while many article titles have 'd' capitalized. There is also a mix of redirects and with upper and lower case. As well, many articles display a mix of lower case in the title and upper case in the text of the article. Curiously, two of Kauffner's references in supporting the Champagne issue, OED and Britannica, show lower case 'd', though Britannica exhibits inconsistency among its articles, e.g. Nguyen Dynasty vs. Later Ly dynasty. Kauffner, while you have spent a great deal of time editing articles related to Vietnam and the rest of Asia, as you have a great amount of fondness and knowledge of the region, why have the capitalization differences gone untouched?

Also curious is why other deviations from the dictionary capitalization are left alone in the Champagne article. 'Cava', 'asti', and 'muscat' are not capitalized here, though Wikipedia articles use the upper case for all three. If such inconsistencies such as displayed by capitalizing Champagne, why then have you somehow passed these other inconsistencies by? Encycloshave (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that there are numerous problems with Wikiproject Vietnam articles and I hammer away at this issue periodically. I have no authority or responsibility beyond that. I did move the article title from "Nguyễn Dynasty" to Nguyen dynasty, although that is all the more reason to make other references correspond. Kauffner (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

2nd opinion on AGF for a (seemingly) SPA

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 just want to make sure that I'm not jumping the gun here by warning Tinywings10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) of WP:COI with no evidence other than WP:DUCK. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't notify the user of this discussion as this might be all about me and not them. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a little leery of not notifying someone at an ANI, but will take you at your word that the purpose of this thread is solely to review your actions. In general, I think your post was an appropriate response to a reasonable suspicion, based on the available evidence. If you need more than this, you need to notify the editor in question first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:43, 8 May 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.

link to child porn site?

Resolved

 – RevDel'd as inappropriate --Errant ^(chat!) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just reverted an addition of a link which looked like a site with child porn (at least the mainpahge pics and name suggest so) in Lesbianism in erotica. Since I suspect such things are illegal, I am wondering whether it is appoproate to remove the entry from the article history . Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The site appears to be written erotica (and there is a disclaimer the pictures are of models who are all over 18 on the site). Of the written work, it looks like a lot involves the portrayal of underage girls with older women. I'd say revdel for sure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any written fiction can be considered illegal on its own merits, at least not where the servers reside, and it's not exactly on an obscure website, so I'm not sure revdel is necessary. (I however say this purely abstractly, having not clicked the link or viewed any pictures that may be at it. Legal and safe-for-work do not necessarily intersect. :P) --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it's not illegal (at least not in most jurisdictions), but is certainly grossly inappropriate. So I RevDel'd it. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's just written erotica, it would almost certainly be protected speech under the 1st Amendment in the U.S. But, the OP says that there are pictures. Assuming they are 18, it's legal. Under 18, well, that's another issue entirely. (I didn't click on the link, so I'm expressing this opinion based upon how the page is described above.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look (from a work machine). No images (apart from a legal, if not innocuous, intro photo). And, yes, in the US the site is protected under 1st Amendment rights. However I don't think we need to be linking to it, even in the archives. I think this is resolved for now. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the same as erotic fiction, but Amazon.com_controversies#Pedophile_guide is an example of pedophilia related writing that lead to the author being arrested SÆdon^talk 21:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Single purpose account creating vague pages

See: Persian Resurgence 1729 and Naderian Wars.

• These pages are all nationalistic POVs, propaganda and copyright violations. Further, the creator, Parsa1993 (talk · contribs), is single purpose account and may be a sock of AA193 (talk · contribs), based on very same thinking and ideas in mind including same numbers in name and edits articles of same exact region.--182.177.111.103 (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you haven't informed this editor of the thread here? It couldn't be any more obvious or clear that it's required. 140.247.141.157 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the above user is likely a sock of the currently-blocked 140.247.141.165 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

IP and Legionarii back on Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa

I'm afraid this issue wants to be revisited. After an endless insertion of inanities in the Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa article, and receiving a final warning to stop (and the page being protected), 72.83.230.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a return with much of the same (as "back to truth", mind you). Normally, since he received another, needlessly polite, warning, and the page was indef protected, this would not be an issue...

...but: this single edit (note: it corrects a script error in the IP's post) by a Legionarii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is quite disturbing. To begin with, the name: legionarii is Romanian for "the legionaries", and is used to designate members of the fascist revolutionary group generally known as "Iron Guard". Do note the plural...

...and: the edit summary is highly demeaning, and it alone should validate an instant block of the account and the IP hiding under it (if possible). "Futuvanguradacamaipunetimanapepaginaastatrimitsavatragaglontu" is a contraction of "Futu-va-n gura[,] daca mai puneti mana pe pagina asta trimit sa va traga glontu[l]", which translates as (feel free to verify me): "Fuck you in your mouths if, should you touch this page ever again I'll send someone in to shoot you with bullets."

On that basis, and having asked for advice, I would ask for a more serious admin intervention. I do not believe wikipedia should ignore or tolerate such ideologies and such threats. Dahn (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef-block the account for threats and oversight the edit summary is what I'd recommend. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I've informed the user as required of this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, edit summary removed. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First time I've ever blocked for lack of competence, but it had to happen, I guess. I've blocked the IP for two weeks; in two weeks, let's re-assess and see what needs to be done: a longer block, a Bulgarian with a baseball bat, semi-protection. (I'm kidding about the Bulgarian, of course. Joke.) Drmies (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So wait a second...let me get this straight.

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.

---

When this kid MtKing afds a UFC article, he's always right no matter how many keep votes it gets. And we have to "assume good faith" When I try to put a WWE article up for afd. I get accused of trying to "disrupt" and "strike back" at wikipedia. So wait, how come WWE fake rasslin articles are so notable for wikipedia, but UFC articles are now? I wanna know how they figure that? Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What sort of administrative intervention are you asking for? Or are you just here to vent? 140.247.141.157 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the above user is likely a sock of the currently-blocked 140.247.141.165 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I want someone to explain this policy which is somehow anti-UFC but pro WWE. Glock17gen4 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You post to a user "go read it boy" and you're here complaining? Seriously? In no way is that comment anything but hostile. Ravensfire (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested in what this is actually about, you may want to have a look at my non-admin closures of:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Night of Champions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Way Out (2012)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Rules (2012), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WrestleMania XXIX
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elimination Chamber (2012)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2012)

and the discussion on Glock17gen4's talk page here. Any admin who thinks I was out of line with my speedy keep NACs of those discussions can go ahead and revert them without worrying about hurting my feelings (not that you would worry about that anyway :D)--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Boomerang...blocked for 1 week by MuZeMike. (good block)
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Now indef blocked by AGK. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

At least one of those articles has exactly zero references. Why does it matter if the nomination is to make a point, if the article really is poor and should be deleted. Buddy431 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 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.

Bold proposal for MMA articles

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 it's time we impose a 500 edit minimum for those who want to participate on MMA AFDs, as well as community imposed Wikipedia:General sanctions on MMA articles in general. It seems MMA is a good chunk of what this board deals with now so obviously there's a problem that needs fixing rather than having to block or discuss a new user every week or so. This, coupled with the constant MMA fan WP:SPAs leads me to believe this is necessary. Obviously this is a general comment about MMA articles and not specifically about Glock17gen4's comment above.

Support As proposer SÆdon^talk 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh... Glock, I like you. I really do. We got off to a rough start, but you can really be a likable guy. This is not an example of your finest work. You may be right about the articles being not notable, I don't know, but I think that kelapstick acted properly because there was and is serious question about your faith in the nominations. I'm staying out of MMA stuff, but I like you well enough to just say that you are frustrated and I understand why, but you picked a battle you can't win with these nominations. Glock is venting. Now is not the time for bold proposals. Now is the time for Glock to sit back, take a break, look at this tomorrow and realize why there were questions about his faith in these noms. If he wants to nominate articles, fine, I suggest one at a time and providing policy based reasons, but doing it to make a point (and come on man, in this case, this is what you are doing) is disruptive. It is my hope that Glock will simply say "I will sleep on it" and we can close this thread. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, my proposal is less about Glock and more about MMA articles in general. Surely you've noticed as much as anyone that we deal with this on a constant basis now. Admins should be empowered to deal with these issues quickly. SÆdon^talk 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but your timing is less than ideal and may serve to only inflame the current situation, which I'm trying to defuse. One problem at a time, please. Save your idea for an RfC. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, he has been blocked anyway. But ANI is not the right place for this proposal, RfC is. ANI is for Incidents, not policy shaping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Au contrare, my friend; from WP:General sanctions: Usually at an administrators' noticeboard, the community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area. Administrators employing these sanctions are reminded of the need to issue appropriate notifications and to log all sanctions as specified in each case. Such general sanctions may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary. SÆdon^talk 01:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But you are saying that no editor with less than 500 edits. That isn't a sanction, it is a policy. You are lumping everyone together, not targeting specific sanctions against specific editors who have been notified and had the chance to participate. Again, this is outside the scope of ANI for good reason. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to respond to proposals such as this and the one to nuke the entire MMA article space from Wikipedia (as suggested further above). I fully realize that the MMA article space has become a pretty toxic battleground and has spilled over to here with an increasing frequency. It has resulted in indef blocks for several editors and short-term blocks for a number of other editors. My fear is that the situation may not improve in the near future, particularly with the indef blocks which, to me, seems to result in those editors simply evading the blocks by not logging in (and complicating WP:SPI issues since IPs cannot be linked to registered accounts). I do not know what the solution is. An attempt at proposing guidelines for the notability of MMA event articles has been on-going for almost two months now. The most recent proposal seems to either be getting solidified to the point of starting an RfC or dying off for lack of interest, I can't really tell. I don't know if removing the large majority of MMA content from Wikipedia is the correct line of action (and trans-wikian(sp?) to another location TBD which I've seriously thought about doing on my own if I didn't worry the MMA fans would avoid it because I started it). Reading over the general sanctions page linked by Saedon seem pretty .... general, so it's hard to know where this is going, from my point of view. I've rambled enough (too much?), so I'll go back to watching the discussion and attempting to figure out where to go from here. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think it'd help, you can ask to impose standard community sanctions at AN. That's what we did for Indian caste articles, and from an administrative standpoint it's made the problem about 10x easier to deal with. The 500 edit threshold should really only be used in the most severe of cases, like Nagorno-Karabakh; trust me, it's not that bad with MMA articles yet; I think if you wanted to enact typical community sanctions, that'd be effective without inadvertently locking out new, good faith editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:33, 9 May 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.

Doublecheck requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)

Earlier today, I closed the lengthy and contentious AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan), redirecting it to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 per the closest thing to a consensus that I was able to discern in the discussion. I have since been informed that this closure has drawn some media attention, so in an abundance of caution, I would like some additional eyes on the decision. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your close is good; the nytimes blog isn't bad but lacks knowledge of the relevant policies and customs. Further media coverage may justify expanding the coverage of the slogan in the article on Obama's campaign, or even justify recreating the article, but in the meantime, Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) isn't protected, so it needs to be watchlisted. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now watchlisted it also. bd2412 T 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The closing statement and redirect are fine, but I thought normal practice with a redirect closure is that the old content is left in the article history, and you seem to have deleted instead.[85] If that was on purpose, the closing statement should have explained in more detail, since it usually takes a high threshold of inappropriateness (BLP vios etc) to justify wiping history like that. The different posts in the afd all were mostly pretty shallow while some of the TV coverage I've seen about the slogan has been pretty interesting, so I got curious to see what the old article said, but it's gone. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could have been more explicit about that, but I did indicate that there seemed to be a consensus to delete the existing content and redirect the title. I have no objection to restoring the edit history. The article had previously contained a line or two summarizing the assertion in the Washington Times editorial that "Forward" was or had once been associated with socialism; everything that was on the page prior to deletion is reflected at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your close and redirect, although restoring the edit history might be a good idea (you might want to protect or semi-protect the redirect if you do that, though). I would be amused by the irony if this issue gets the slogan enough independent coverage that it needs to be restored, though. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this has been requested, I have restored the edit history, and consequently semi-protected the page. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1969 Nixon inauguration theme was "Forward Together", btw. It was going to be "Bring Us Together" but that didn't work for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to this discussion. Cheers, though. bd2412 T 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The user:UpTheRIRA.

Resolved

 – And now the user has been {{usernamehardblocked}} for good measure. Bencherlite^Talk 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of the user:UpTheRIRA bears and contains the name of the Real Irish Republican Army, a designated and a proscribed terrorist organisation/organization in Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), in the Republic of Ireland and in the United States of America. I do hereby request that the username of the account be subject to the regime of "Usernamehardblocked". — KC9TV 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

They have been blocked for edit warring. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That was just for one week; now upped to indef for the username. Bencherlite^Talk 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat in IP edit summary

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.

---

91.228.1.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

See diff. Language suggests it is a joke, words suggest a block is appropriate. QU ^TalkQu 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP is registered as "Anonymous Proxy". The legal threat is nonsense as "we" would not work through such a proxy, or make threats. A long term block on the proxy might be worthwhile. --Fæ (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 IP blocked for 6 months, as a confirmed anonymising proxy. AGK [•] 22:07, 9 May 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.

Xinhuifjzh - more weird botlike behaviour

Resolved

Xinhuifjzh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Arcandam (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been seeing a few of these SEO accounts without any links and I've been blocking them like any other spam bot accounts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This may or may not be related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#Weird_botlike_behaviour. Arcandam (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think these are different spam bots. I've blocked a handful of these accounts where the links are missing, but all of the typical spam keywords are there. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor removing publisher field from citations

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. Long-standing editor since 2005 Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) has been removing the publisher field from citations in hundreds of articles; Calvin999 (talk · contribs) has warned him diff and reported him diff to WP:ANV, where users recommended coming here. I became involved when I saw and replied to the thread on Calvin's talk. Colonies Chris disputes that his actions are problematic diff. Colonies Chris is inactive as I file this report but I am concerned that this behaviour may continue. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the diffs but unless he has a very, very good reason, removing publishing info is incorrect and should be mass reverted. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - I am only removing publisher (and sometimes location) information from citations where it is superfluous - i.e. where the publication in question (a periodical in all cases) is well-known and has a WP article of its own. Please look at the diffs before commenting further. My point is that a citation to, for example, Time magazine, gains nothing by the additional information that Time is published by Time, Inc., nor by the unsurprising news that the New York Times is published in New York. This sort of thing is just clutter and I'm removing it. For example, see Single_Ladies_(Put_a_Ring_on_It), where I removed the publisher=Time Inc. parameter from 20 citations to Time. This editor, and one other, are hysterically accusing me of vandalism and placing warnings and threats on my talk page,(see User talk:Colonies Chris), accusing me of "DISOBEYING Wikipedia RULES" (which they are unable to give me any reference to) and making admittedly untruthful claims that publisher parameters are required for GA, or required for a citation to be properly formatted. I fully accept that the publisher parameter has value for a book or lesser-known periodical that doesn't have a WP article, but for most reference periodicals, it is superfluous. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to stop removing the info until there is a consensus? Let's have a discussion about this stuff. Arcandam (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed standard practice in academic citations to cite well-known periodicals without publisher and location. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like something that can be resolved with a normal discussion between editors, it does not sound like something that requires admin intervention. Arcandam (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, once the accusers stop accusing the guy of "vandalism" and stop edit-warring against him, it will become a simple and very trivial disagreement. In which, incidentally, Colonies Chris is correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

TBH it doesn't really matter who is right ATM. If one party stops removing or adding or reverting (or whatever they are doing) and has a discussion about this trivial change the other party is unable to editwar. This discussion should be on a page other than WP:ANI. I would recommend Colonies Chris's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to have a rational discussion about this but they just accuse me of vandalism and blindly revert. I will make another attempt to engage in discussion, but given the intransigent attitude displayed so far, I'm not hopeful. Is there some wider forum in which the merits of this sort of cleanup could be debated and decided? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad to hear you are willing to make another attempt to engage in discussion. You are right, we need a wider forum, that way the majority of the participants in the discussion can be uninvolved in this WP:ANI thingy. Is WP:RfC the place you are looking for? (striking because Orlady has a better suggestion) Arcandam (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources might be the best place to start a discussion. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What I've been doing is in line with Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Newspaper_articles, which doesn't mention publisher at all, and only requires location when it's not included in the name of the newspaper. (By contrast, for books it does require publisher). There doesn't seem to be any discussion required. I'm bringing these articles into line with the recommended practice: they're trying to obstruct that. I've placed this link on the talk pages of both editors. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And Calvin999 has just instructed me to stay off his talk page, so that attempt at discussion isn't going anywhere. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to take a look? I can try to help you, but you need to be a bit patient because I have to do some reading first. Arcandam (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to help. Any contribution you can make would be welcome. I've just initiated a discussion on WT:CITE. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this removal of content from hundreds of articles without so much as asking the community is bad enough, but the fact he edit warred over it when editors objected is worse. Regardless of what he thinks he is doing, it can be classified as vandalism. He should have at least asked the community first. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Of the examples I have seen, these edits seem fine and I don't think it would be reasonable for someone to assume that these changes would first require community consensus. Indeed, they appear to already have community consensus: guidelines for citing newspapers do not include citing the publisher.

All of the examples I have seen have been of the kind to remove "Associated Newspapers Ltd" as the publisher of the Daily Mail, "The Washington Post Company" as the publisher of the The Washington Post, "MTV Networks" as the publisher of MTV News, etc. These are clearly superflous and should be non-controversial. Examples diffs: [86], [87], [88].

I suggest this tread be closed. --RA (talk) 15:29, 10 May 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.

Pull lead

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.

---

Pull lead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Native speaker with diplomatic skills wanted, not a triggerhappy admin. Please read the last couple of contribs before responding. Arcandam (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message or two; not sure if it'll take or not. If they really want to go out in a blaze of glory, they're probably going to find that it isn't that exciting, or that glorious, to get blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I did not inform Pull lead of this ANI discussion (per WP:IAR, my favorite policy) because I am quite sure he would be mad. I am not trying to get him blocked, but I need an admin to keep an eye on the situation. Arcandam (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that didn't work. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

At least we tried. Arcandam (talk) 03:25, 10 May 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.

WP:TE by an IP regarding a pseudoscience topic

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.

---

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

An IP editor fresh off a block for a combination of edit warring and WP:TE in regards to soapboxing and accusing editors of bias is at it again. He is arguing, of course, that WP:FRINGE primary sources should supersede a publication peer reviewed by Harvard medical faculty. Lots of WP:IDHT after he has been unable to convince a single other editor of his position. See Talk:Alkaline_diet#Concerns_about_criticisms, Talk:Alkaline_diet#Blatant_Bias and user talk for background, and note that he was told to drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality as a condition of his unblock. I have asked User talk:Amatulic to notify the user of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions but decided to bring it here after the IP kept soapboxing on the page. I am going out to dinner now and will not be back till much later tonight so will not be able to respond to followup till then. Will notify editor momentarily. SÆdon^talk 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bon appetite. He/she claims to have left. Arcandam (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Far from it. Still very disruptive comments. The block needs to be reinstated and lengthened considerably. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, this guy is wasting a lot of time that can be used more productively. Arcandam (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My comment are not disruptive, they are factual. I have not said that the primary source should supersede the secondary. I have simply asked for a note to the secondary source be placed there that shows it is inconsistent with the primary source. An admin has agreed that this is valid. (Sorry this was incorrect and now changed!) Another user attacked my comments as being misleading and confusing without realizing that they were quotes from the secondary source. Therefore that person actually themselves questioned the validity of the secondary source, and they are a biologist. Yet here they don't mention that! I call that bias. Perhaps if you look at the Alkaline Diet Talk page you will see that all my efforts have been constructive, and their refusal to defeat my concerns shows they have validity. Their own total lack of knowledge of the diet has been expressed many times in their comments there. This is in contrast with my own knowledge of 3 primary sources. While Wikipedia is about secondary sources, the means to interpret them has to be through an understanding of the topic. I would not go and start a talk page discussion on brain surgery or rocket science as I have no knowledge of the primary topic to be able to judge the validity or relevance of secondary sources. I am not the first person in that page to have noted a bias there. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

An admin involved in my edit block that looked over my points agreed twice that they have validity, that it is appropriate in this case to refer to the primary source, and the the article may need to be reworded to include my concerns. That was ignored by these people. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you be OK with me taking a look and making a final decision? Arcandam (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The unblock of this IP address included several conditions, amongst others that the user should edit "without a battleground mentality", and should "accept that editing follows consensus, even if you disagree with the consensus". Since the editing has clearly not been in accordance with either of those conditions, and since, as Arcandam said above, the user is wasting a lot of time for other people, I have reblocked the IP address for three days. I hope that the problem will not come back when this block expires, but if it does then I think a much longer block might need to be considered. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 10 May 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.

Editor deleting posts from a talkpage not his own

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:Arcandam has twice deleted posts I made to another editor's talkpage (and has declined my request to self-revert); first instance here. My posts there are not intended as trolling; the first, in particular, is a perfectly serious question, to which I hope to get a response (from yet a different editor). I'd like someone to impress on Arcandam that he is to adhere to WP:TPO here, please; Andy can delete those posts if he likes, but not someone else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 10 May 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:MIne84 making threats of violence

User:MIne84 just recently created an article which I nominated for CSD as a personal attack (Expecting a quick deletion of it so I'm not going to link it). In this article, he encourages others to kill the subject. Though it's mispelled and just looks like vandalism he does make threats against the user. Looks like maybe a kids teacher. Not sure if it's serious enough to email emergency.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 14:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

blocked and I am about to email emergency at wikimedia.org ~Crazytales (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a fast resolve! I would do it myself but I don't have email access at this point.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 14:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I got poked on IRC about it. :) ~Crazytales (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Another one of those really vague things....

I came across this thread on Explicit's page when I went to see if he responded to a conversation thread. In short, it is a request to undelete certain images, but the telling comment is that the user in question (User:Maximo98) is "currently setting up the foundation, the website and wikipedia page for the painter G. M. Aicardi and we have a lot of investors that are waiting for all three to go live so we can start the ball rolling on our project." This just screams misuse, but I have no idea whether the bigger picture issue is COI, SPA, or just something that needs to be watched by admins. Nevertheless, it seems to need to be actionable. MSJapan (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The image File:Self-portrait in chiaroscuro (1919).jpg might need attention license-wise in this context. I have doubts whether an article about Giorgio Matteo Aicardi would pass WP:ARTIST, which is perhaps a pity. Perhaps explaining the notability requirements to the editor might resolve this. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspect WP:HOAX in the making. The image looks like a newspaper illustration and the "signature" doesn't look like "Alcardi". Google yields nothing independent.  Tigerboy1966  06:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Il valore dei dipinti italiani dell'Ottocento e del primo Novecento", by Giuseppe L. Marini, p. 36, ISBN 978-8842217657 contains a bio for the painter. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966, if you look closely the writing in the bottom says "1919 Autoritratto" which translated in Italian means self-portrait. Secondly I do not see why the article I am writing is a misuse since there is no wikipedia page about the painter. Can you please specify in layman terms as to why you think so, so I can reply accordingly as to what we are doing?

Many thanks.

Maximo98 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read the page in the sandbox here User:Maximo98/sandbox I see no independent support for the existence of Aicardi. None of the 44 references notes seems to mention him, which is a little odd. Happy to be proved wrong. Tigerboy1966  06:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the statement At the “Pro-Civitatae Museum”[13], it's true that the link for ref 13 is unhelpful. But, that site does contain info about the painter e.g. [89]. Maximo98, I think you just need to be able to demonstrate via your references that the painter meets the notability requirements described in Wikipedia:Notability (people) and that you make yourself aware of the conflict of interest guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies.

Unfortunately there isn't any viable biographical information that we can reference from the internet as most of the information/critics we have were made in the pre-1985 era and most of it is on paper and not found online. We got most of the information out of the two surviving daughters (Giovanna Benitez who is a personal friend and her sister Ada Colombo who still lives in Italy). On the other hand we do have a personal reference written to us by Mitchell Wolfson Jr. who is a very famous art collectionist from Florida (as you can see on wiki).

Sean hoyland, many thanks for your help I will check both of thos wiki pages when I finish work tonight and I will try my best to comply with them. Do you personally think it would be better if we have the website uploaded first as we will be uploading all of the critics/references and what not about Giorgio Matteo Aicardi on there?

P.S. - After reading the COI policy I can confirm that I, James Grima, the editor of the wiki page for G. M. Aicardi do not have any financial reasons as to why I am creating the page. I am merely helping a friend to create a wiki page for her father who was a known painter in Genoa, Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximo98 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Maximo98 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on the talkpage of the article or the talkpage of one of the editors. Arcandam (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of AFD notices on Pesoguin

The creator of this page keeps deleting the AFD banner on a page he created[90]. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. If I restore the banner a 3rd time my change will almost certainly be deleted again. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted under A7 --Guerillero | My Talk 15:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial response on seeing this page crop-up in new-pages-patrol. My Speedy-deletion was rejected. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a bot automatically re-adds the templates anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, (a) the uw-afd templates (or equivilant original text) can be used to get the attention of AFD-tag-removers, and (b) I'm pretty sure the removal of an active AfD tag is vandalism and thus exempt from WP:3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with copy/paste move 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.

---

Someone has asked me to fix up a copy/paste move of StooShe to Stooshe, but the target has since been significantly edited and a history merge will be needed - and I don't know how to do that. Can someone who does please fix it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I shy away from the complicated ones, but this was relatively simple. Complete article history is now at Stooshe, and StooShe is a redirect. I checked it twice, but let me know if I screwed something up. There are still 5 deleted edits at StooShe, but those edits were deleted well before the current page was created, so they don't need to be moved, as they are not part of the history of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 9 May 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 editor 98.211.240.43

98.211.240.43 (talk · contribs) has been editing the Gary Player to state he has won nine Senior Major Championships rather than six. These edits can be seen here[91], here[92], here[93], here[94], here[95], here[96], and here[97]. The number of Senior majors Gary Player has been the subject of a talk page discussion. Please note the discussion was moved from Tewapack (talk · contribs) to the Gary Player talk page by editor Tewapack. Editor Tewapack who like myself does many agrees with me on the total amount of Senior major wins for Player. Let me explain. The Senior British Open aka SBO began in the late 1980's but wasn't recognized as a major championship till 2003. The sources to verify this can be found here[98], here[99], and here[100]. Gary Player won the SBO three times prior to it being recognized as a major championship.

This IP editor and GKLipsco (talk · contribs) have been changing Gary Player's article to include his SBO wins as major championship ones but at the same time never changing any other article on a player who won the SBO prior to 2003. I warned the IP editor at the talk page[User_talk:98.211.240.43], but he disregarded it so I brought the matter here. The other editor has been informed also but hasn't made any recent edits.

Please note the misguided edits are due to this[101] where Gary Player claims the SBO as a major championship. Unfortunately neither the European Senior Tour or the Champions Tour recognize the SBO as a major when Player won it.

What I'm suggesting is a warning be issued to the IP editor....William 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fine, warn the IP then. You can do that. Come back if the problem persists, we can semiprotect the article or block the IP, but I suspect that dialogue will work if you can get their attention. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• No discussion had with the user at the time, no warnings given to user at the time. Take it upon yourself to speak to the editor, they are a person, just like you. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 10:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I tried posting to this editor's talk page[102] before coming here[103] and that came after he again repeated the same edit.[104] No reply and since then he has continued to make the same edit.[105] He continues to do this and I expect him or her to be back again because he's reverting three times a day. How about a violation of 3RR? So is anything going to be done?...William 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

    How about trying the 3RR noticeboard? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

    • And he's back again.[106] Why do you, and the rest of this board, either want to sit on your hands or pass the buck?...William 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • He's come back for the third time today, the 4th time since I posted time since I posted here, and the ninth time in a little over two days. Anybody out there going to do anything?...William 18:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Again.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Player&diff=491854813&oldid=491850700}...William 19:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for ten-days to encourage discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Atmospheric convection article

An IP address is removing convert templates which show imperial unit equivalents. I've reverted one, but they reverted back. I've left a message on their talk page. Can someone monitor the situation? I don't want this to get to a 3RR situation. Thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You misused the rollback tool, didn't inform the IP, don't seem to understand WP:UNITS, or understand for what this page is intended. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't leaving a message on their talk page informing the IP? I threw this item on the edit war page soon after adding it here, so I'm guessing I eventually found the right spot to place it. Since it was just one revert at the time I posted the comment, I didn't think it was appropriate there. While I understand that English/Imperial units are not required wikipedia-wide, the meteorology and tropical cyclone projects require it since many English speakers (not just in the US) are more accustomed to mph and/or knots, with knots being the preferred form used by numerous countries globally for wind speed, particularly the National Hurricane Center, but especially over the world's oceans. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Yuri Rutman

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 restore Yuri Rutman. It references the page as autobiographical and this issue was resolved nearly two years ago on wikipedia. All references to this page are in public domain, other press releases, interviews with the subject in prominent news media, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euromogul (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You have the wrong page. Try Wikipedia:Deletion_review. Arcandam (talk) 19:48, 10 May 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.

Alessandra Napolitano

• Alessandra Napolitano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have completed a review of the contributions and technical data of Alessandra Napolitano (AN). Based on that review, AN looks to be yet another incarnation of the banned User:John254. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. Given that AN has been editing for a few months, and so that I am not delivering a checkuser block from lofty heights, I thought it appropriate to give the community this courtesy notification.

I gave consideration to not blocking the account because AN put up a 'retired' notice a few days ago, but decided to proceed due to the abundance of evidence and the fact that John254 is a serial socker and banned user. AGK [•] 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Block I would have done the same to be fair. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 10:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/John254/Archive has been remarkably quiet. Did you dig anything else up, Mr. Big Shot CU? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AGK. I suggested this a few days ago on the arbcom mailing list and later on the arbcom review PD talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor deliberately confusing his responses at AfD

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:John_J._Bulten appears to be deliberately obfuscating the arguments and is being disruptive at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton. His edits include pasting large walls of text: (this edit he put inside collapse boxes, apparently as a way to stop other editors commenting) [107] [108] [109]. His large pastes appear to be to try to win discussions by brute force rather than actually arguing a point. Can any admin come and have a look at the AfD? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In this AFD some 60-70 sources have been considered as not sustaining notability. Naturally the inclusion arguments have gotten long; here is the most responsive deletion argument from Dominus Vobisdu, which I regard as fully sincere. Accordingly collapses have been used by (keep) myself and (delete) Yaksar, but not to stop anyone else from editing. I welcome review of my and other editors' actions. JJB 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the collapse performed by Yaksar; it was a collapse of offtopic text (someone wishing for the AfD to be closed) that had no bearing on the AfD. You are continually pasting strawman arguments that have already been dealt with. The 60-70 sources you mention are low quality sources that you have tried to WP:BOMBARD the AfD (and the BLP article) with. He also appears to admit to "revert warring" on the article page. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate the strawman, which is a charge you just started making an hour ago. Demonstrate that the bombardment essay, which is about near-identical sources and coatracking, has any useful application. I admit making 3 different adds today which were each reverted. JJB 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. [110]: *Claim: Eighteen reviews in multiple independent periodicals (Chocolate such as Reader's Digest (4, 11, 22-29), Seventh such as Groves (59-60, 62), and other works (21, 57, 63-65)) are all insignificant and thus the book is insignificant. You've deliberately worded it to look like a weak argument. The specifics of the refernces have already been rebutted in the AfD but you have chosen to ignore this. You have filled with article with the same unreliable sources since the AfD was created (hence bombarded it per definition: Bombardment is the placement of a large number of references in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted.). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I did say "please forgive my omitting any" claims. The rebuttals included such oddities as the view that book reviews for generic authors are limited only to scholarly reviews, which argument ceased after I mentioned John Cassidy (author). The primary rebuttal was that all 18 reviews were insignificant, which does not disqualify them from cumulative WP:AUTHOR notability. Please demonstrate any neglected rebuttal. And in context, "Bombardment is good when each source has a lot of information of its own." Thus it refers to repetitive sources, not nonsubstantial sources, which are permitted under WP:BASIC. Disclosure: I did add one sentence to this essay taken from WP:BASIC. JJB 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I grant that I had to draw an inference, in that the synthesis that review insignificance was being used to claim author insignificance may not have appeared exactly in any argument. If so, please demonstrate any neglected rebuttal. I will amend the AFD if appropriate. JJB 19:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with the allegation as stated.

• Having reread the entire AfD I believe that User:John_J._Bulten has responded to each concern raised in turn - a logical approach which is at odds with an allegation of disruptive behaviour.
• Looking at the history of this AfD page, a number of the concerns raised by those arguing for deletion have been spurious, or raised spontaneously without a clear chain of thought - leading to a chaotic chain of discussion.
• The comments for delete appear chaotic and repetitive - often based on assertion or opinion rather than evidenced policy argument. This makes clarity difficult to achieve when responding.
• In my view, the use of collapse boxes represent a good faith attempt to refocus the discussion on each occasion - this is at odds with an allegation of obfuscation.isfutile:P (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that has been encouraging JJB to "keep at it" on his user talk page: [111]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A transparent and honest approach is always best. isfutile:P (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity, and the fact that John F. Ashton publishes about anti-aging, you might consider taking the case to WP:AE. JJB is just coming off of a year ban under that case: [112] aprock (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the above, this isn't the first time something like this has happened; see here. I'm not sure that AE is the right venue, though, as this really isn't a longevity issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for bringing that up Aprock. If anyone would like to comment on that case more directly than making a link about anti-aging that I hadn't even thought about, the "new me" of course will be happy to discuss it. I also can evidence several of the spurious claims Tonyinman has noted if anyone is interested. Incidentally, I never responded to that late evidence last year, and so consideration of it should wait and see if such a response is necessary. JJB 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As requested …

I've read the whole discussion through.

• I'm not confused, by anyone's discussion contributions. There's nothing to indicate that the fairly normal practice of collapsing sections in discussion is a deliberate anything other than what it actually is: the enabling of people to skip a long detailed list and get on to the next part of a discussion.
• Everyone seems to be sticking, within a small latitude, to how and whether our policies and guidelines apply. This is good. Those who would complain should go to AFD discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom, where "I've seen the video and I think it should go viral." is the type of utterly non-policy-based reasoning that one gets. (AfD Patrol is sometimes quite depressing.)
• Yes, the discussion is long. But it's quite clear that people asked for the detail given.
• This is by no means the longest AFD discussion that I've ever seen. You haven't even had to add section breaks, yet. ☺
• Give closing administrators some credit. I know it's hard to believe that administrators can read, to the point that people often think that administrators cannot recognize a comment when they see it unless it has the boldfaced word "Comment" in front of it. But we really can, you know.
• Don't hold the AFD discussion here, IRWolfie-.
• Don't try to escalate this to Arbitration Enforcement. Don't try to "win". Instead, try to simmer down. So you disagree with John J. Bulten. You've got an honest disagreement about the application of policies and guidelines. That's better than you'd get in a lot of places at Wikipedia. Try counting your lucky stars, for a change.
• Oh, and stop talking past one another.
  • Hrafn, John J. Bulten pointed out obliquely (but not very — it was a diff) that he didn't write what you are accusing him repeatedly of writing in the introduction of the article to bolster his argument.
  • John J. Bulten, they're asking for two major sources in part because they want to be shown that there is some sort of single coherent discussion of this subject as a whole Out There in the world, not because they want to play games.

Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uncle G, you have correctly summarized my position. My continued reason for supporting the deletion was that I had not yet found any "core" of notability. I had hoped that by inviting JJB to form a short-list of the best sources we could quickly get to the heart of the dispute. Unfortunately his shortened list of sources were found not to provide any substantial coverage of the subject. I would still be willing to re-review a new short-list of any sources that JJB selects. I would urge him to try once more to form a simple list (with hyper-links) of the sources he considers to be best. I would also urge JJB to trust that his fellow editor understands Wikipedia policies at least as well as he does. JJB should not feel compelled to form complex arguments since a good source will speak for itself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have already explained that Salim has demonstrated enough technical competence (and fellow-editor understanding of WP) to go to the same baseline list of 65 sources in the AFD and take them one bullet point at a time. Rather than copy a bunch of links already in the diff, Salim can simply look up the footnote numbers in that stable diff (albeit I did additionally provide links for the first two major sources and the next two and the next two). Thus I have already presented about a dozen selected "shortlists" that Salim can take up in turn each if the intent was simply to look neutrally for notability sources, and I explained repeatedly both how to do this and why formatting the list otherwise would be inconsistent with my position. After Salim made what appeared like several formatting demands prior to such review (provide me direct links rather than indirect, delete reference to 63 sources so that we are only talking about 2, now that you've provided the 2 direct links split them onto separate lines and copy over the page numbers please) I declined to continue responding to new formatting requests. If still-willingness is expressed but Salim does not follow through, that says something about the willingness.
  The reason the first two reliable, independent, significant, substantial periodical and conference sources were declined was that multipage reviews of a book allegedly do not confer notability on its editor, and are insubstantial for only mentioning the editor's name in passing. I stated this is contrary to WP:AUTHOR, which treats editors identically to authors; not to argue, but it seems to me to be equivalent to the argument that a source is nonnotable because it only talks about the physical position of Ashton's body and thus says nothing whatsoever about Ashton himself. Accordingly, this evidence suggests to me that my time is better spent speaking to third parties about these sources rather than Salim. Input is welcome. JJB 20:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My advice to IRWolfie- applies to the both of you, as well. Don't try to argue the AFD discussion here. What's in the multi-page book review, and whether it actually documents the subject at hand rather than the subject of the book, it a matter for the AFD discussion. Finding, reading, and evaluating sources is very much what such discussions are all about, and the best (safest, most reliable, most likely to be correct in the long run) outcomes at AFD happen when everyone puts in the legwork on those.

John J. Bulten, I think that we all understand your point, now. I know that it's frustrating when one goes to a lot of effort to lay things out for people, and all that one gets are terse counterarguments and superficial content-free responses on the level of "That's bollocks.". I've been in that situation at AFD myself. The jabs about "willingness" won't help, though, especially as it isn't Salimfadhley who has descended to that level. And responding individually to every new participant who joins the discussion now that it's mentioned on this noticeboard is not a wise move.

Salimfadhley, why not try meeting halfway? John J. Bulten cannot see a way to give you the one overarching source that you're looking for, and possibly it doesn't exist. That's not necessarily a deal-killer, depending from how in-depth the sources that do exist are, and to what degree they overlap and act in combination. Again, though, such analysis of the depths and provenances of sources is quite properly the domain of the AFD discussion.

What he has given you is a point-by-point breakdown of which source he thinks satisfies which notability criterion. What you therefore can do, that will make it simpler for the closing administrator, is to go through the same notability criteria and explain why you think the cited sources and the information that they provide do not show the criteria as satisfied. Make a similiar list. There isn't one in the discussion. There are a lot of "I've read all of the sources, and I don't see it." statements, and several if-you-read-every-delete-opiner's-argument-you'll-find-that-in-combination-they-address-everything-here statements, but no-one with your opinion has provided a detailed point-for-point analysis and counterargument in a single place. The former means that the closing administrator has to accept a blanket analysis on faith and — most ironically — read and combine a lot of little points into a single whole; whereas the latter — the AFD equivalent of showing your working and a long-standing wiki idea of summarizing discussion — makes a much stronger and easier to read case that yes, you indeed have read everything, and these are the details of why you think that the bars are not met.

I hope that my suggestions help. As far as this noticeboard goes, my conclusion (speaking for just myself, of course) is that there is no cause here for any use of an administrator tool against any account or on the discussion page and probably a need for more time before AFD discussion closure. All that I think that you all need is a little nudge like this to get you all further along.

Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 10 May 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.

71.136.240.89

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.

---

71.136.240.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for disruptive editing, but it keeps refactoring other people's comments on its talk page. Please revoke its talk page access. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It now 'blanked' its talk page, so revoking its talk page access may not be needed anymore. Mathonius (talk) 04:42, 11 May 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.

AndyTheGrump

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.

---

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) and I have been somewhat tempered over the Bradley/Breanna Manning issue at the moment; I made a comment on Talk:Bradley Manning that a person who ignores a reliable source that Manning identified as female was either "dense or bigoted", which has inflamed tempers to the point that he has made this comment towards me. It's a severe personal attack, and would be blockable even without his prior comments leading to the "only warning". Sceptre ^(talk) 01:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Andy calling you a turd is wrong. You trolling him on his own talk page and then running to ANI so you can win a content dispute is also wrong. Both of you should start acting like adults. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  After being warned not to make personal attacks, and then making such a blistering personal attack, going to ANI is the next step since the closure of the personal attack noticeboard years ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Block everyone. -— Isarra ༆ 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  (ec)I notice that the personal attack warning was from you, that you jumped straight to the final warning, and that everyone else who has commented on Andy's talk page regarding that has defended him. You should both settle your differences without name-calling or running to mommy. If you can't or won't do that, then I back Isarra's recommendation. Reyk _YO! 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • • Given that his conduct was close to harassment, given that he was publicly attacking me in several forums where several other people were constructively discussing the issue, and given that he was blocked six months ago for making this comment, a block is indeed warranted. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at your (Sceptre) chutzpah. I am the editor that Sceptre called "dense or bigoted". I asked him to retract it, and he didn't retract or respond. Two admins asked him to retract, and he didn't retract or respond. And yet here he is complaining about Andy calling him a bigot. It's just a bit much. As far as I'm concerned, Sceptre has been on a rampage about the Manning article and gender identity such that anyone who disagrees with him has to be stupid, bigoted, or god knows what else. Oh, and by the way, last time I checked, WP:WQA was alive and kicking, although he may be referring to some other board of which I'm unaware.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• What Bbb said. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That I may have attacked you -- and I retract the comment as referred to you -- does not have any bearing on the fact of Andy's egregious personal attack. There is no doctrine of unclean hands on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong, there is a concept of unclean hands on Wikipedia, and particularly on this board. Also, although I will accept your retraction, I note that it comes very late and probably only so you can move on with your report on Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This all started when Sceptre decided to arbitrarily 'reassign' Manning's gender identity in the article, against prior consensus, and based on a selective reading of reports of private conversations Manning had. At no point has Manning publicly stated that he wishes to be known as a 'she', named 'Breanna'. Sceptre is pushing a POV, and using a vulnerable person in no position to respond to do so. When asked to desist, and conform to policy, Sceptre has instead responded by accusations of 'bigotry', 'transphobia' and who knows what else. If he has the gall to make further personal attacks on me on my talk page under a posting that refers explicitly to WP:NPA that Sceptre posted, I can see no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't respond in kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's comments during this protracted Manning battle have been, not surprisingly, incisive. They have also been remarkably sensitive to Manning. That said, words like "turd" and "bigot" (I'm assuming he said them, I haven't verified it) shouldn't be used, even when strongly provoked. Although I suppose I'm somewhat biased, Sceptre still had no business coming here. He's done nothing but provoke from the get-go.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensitive or insensitive? I don't think it's sensitive to repeatedly and deliberately refer to someone who (privately, mind, but still) said they didn't want to be remembered as male. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

...and currently refers to himself as 'a boy'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Source? There's no way that you can read the Lamo logs and can come away with a perspective that Manning was comfortable with being male. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not being "comfortable with being male" isn't the same thing as wishing to be publicly identified as a female named 'Breanna'. Manning clearly wasn't comfortable about a lot of things - and I've seen no evidence that he is comfortable with being used as a convenient fall-guy/gal for your POV-pushing antics. If Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female, he can say so - until then it isn't Wikipedia's job to arbitrarily 'gender reassign' him on the basis of a selective reading of his private conversations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede on the name issue, but not on the gender issue: in her chats with Lamo, she talks about how she was uncomfortable with her male body, about her presenting as female while on leave in Boston, and her plans to transition upon discharge. In the New York source, her counsellor talks about the fact that she was "very solid" on feeling female. We use both thing as sources in the article; if they're admissible in the article to source the facts as currently presented in "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge", then they're admissible as confirmation to her gender identity. It's not a "arbitrary" change at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are 'willing to concede' or not is irrelevant. You are engaging in soapboxing and POV-pushing to assign an gender identity to Manning that he has not publicly identified with - that is what 'identity' means - and no, the fact that we consider a source as reliable for one thing doesn't make it reliable for every ridiculous bit of spin you can put on it to support something else entirely. You have no right whatsoever to use Wikipedia as a platform for your POPV-pushing nonsense. Bradley Manning will remain Bradley manning until he publicly asserts otherwise, regardless of your bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

She's already been "outed", and we reflect that in the section "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge"; I'd like to hear your reason why the sources are okay to source the fact that she "feels female" and was going to transition, but not okay to change the gender. And no, that isn't what "identity" means, unless you're saying all the closeted LGBT people aren't really LGBT; you're still gay even if you're still in the closet. If she weren't arrested, Manning would have been discharged, and intended to start the transition process. She was fully aware that she was probably going to get arrested, and expressed fears about being described as male. (see: the Lamo caht logs) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet more of the same bullshit. You are in no position to make any such assertions. And no, we shouldn't be using the source cited to state that Manning "feels female" - we don't. We write that he apparently wrote this to an unnamed gender counselor in 2009: and the same source: and this same counselor repeatedly refers to Manning as 'he', and makes clear that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state not just because of his uncertainties over gender, but because of his direct involvement in military actions which were leading to the deaths of innocent civilians. Manning was in crisis, and as the Lamo logs make clear, unsure of his own mental stability: The very next statement he makes after his comment that "i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy" he says "i've totally lost my mind ... i make no sense ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ..." Any credible reading of these comments can only conclude that Manning was in an emotionally disturbed state (and incidentally, still describing himself as 'a boy') - this isn't an assertion that he wishes to change his public gender identity. It isn't an assertion of anything, except his own mental state - which he seems to have been well aware of as being confused, and conflicted. To take such comments from the isolated private conversations of a disturbed individual as 'evidence' that Manning wishes to be publicly identified as female is not only 'original research' engaged in to promote a particular POV, but morally reprehensible, and utterly incompatible with the sexual politics you claim to espouse. You have no right whatsoever to cherry-pick sources to 'reassign' Manning, and that you chose to do so suggests that your own motivations are questionable, to say the least. One final point - more comments by Manning from the Lamo logs [113]: "8 months ago, if you’d have asked me whether i wanted i would identify as female, i’d say you were crazy", "that started to slip very quickly, as the stresses continued and piled up", "i had about three breakdowns… successively worse, each one revealing more and more of my uncertainty and emotional insecurity". Not only is Manning stating that he is having a breakdown, but he says that 8 months earlier he had no thoughts of identifying as female at all. If you are going to pick cherries, it is sensible to see what else is in the tree... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're treading close to saying that trans people with mental illnesses aren't sure of their gender identity, which is also offensive. And Manning did wish to be publicly female; she did appear so while on leave in Boston. (And gender identity is fluid; we don't have a source saying she self-identified as male after May 2010, understandable as she's still under arrest awaiting trial, so we use the most recent self-identification, which is female). Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"gender identity is fluid". Precisely. Which makes your ridiculous claims that Manning currently wishes to be identified as a female named Breanna even less tenable. And how the heck do you know what Manning's most recent self-identification is? Perhaps fortunately, we don't have access to every private conversation he has. You are not Manning's spokesperson. As for 'offensiveness', straw man arguments about something I didn't say to support your own POV-pushing unilateral 'gender reassignment' of a troubled individual are infinitely worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

JaParker Jones, Agnes Torres Sulca, Paige Clay, and Brandy Martell didn't make public statements to the media about their gender identity either, but we refer to all four of them as transgender women. In any case, regardless of conduct, you should know better than to refer to someone as a "moronic little turd" when a) you've been blocked for personal attacks in the past and b) you were warned not to make personal attacks. (Also, nice appeal to emotion there) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead people rarely make public statements. Nice appeal to emotion there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that a trans person needs to make a public statement to the media to be recognised as such, then we should refer to Jones, Sulca, Clay, Martell as men. As it is, all four and Manning identified as female (which is all we need under MOS:IDENTITY), and presented as female when she could. Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female (see the Lamo chat logs), like the other four. This is a digression, mind. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A digression from being boomeranged, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Were she not arrested, Manning would've transitioned to female". Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. What we do know is that at the moment Manning has neither done so, nor made any public statement that such a 'transition' is desired. Since when has it been morally justifiable to 'out' people as transgendered based on a POV-pushing reading of cherry-picked sources? Please put the crystal ball away, come down from the soapbox, and explain how you know what 'would' have happened, and why your knowledge of this should be seen a a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How about everyone here calm down and just chill. I'm always amazed that in working on articles on living people, the people who work the hardest to enforce it (see Point 6) by saying we're not allowed to hold, or god forbid express on occasion, negative opinions on anyone are the same people who are often the source of a great deal of incivility towards other editors. I'm not blaming anyone in particular in this instance, as I think blocks can be avoided if everyone here does what I'm doing now; kicking back with a Tiger beer watching a program on Billy Martin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would never mention something like this, ever, but the parallels are so very extreme, because yes, there is not so much 'just' insults and personal attacks going on, but insults and personal attacks that should be framed on the NPA page as what not to do. But that said, this is precisely the embodiment of the term 'consenting adults' and Sceptre, you need to look a lot less like someone turning up at a hospital in a bondage outfit saying your injuries are entirely someone else's fault. Because the parallels to things like this (DO NOT LOOK) explicit text content are just going to keep people laughing at the situation, tragic but true, because if you don't dress up in leather and ask to be spanked he will leave you alone, problem solved.

Further the 'only solution is to ban the lot of you' idea, whilst it is quite valid, is also going to be a drawn out process if it has any chance of success at all, not just because Andy is only defensive by nature, but because with God as my witness everyone wants to see what happens next, there are some things that you just can't look away from, and this is one of those things. Everyone with a remote control to switch off the TV has slow if not paralysed hands right now. Penyulap ☏ 09:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks to me like a BLP violation. If this Manning weren't under arrest for espionage, he would have no notability at all. As it is, it looks like an editor is trying to make some implicit connection between his alleged gender identity and his alleged espionage - either trying to justify it, or to smear the subject. Either way, it's not good, and Andy the Gump's response, while somewhat over the top, is understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Block of Sceptre for this page move, and if that's not enough, edit-warring to repeat it a quarter hour later. Small tadpole to AtG for rising to a pretty obvious bait. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The OP's complaint does not square with his user page philosophy, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it's fine with that philosophy. The right to freedom of expression does not preclude taking their soapbox away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it's not fine. He demands the right of free opinion and expression for himself, and gripes when someone else exercises their own right of free opinion and expression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
        • ... I don't think you quite grasped what I wrote. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences of that expression. You're free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but it's well established that you still go to jail for doing so. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
          • No. He quotes, "...without interference." So he wants to express anything he wants, unrestricted, but doesn't extend the same right to others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Ah, I missed that bit. yeah, that does make it rather hypocritical. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Boomerang block of Sceptre. Andy's position has rectitude even if his barbs are too quickly thrown. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Block Sceptre and consider topic banning. Going against consensus, gaming the system, and refusal to get the point. At this point, his involvement is disruptive as he is here admittedly as an advocate with an agenda.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• We would never refer to somebody with a stable genetic identity except as the gender they wish to be considered, but I don't think any one including Manning is under the impression that anything about gender identity in this instance is stable. We can't change on the basis of private conversations even if reported in the press, or by inference. It's hard to apply BLP when a person is undeniably a public figure, but for a site such as this to make such a change strike me as hopelessly wrong. I've gone to some trouble revising these three sentences to avoid gender-based pronouns , & it took me several rounds to do it. But in the context of the article what Sceptre is doing is pointy. I think the consensus is strongly against Sceptre, but there is no reason to block unless they continues. If they do , it's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You are Belorn? That is the account that made that edit which you just described.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I assumed DGG was referring to his own last post here - it is almost impossible to write about Manning in gender-neutral language: English just doesn't work that way, and we can't take it upon ourselves to revise it so it does, as worthy a project as that might seem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Here I am doing the impossible again. ☺ I find it quite easy to write about people in English using gender-neutral language. "as the gender xe wishes to be considered […] anything about xyr gender identity is". I wouldn't have had DGG's trouble writing on this noticeboard what he wrote above. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - see 7 May Newsweek article [114] thereon ...

“I’m trying to play off the civil rights card. Thus all the gay rights stuff on the side. My life goal is the expansion of human knowledge, and the elimination of the earth-moon system as the boundary of human influence."

Which seems to mean Wikipedia may be on a snipe hunt with this. Collect (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If the intent or viewpoint of that article is to show what a worthless soldier Manning was, then it does a good job. Including that kind of material is still questionable, BLP-wise. It's an attempt to put Manning on trial inside wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Berean - block Sceptre and consider topic banning. I think DGG's view, although understandable, is overly cautious considering this thread and every subsequent comment or action Sceptre has taken since backing off from the more egregious moving the article and moving it yet again. Beween a block and a topic ban, I would go with a topic ban and only block if he reoffends. I will give Sceptre the benefit of the doubt that there may be articles involving other topics that he can productively contribute to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a little reluctant to get involved here, but I want to explain the problem to Sceptre in simple terms: Until Manning identifies as female publicly (rather than saying conflict, etc.), any assignment of gender other than the previous public identity (male) is synthesis. Also, you're neglecting a possibility: Manning has indicated zhe (I'll be polite to your POV) does not wish to be male, but that in no way guarantees zhe wishes to be female. Zhe may be trying to escape the gender binary. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  She has self-identified as female, although to her counsellor (see the New York source). While there's a debate on said counsellor's ethics, it still doesn't change the fact that it's in a reliable source (otherwise, it wouldn't be used in the article). We don't have a later source where she identifies as male, so by MOS:IDENTITY, we should use the most recent self-identification, which is female. MOS:IDENTITY did not (at the time of the move) require "public" identification, it's required self-identification as reflected in a reliable source: there is a subtle difference between the two. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you still trying to justify your arbitrary 'gender-reorientation' on the basis of this single quote from a private conversation that just happens to have become public, and ignoring all the comments - including your own - to the effect that Manning's 'gender identity' appear to have been 'fluid' at the time, and cannot be taken as definitive statement of Manning's current position on the issue? It looks like it. It also looks to me as if you are intent on making a martyr of yourself to some imaginary cause over this (jealous of Manning perhaps?). Well whoop-de-doo, good for you - now fuck off and troll elsewhere, you moronic little turd. Oh-er, I've said it again! Now go and report it on your facebook page. You are clearly a scumbag, exploiting Manning to push your own bizarre agenda, which seems to have more to do with your own narcissistic desire for attention than any concern for Manning, sexual politics, or anything but your own infantile desires. If Manning wishes to publicly identify as a woman named 'Breanna', we will report the fact. We don't however give a shit about your opinions as to whether he should or not, or whether a particular private conversation can be taken as 'evidence' that he has made such a decision. That is an outright falsification. You are a liar, a troll, and given your repeated exploitation of a vulnerable person to push your narcissistic agenda, a moronic little turd. My initial comment was entirely correct... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Read this - "Feminist, trans advocates should support Bradley Manning", by Rainey Reitman, BMSN Steering Committee. March 1, 2012. (Originally published in the Washington Blade.): [115] "If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". "...he didn’t ask us to start referring to him as Breanna. Advocates for Manning have an obligation to respect his agency and use the pronoun he had preferred prior to his arrest. None of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise". AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gee, Jorgath, why on earth would you want to get him started again? Anyway, I suppose it's just more confirmation that a topic ban is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gender identity is irrelevant and non-notable. This Manning character is charged with espionage, not cross-dressing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, the allegation appears to be bogus. This support website[116] calls him "Bradley" throughout. No "Breanna". Maybe they didn't get the message. OR, maybe the whole "gender identity" thing is a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic issue

• Note: I removed the unproductive thread and personal attacks from Andy's talk page, and advised the parties to seek dispute resolution. Andy restored them (contrary to policy). Both parties need to realize that not only is this unproductive, but that the other party is acting in good faith over the content - however strange their positions may seem to each other. The personal attacks should be removed, the parties go their separate ways or to DR. This type of thing brings the project into disrepute. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Can you please cite the policy which permits you to arbitrarily remove material from user talk pages? I am unaware of any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA - you do not WP:OWN your talk page. And I would think you would realise that re-adding the personal attack is repeating the offence. A comical user name does not exempt you from NPA. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

• (Using some automation)???? — Ched :  ?  20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And WP:NPA entitles you to remove the entire thread, including the comments of others? Actually, I see nothing in WP:NPA that justifies you removing the lot, replacing it with commentary of your own [117], and adding a meaningless edit summary "automation assisted". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Timbo's Rule No. 10 - "Anyone who says 'Wikipedia is not censored' has never paid particularly close attention to the way talk pages are treated by third parties. (Feb. 2012)" Carrite (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• One would think that when under an ArbCom case over his use of automated tools, Rich would use a bit more common sense! Boomerang spinning… —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you to find another thread for the boomerang though? We really don't need this thread to get even more convoluted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump making personal attacks against another user

(moved from bottom, was new thread) AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) very recently made a series of personal attacks against another user here, here, and here. The user was given their second 4im for WP:NPA this week. The user's response was to reiterate their attack. The user was reported to WP:AIV but I was told to take it to ANI. Here it is. --TreyGeek (talk)

Hm. This is one of those cases where Andy flips out and loses it, and will likely get admonished or worse. I wish the underlying issue could be addressed; Andy seems to (once again) be trying to enforce BLP stuff, admittedly in his own peculiar way... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue is really getting users involved in the discussion a bit emotional/involved - a bit of backing of is needed - Youreallycan 05:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that Sceptre has persistently attempted to justify his unilateral 'gender reassignment' of Bradley Manning, against the express wishes of the individual concerned - which he could easily have discovered for himself if he'd bothered to look in the obvious places. [118] As long as Sceptre gets away with this disgusting exploitation of a vulnerable and disturbed individual with no means to respond, I will continue to expose Sceptre as the narcissistic little lying troll he is - and I don't give a fuck whether this gets me blocked or not. I'm less than convinced at this point that he is the 'LGBT/feminist activist' that he claims to be anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Impolite language, but it clearly appears after looking over the discussions previously that this Sceptre editor is pushing a POV. I would say it is more likely to do damage to Bradley Manning's reputation to push the POV that Sceptre is pushing than to help it. Wikipedia should not be in the business of trying to forcibly 'out' people, and this type of attitude is diametrically opposed to the underlying principles of WP:BLP. I realize that this might not be considered outing by some, but it is a very similar situation and I would expect some degree of frustration to build after repeatedly telling Sceptre to acknowledge the spirit of BLP. I would suggest that other editors become involved in the debate in order to de-escalate it, or alternatively, the article could just be locked. With the article locked, the editors could debate this at leisure without someone deciding it is time to unilaterally decide a person's gender for them. The media sources use male, it isn't a BLP violation to use a person's observable or obvious appearance and natural gender, but it is BLP to 'expose' or 'promote' something that the person doesn't appear to be or simply isn't promoting strongly themselves. If a person appeared to be a woman, and was passing, we wouldn't arbitrarily put a 'fact' that she was born a man into a Wikipedia article unless that appeared to be something the individual was comfortable with. In this situation, you have an obviously male individual, who some are pushing, notably Sceptre, to identify as a woman, for whatever personal satisfaction that brings Sceptre. This is already a politically charged and contentious case, and Wikipedia doesn't need to bring additional potentially contentious things into the article unless they are directly relevant, supported by sources, and can pass muster under the WP:BLP policy. Andy, relax, take a breath, but I have to say I applaud you trying to keep the article on a good track. -- Avanu (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Spectre: WP:TROUT @Andy: Please be nice. Are we done here now? Arcandam (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read further and looked into the matter, commenting on where Andy has said, as linked to above, "Sceptre, fuck off and troll elsewhere. blah blah blah" well what do you know, looking at Sceptre's consistent behaviour ignoring community standards, policy, guidelines and assistance from other editors, then I would say, if I may borrow a wordsmiths phrase.... Sceptre, fuck off and troll elsewhere.

So put me down for whatever AndyTheGrump is having, Arcandam has the right approach at the bare minimum, whereas a block for Spectre is indicated, TreyGeek, have you read up on this enough ? Penyulap ☏ 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, if I put my mind to it, I'm sure I could be a really good Troll myself, but I really doubt if I could match Spectre's skill in choosing the very best weakpoints of the community in question, the wider wikipedia community, and still stay under the radar. I take my hat off to him for getting away with it this long.

Generally a simple thing like calling a boy a girl or calling a woman a man is the sort of thing that simply doesn't matter, water off a ducks back. For other people it can be more important to them. In that community, it can reasonably be expected by anyone that people are more sensitive than normal to gender identity considering the lengths that they go to, drugs, surgery, social and family stigma. So if a reasonable person like you, the reader, wanted to troll that community or an individual within it, what could you come up with better than to rename an individuals article from one gender to another ? In this case, rather than think 'oh Fudge what have I done' when it's been brought up by other editors and the mistake corrected, no change in course or intent is apparent. Penyulap ☏ 07:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am removing the archive template from this thread due to concern at the statement that is was by a "self-confessed AndyTheGrump fanboy". To consider this matter resolved, it makes sense for discussion to be closed down by someone who is not a fanboy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose topic ban Sceptre from LGBT articles

It can be reasonably expected by a reasonable editor that some issues like gender identity are a sensitive issue to the Lesbian / Gay / Bisexual / Transsexual community (guessing the acronym here). Spectre seems to lack the sensitivity required for editing these articles without upsetting the wikipedia community, or to learn fast enough to prevent continuing disruption. I propose Sceptre should focus editing on unrelated topics only. Penyulap ☏ 07:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I boldly edited your comment, you accidentally misspelled Sceptre's name. Arcandam (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue, trolling, or both. I support a topic ban on LGBT articles, broadly defined (including all LGBT BLP's). Arcandam (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he should be restricted from editing those articles. After all, they have nothing to do with the Bradley Manning article. The idea of pre-emptive punishment on the off chance he does something wrong is an outrage. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC))

If we wanted to punish we would ask for a block, not for a topic ban. We are asking for a topic ban because Sceptre has demonstrated an inability to understand what is wrong with those edits. If I AGF I think he does not understand what is wrong with those edits (and we do not topic ban him pre-emptively but after he demonstrated he does not understand what is wrong with those edits but is nonetheless willing to make edits like those). If I ABF I think he is trolling. In both cases a topic ban would be helpful. Arcandam (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) to head off further outrage. Penyulap ☏ 08:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's way, way, way over-the-top to topic ban me from all LGBT articles; doing so would prevent me from maintaining an article I spent months getting to featured. The fact is, from a reading of the sources given in the article, as given in the article, I had good faith to move to Breanna Manning. I think the bigger problem is the conduct of the Wikipedia community with regard to transgender people. If you look at Talk:Tom Gabel, you'll see the same kind of arguments being used when talking about a trans woman who in no uncertain terms came out.

Look, I don't make any secrets about the fact I'm LGBT. I'm in the category for LGBT Wikipedians. And one of the first things you learn when you are part of a LGBT community is that you don't have the right to define what a person is or isn't. This goes especially for trans people. You don't get to say that an individual isn't gay enough, or isn't trans enough, even if you're gay or trans yourself. A person's identity is defined through themselves and nothing else. Obviously, being Wikipedia, we need those reliable sources, but between the Lamo chat logs and the New York source, I was confident that Manning had identified as female.

That isn't to say I'm uncomfortable with how the gender identity became known to the public. I would have appreciated it if Manning said it publicly. I'm aware that Manning is okay with being referred to by the name "Bradley", but a) it's not identification as male, and b) it's not in the article. I appreciate the argument in the Reitman piece, but Reitman is not Manning.

As I said, there is a massive problem on Wikipedia with our treatment of transgender people. There seem to be many cisgender editors trying to define the terms of being transgender, which, as I've said, is a massive faux pas. The sort of arguments seen on Talk:Tom Gabel show it's encyclopedia-wide: one editor is arguing (from ignorance rather than spite) that Gabel should be referred to as he as she hasn't started the transition yet, despite a massive Rolling Stone article in which she says that she's a woman. This is a digression of sorts, but it goes back to a central point: I don't get to define anyone's identity other than my own, and neither does anyone else. As I had good faith to believe Manning identified as female, all I did was respect that identification. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the problem with your edits? Can you describe it in your own words? Are you going to continue doing edits like those? Arcandam (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in consideration of being called a "narcissistic little lying troll he is - and I don't give a fuck whether this gets me blocked" on this noticeboard by the AndyTheGrump as typical of the uncivil and disrespectful behaviour that Sceptre has been subject to, this thread is plainly unhelpful and inflammatory. Reminder - does anyone recall Five pillars includes "respect"? Let's see some more of it, at the moment ANI has a severe lack of it as every time I drop in here, it looks more like a blood sport cheered on by the same old nasty dramah queens. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• As other people have pointed out above, more eloquently than I can, Andy was impolite (he is a bit of a grump, remember) but Sceptre's behaviour has been much more damaging to Wikipedia. Pointing out the word "respect" in the five pillars does not help your case because Sceptre's behaviour is not very respectful. You can call me nasty, you can call me a dramah queen, but please don't say I am old. I am not old. Please "respect" me too. Arcandam (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. On this page you can find evidence that I am not a dramah queen. Please read this page and retract your comment.
  • Sorry, indeed I hope you are lithe, smooth skinned, delightfully gym bunny toned and spend the weekends working out as a podium dancer. My used of "old" was more in the sense of old tired and jaded, as most of us become who peer into the dark void of this drama board too often. --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can send you a picture if you want me to. Sorry, I am not a dancer, but I am rather lithe and smooth skinned. Gym bunny toned is a bit too optimistic, but I am quite happy with the way I look. I am experienced, but not old, tired and jaded (yet). If you would read this page you would find evidence that I am not a dramah queen. This is getting a bit offtopic. My point was that the first one to throw the respect-stone was not without sin. Let's give Sceptre the chance to respond to the questions I asked at 10:23. Arcandam (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly Sceptre needs to be banned from the topic of Manning as the views revealed in that area show that no rational behavior is possible (for anyone who hasn't looked: Andy is exploding precisely because Sceptre cannot respond to clear statements that Manning has no publicly expressed gender identity, and because the community will not reign in Sceptre's IDIDNTHEARTHAT circular refrains). The above mention of 5P completely misses the point: we are adults, and respect is not handed out in equal dollops to anyone who can click "edit"—a certain amount of rational and helpful behavior is needed in order to earn respect. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  Since when was a public declaration needed per MOS:IDENTITY? It doesn't, because otherwise we'd be describing Billy Tipton as a woman. All that's needed is that the self-expression is included in a reliable source. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  In fairness to those mentioning the self-declaration argument; for living persons it is well established (see WP:BLPCAT for example) that self-declaration is the marker to use in controversial matters of identity etc. The lack of a firm precedent/policy for transgender issues means that, obviously, we are making this up as we go :) FWIW is Tipton a good example? He was born a woman but no one knew this until his death. So indeed, his public declaration is that he was male... --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this is necessary. I think that Sceptre needs to appreciate the insensitivity of the actions undertaken on the Manning article - particularly preferring to make such a controversial change without prior discussion. Sceptre may need (in the future) restricting from transgender issues; there is a sensible agreement on the Gabel article on how to handle a complex issue, I find the description of it above unfair to the participants there. Sceptre clearly sees these issues in a black/white context - but by definition they are shades of grey. Gender issues are a big pressure point; given the increasing number of people publicly coming out as transgender we should probably discuss a more specific approach to the various issues (i.e. how to deal with someone who transitions part way through their public life, etc.) as we are basically making this up as we go. However, I see no particular indication that Sceptre's actions in general on LGBT articles are problematic, and indeed they appear to be a net benefit. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I hope it is not necessary. Exactly that black/white vision seems to be the problem. If he does not understand the problem with the edits made on the Manning article there is huge risk something similar will happen again in the future. Arcandam (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Insensitivity to whom? With regards to Manning, yes, the circumstances of which the gender dysphoria became public knowledge is somewhat problematic, but Manning also expressed (again, privately) fear that the press would immortalise her as male; Lamo may have even turned the logs over to the press partially because of that. If it's insensitivity to editors, I'd rather annoy a few cisgender editors by doing BOLD actions which I believe comport with our guidelines and policies, than otherwise be in the position of saying a trans person isn't "trans enough". Sceptre ^(talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please answer the following questions: Do you understand the problem with your edits? Can you describe it in your own words? Are you going to continue doing edits like those? I think those are the most important questions at this moment. Arcandam (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry Sceptre, but the issue of Manning's gender preference is undetermined and I feel you misused a lot of the material to decide Manning's explicit and ongoing preference is to be a woman. Your blitz move/editing of the article is highly insensitive and inconsiderate to Manning based on your own viewpoint that Manning should be referred to as a woman. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is overly sweeping and premature, although the page-move at Bradley Manning certainly deserves a painful whacking with the cluebat. The IDIDNTHEARTHAT in subsequent discussions at the talkpage is also troubling but does not rise to disciplinary level, annoying though it may be. My advice to Sceptre is to drop it now. If this drama drags on I'll support a page-ban from the Manning article, I guess, but no more. Moreschi (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre, you invoke MOS:IDENTITY above, stating "All that's needed is that the self-expression is included in a reliable source." I wonder if you even bothered to read the rest of that section? Keep in mind the Manual of Style is a guideline, not a command. The section you quote invokes WP:Verifiability *and* WP:NPOV. Those are both policies. If you care about enforcing a neutral tone in an article, one of the things you look at is context. In the Manning article, the main reason it exists at all in Wikipedia is because of the Wikileaks stuff. While the article does cover some of the gender stuff in detail, it doesn't go out of its way to put that front and center, except for providing some basis for Manning's motivations. For you to singularly take it upon yourself to rename this article and refuse to listen to others' counsel on this, despite a dozen editors trying to explain that this should be handled carefully, shows that you're not trying to recognize the impact of this. You are instead pushing a POV. You have accused Wikipedia editors of simply not caring enough about LGBT issues and so on, and your use of the term 'cisgender' tells me how invested you are in the subject, but you don't give a care to how other people are trying to help. You seem to be more of the ilk that would justify forced 'outing' of people because that's their 'real' identity. Despite an increased level of tolerance for such things, homosexuality and gender identity are not simply things that the average person accepts without at least some internal debate and at most a level of emotionally-charged response. You want to live in a perfect world where these things don't matter, but Wikipedia articles are not here to conform to the world of the future. We have policies in place, like BLP and NPOV that protect people today. The article topic material is contentious enough. You now want to add in another *immediate* bias that will cause quite a few people to question Manning without trying to understand his motivations first. This angle that you propose to make front and center is rarely the focus on news stories on Bradley Manning. If I could conceive of how this change would be beneficial to the overall situation, I'd wholeheartedly support it. But the realistic view is that it does not. -- Avanu (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would not support so broad a topic ban. I would support a ban from the Manning article; I think Sceptre's behaviour has done nothing except inflame the situation dramatically. But an LGBT topic ban is too broad and excessive. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 11:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Fae outlined everything. Topic ban is way overboard.
• Question: Outside of this Manning article; are there any other BLP or LGBT articles in which there's been a problem with Sceptre's editing? — Ched :  ?  12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am removing the archive template from this thread due to concern at the statement that is was by a "self-confessed AndyTheGrump fanboy". To consider this matter resolved, it makes sense for discussion to be closed down by someone who is not a fanboy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 11 May 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 AndyTheGrump continues with 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.

---

(title should have been: Why was the complaint about continued personal attacks from Andy closed within 2 hours by supportive non-admin, while the overal case is still running)

• 05:19, 10 May - [119]
• 05:22, 10 May - [120]
• 05:28, 10 May - [121]
• 05:37, 10 May - [122]

I don't see how a "closure" by User:Arcandam of the discussion (above) can waive this behaviour, whatever the targetted user has done. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears you are wikistalking AndyTheGrump. Note that the above editor account is a dedicated SPA who is only allowed to edit cold fusion related articles with this particular account. Also considering that Andy has recently reported POVbrigand to ANI: [123], this has the appearance of being tit for tat. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So what? AndyTheGrump is clearly failing to meet Five pillars #4 in a persistent and sustained manner than now appears an aggressive series of hostile and disturbing public personal attacks in multiple forums. The minimum action we should be discussing is a six month interaction ban between AndyTheGrump and Sceptre. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All these diffs appear to be from before the above close. They were even used in the original complaint. If no further incidents have occurred since the above close then there doesn't appear to be an issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was mistakenly reading these as from this morning. If the unacceptable behaviour continues after the date and time of the close above, then this should be resurrected in all its visceral unpleasantness. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Passing comment, you people need to grow a pair, just because a guy is rude does not mean run to mummy every time ffs. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so that I understand: 1) is this user's behaviour tolerable ? 2) Is a "closure" by a non-admin on a AN/I normal practise ?

The appearance it gives to me is that as long as you have enough supportive editors around you can get away with rudeness, even if reported on the AN/I. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AN & ANI closures are like knife fights in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid -- there are no rules. Nobody Ent 12:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Darkness Shines Thanks for your drive-by comment. There is a different between being an abusive vulgar prawn, being egged on by blood-thirsty "fans", and crossing the line into direct personal attacks. AndyTheGrump crossed that line some time ago, his behaviour should remain of concern and taken seriously when we receive complaints from those distressed by his actions. We all, right now, have a serious problem with our unwelcoming culture, for example how many new admins do you think we have this year compared to last and why do you think that is? --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As highlighted now below the title, the user made the personal attacks while the "main" AN/I complaint is still running. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that POVbrigand considers it entirely appropriate to make personal attacks on the integrity of respected academics when it suits his cause, based on nothing more than conspiracy theories, I see no reason to consider his opinions worthy of attention. Or are personal attacks ok so long as the person being attacked isn't a Wikipedia contributor? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, an ANI discussion about something which does not concern Cold Fusion appears to be far outside the remit of your dedicated single purpose account. I am unsure why you are getting involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fæ: A reason why fewer of the right kind of editor want to to be an admin is the lack of support that is evident on any noticeboard—even when someone's intuition leads them to rename a BLP article to change the person's gender, there will still be onlookers supporting their team. In a more sensible environment, there would be a brief discussion where the sources and facts were listed, and the matter settled. I don't blame POV pushers for exploiting the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—it is their enablers that take the blame. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand we have perfectly good processes for reaching a consensus. AndyTheGrump seems to prefer making personal attacks rather than applying them. My comments with regard to a blood-sport/fanboy drama hungry mob are indeed the "enablers" you refer to. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fae, a simple question. Do you support Sceptre's attempt to arbitrarily 'reassign' Manning as a female named Breanna, against his own express wishes? I fail to see what 'consensus' has to do with this - Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and we have no right to reach 'decisions' revising the sexual identity of living persons based on anything but public self identification. Frankly, I find it bizarre that anyone from the LGBT community could support attempts to engage in such behaviour. As for 'personal attacks', Sceptre was the first to engage in this, with off-wikipedia comments that "Wikipedia's full of transphobic fucks", followed by further multiple accusations of 'transphobia' and 'bigotry', canvassing for support with misleading postings, all combined with a complete refusal to even consider the possibility that his selective reading of cherry-picked sources reporting private conversations might not be an appropriate way to deal with a sensitive issue. Even when direct evidence was provided that Manning has made clear that at this time, he still identifies as male, Sceptre has tried to argue that his 'reassignment' was correct. So yes, I responded to his personal attacks with some of my own. But who's behaviour do you consider worse? Which one of us is exploiting a clearly troubled and vulnerable individual to score points in regard to his bizarre interpretation of sexual politics? Or do you also think that we should 'determine' gender identity through reports of such private conversations, rather than according to the wishes of the person involved? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AtG's behavior (civility wise) is worse because he should be experienced enough to know retaliating a personal attack with another personal attack causes drama and wiki-churn and doesn't benefit the project. Nobody Ent 12:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And which is worse encyclopaedia-wise? What are we here for anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Question implies a choice that doesn't (or shouldn't) have to be made. Why an individual is here is a personal matter and answers may vary. Humans are capable of change and reason -- you can choose to do good encyclopedia work without the PAs. Wiki conflict is often like drag racing towards the edge of a cliff -- the "winner" isn't the editor who's faster but the one who knows when to stop first. Conflict wise it's more tactically astute to remain ice cold and let the other editor's behavior stand out in contrast to your own. Nobody Ent 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of bans or blocks for AtG are way premature. If there's concern about his long term pattern of editing, initiate Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AndyTheGrump Nobody Ent 12:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, "they started it first" is in no way ever a defence for breaking Five pillars and an argument you expect in a primary school. If you really want Sceptre to be subject to meaningful sanctions use a real dispute resolution process and stick to being civil, without this, you are just another handbag clutching annoying drama monger. Thanks for admitting honestly that you have been indulging yourself by making personal attacks. You have some choices, you can continue making personal attacks and get blocked, you can walk away and ignore Sceptre or you could request a six month interaction ban to give yourself and the rest of us a holiday from reading your vulgar visceral vitriol. Thanks again. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"just another handbag clutching annoying drama monger" does not deescalate the situation and is possibly a PA in itself -- can't really tell as I don't know what "handbag clutching" means. I'm also unable to interpret "Thanks again" as anything but unnecessary snark. Nobody Ent 13:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How odd that you would object to a handbag and yet have far less of a problem with liar or turd. Non-snarky cheers and good afternoon to you. Fæ (talk) 13:23, 11 May 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.

Move being attempted for VPT/R discussion

User:Rd232 has made a few attempts to move the discussions on the new watchlist changes from VPR and VPT to Wikipedia talk:Customizing watchlists. I strongly disagree with shuffling this matter off to such an obscure location and reverted these attempts as unwarranted. I see no compelling reason to move the discussion in the first place. I contacted Rd on his talk page (here) but he seems insistent on reattempting this. I also began a discussion at VPT about the move at WP:VPT#Move this discussion?. Would like some input on how this should be handled. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything has been reverted to the state before I foolishly thought I could help here. Let's have discussions in multiple places, overcrowd VPT and VPR, and who needs a specific help page for this anyway? Rd232 ^talk 09:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making any judgment call as to the new page you created; The discussion is far from fractured, as it's mainly occurring at VPT. VPR is relatively inactive. I don't see any reason to move this to a newly-created page, but my personal feelings aside, let's at least allow such a move to be discussed first. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It does seem out of place and obscure on VPT. I suggest moving the RFC into the WP:RFC space & centralising all the threads there. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's obscure at VPT, plenty of people seem to have known to go there to talk about this change. Nevertheless if a move is warranted, a move by one individual, especially to some obscure newly-created page, seems hasty. If there's consensus to move it somewhere then so be it, though. Just want to make sure that consensus exists first. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, bureaucracy --Errant ^(chat!) 09:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion of such proven interest should be shuffled from the place where most people are likely to try and find it. Questionable technical changes generally end up at VPT. Far from being for bureaucracy's sake, I simply see no reason it should be moved from there, though I'm open to a move if it seems enough other people think it's a good idea. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Equazcion's various comments (especially at VPR) suggest that his response to a pretty straightforward attempt to clean up a discussion mess is based on (i) anger that the configuration change being discussed was done in the first place and (ii) near-hysterical panic that anything less than treating this change as A VERY BIG DEAL WHICH EVERYONE MUST KNOW ABOUT AND COMMENT ON, TO WHICH END IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN AS MANY PLACES AS POSSIBLE (we can now add ANI to VPR and VPT - User talk:Jimbo Wales must be next...) will lead to the downfall of Wikipedia. Incidentally, I created Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists today, and then had it deleted; but there's really no reason why a poor little help page should suffer from this ridiculousness, so maybe someone could undelete it. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, see here, one of the first responses to this matter. Though I think the change was handled poorly, I don't think it's that big a deal. Others seem to though, and I think that should be respected, regardless of your personal stance that they're overdoing it. I came to ANI because I didn't see any other option during your move attempts. You seemed unwilling to put it on hold pending some further opinions other than your own when I contacted you on your talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

PS. I have nothing against your help page, just the move of all discussion there. You requested its deletion, not me. I think you're more irked that your nicely-crafted move was for naught, which I apologize for -- I know how that can be (and it was nicely executed, even if I disagree that it was productive). Nevertheless I think it was in the end a hasty and unwarranted action. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AJona1992's restrictions

I was given restrictions by User:Bwilkins that became effective as of 15 September 2011. It states: These restrictions are on you, the person. Any violations of the above 3 restrictions will lead to an immediate indefinite block. After 6 months you may request a loosening of these restrictions at WP:ANI. These restrictions will be logged for all administrators to view. You will also keep these restrictions on your talkpage for viewing for the duration of the restrictions. It's been well over 6 months and I would like to be given my full user rights back if possible. I have not been too active on Wikipedia since January 2012 and I have not been getting in any trouble since then. So I will let you guys decide weather or not I should be allowed to perform all normal tasks. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• The information on Jona's block and Wilkins' edit requests can be found here. Wilkins' three restrictions are as follows

1. You are limited to 1 account, and only one. This means you cannot edit anonymously either.
2. You may not upload images.
3. You must follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to the letter.

To be frank, 1 and 3 aren't really restrictions per se, he's just expecting Jona to follow the same rules everybody else does. As such, I see no reason why 1 and 3 shouldn't still continue. 2 can be debated, however. pbp 00:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll support lifting restriction #2 and giving a second chance. I understand a bit of growth can happen in that time, and I think AJona1992 has improved quite significantly since those restrictions. --MuZemike 06:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd like to know what image work Ajona thinks they need to do now? The wide swath of copyvios led to that limitation - what's going to be different? Do they understand they can't simply use any old image willynilly because of copyright? When asking for loosening of restrictions, you need to give us a bone - tell us how it will improve the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Rather than a blanket lifting, given the previous copyright issues, I suggest that Ajona seek out an editor, or be directed to one, who is well versed in image uploading and copy right and effectively undergo an upload mentorship. Provided that the mentor is satisfied with AJona's progress for, say, a month then full lifting of that restriction could be revisited by the community. Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Support for Blackmane proposal Best for all involved.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm supportive with Blackmane's proposal. The only uploading I am seeking is Selena-related articles as I am currently working with another user on one of her singles' article. I know how to place the non-free template for an artwork that is copyrighted. But will be willing to undergo mentorship of any kind. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Prequel

I have been repeatedly accused of lying by Barsoomian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Talk:Prequel as you can see here and here, though I would encourage you do read the section Talk:Prequel#Shirey. He and John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who came in from Dispute Resolution wanted to list numerous films as prequels which most of us at WT:FILM agreed were not prequels, as you can see here and at Talk:Prequel. Instead of seeing the consensus and resolving the dispute, JJB took Barsoomian's position and advocated for him, drawing it out further and further in multiple sections on the Talk:Prequel page, then on half a dozen other pages, the last of which involved Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel. But as much as I have a problem with how they overrode the initial consensus (people dropped out after stating their position, not wanting to endlessly debate this) by bringing in refs from writers making imprecise, even sloppy use of the word prequel, that is not why I'm here now. I expect Barsoomian will want to go over all sorts of side issues, but I'm here to focus on one thing: The sequence of events I laid out on the Talk page is accurate. He may disagree on how to interpret those events or what their intention was, but that does not justify false, irresponsible and WP:UNCIVIL charges. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know that this will have much use. It appears Gothicfilm wants some affirmation that Barsoomian was incivil. In informal DRN-initiated pseudo-mediation, I was unable to convince Gothicfilm that both editors had merely misunderstood each other and there was no evidence of deliberate incivility. If Gothicfilm can lay out the desired outcome it would help. JJB 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Having reviewed the diffs I realize I didn't see everything. Barsoomian said he "omitted" the refs in edit summary, meaning omitted them from the table but not from the text. Gothicfilm said Barsoomian thus did not "omit" them, and Barsoomian called this a lie twice. Therefore the difference in interpretation is everything here and it appears Barsoomian has spoken a little heatedly while this difference in POV has not yet been appreciated. I also observed that Barsoomian's objection to Gothicfilm's statement was very similar, almost parallel, except that Gothicfilm made a slightly heated statement in two edit summaries. Cooling down applies, as I've already told both editors. JJB 21:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Here is the remaining relevant discussion. JJB 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What are the normal consequences for this? I made it clear to Barsoomian what he was doing was WP:UNCIVIL, and he continued anyway as you can see here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The normal consequences are we laugh at the parallelism and cool down. But I'm taking a brief wikibreak and will let others chime in. JJB 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that JJB is not a neutral observer. He knows I have issues with how he came in from Dispute Resolution and drew the dispute out instead of recognizing the existing consensus. He became Barsoomian's advocate, and helped him bring in dubious sources and refs. I see in the Editor section above other editors have issues with him as well. I want others to intervene. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Third opinions aren't required to agree with you when you ask for them, you know. They aren't echo chambers. They are real human beings who form their own opinions. That's the point. If someone didn't "respect the existing consensus", which all too often I find translates to "agree with me, as I wanted and expected", that is not in itself any problem with them. (I once asked DGG for a third opinion. I didn't start complaining about "issues" when he came to the discussion as requested and completely disagreed with me. He thought about the point at hand and then gave his honest opinion, as asked.) Trying to piggyback off some other completely unrelated discussion where the third opinion that you didn't find agreeing with you is in disagreement with some other people is also not indicative of a problem with the third opinion.
      As for the level of debate on the article talk page: I suggest that you listen hard for that boomerang whooshing your way, because while you're being told that you're lying about diffs, you're equally busy telling other people that they spout "garbage". Don't try to play the civility card to win an argument, especially an argument where you've descended, entirely of your own volition and doing, from discussing what verifiable facts to put in the article and how to explain them to discussing what edit summary meant what. Get back on track, instead. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to get you to intervene in any argument or give a third opinion. I did not ask for that. I was responding to Barsoomian's false charges. I want them to stop. It doesn't look to me like you read much of the discussion - for which I don't blame you. It goes up and down the page way beyond where it should have ended. But you're assuming things that aren't true. There was consensus, on two different pages, as you can see here at WT:FILM and at Talk:Prequel. But then people didn't want to keep repeating themselves to dispute the "new" approaches Barsoomian and JJB kept bringing in, going against the clear consensus. Only Barsoomian and then JJB wanted to list these additional films as prequels. And I was not equally busy telling other people that they spout "garbage" - only a saint would not have responded with something like that to his endless circular arguments, growing incivility, repeated evasions and refusal to answer valid points. I don't want to repost it all here. The main issue now is I made it clear to Barsoomian what he was doing was WP:UNCIVIL, and he continued anyway as you can see here. There is no equivalent behavior to that from me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being on too many pages at once, I have again asked Barsoomian to cool down, among other parallel things. B is offline right now, so for now the objective of the incident being stopped has been achieved. Yes, it's true that Uncle G added the word "spout" to your twice-used word "garbage"; that's called a characterization, people do it often, and that's why it wasn't in quotes. It is important not to argue the gnat ("spout") and get trod by the camel ("garbage"). 'Nuff said. JJB 03:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I've been charged here, I will respond in brief, and I hope, "coolly". Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• You'll notice how Gothicfilm immediately segues from the supposed "incident" of incivility to rehashing a content dispute he didn't get his way in. His edit comments are often similar, adding comments and disparaging remarks on subjects unrelated to the actual edit. I tried to raise the problem I had with this on his Talk page: here but he just repeated his attacks and then deleted the section. So the argument continued at Talk:Prequel#Shirey. The issue is explained there. I think this comment I made summarises it:

  Your comment was "Despite Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later.)" This 1) implies that it is a "bad source"; that is your opinion only, though as usual you ascribe it to someone else. The opinion at RSN never said that. 2) You imply that I was lying about removing said "bad source". The Shirey ref was removed as a listing citation. That was the context of the opinion we asked for at RSN. I followed through exactly as I said. Now you're repeating this libellous, uncivil and deeply stupid assertion that I lied. Barsoomian (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

He continued insisting that I had lied about omitting the sources in question, because I hadn't also deleted them from another part of the article, where some of the same sources were cited in a different context, in text I had not had a part in creating. (I only edited that to repair orphaned references after I deleted the full refs in the list.) The opinion sought at WP:RSN had not considered these unchallenged other uses, only the ones in the list part of the article. Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! So (heavy-handed sales close) the incivility is over. We all agree on the current text and we can work out any improvements over there. At my house we like to say sarcastically, "Problem solved! I'm a genius."

More to the point, B's analysis is pretty accurate, no edgier than conditions warrant; albeit it doesn't explicitly admit that "omit" could have had a different impression on Gothic, and thus I infer B might not yet want to admit the possibility that Gothic could have been acting in better faith than B originally believed. That's fine. I do apologize for bringing up the word "libel" offhand to Barsoomian, who echoed it in the above quote, as it seemed to me to be the only appropriate cause by which edit-summary oversight was possible; that was probably a mistake on my part. JJB 04:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, while at the beginning, yes, Gothicfilm could simply have had a "different impression" of "omit", after it was brought to his attention, on his Talk page, on the Prequel Talk page, and now here, he has no excuse to persist in this accusation that I misrepresented my edit. Edit summaries are more persistent and obvious than Talk page comments, to add slights like this to the permanent record of an article's history is very unpleasant, and I feel, uncivil.Barsoomian (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, my opinion at RSN was *solely* provided on the basis of Shirey being used in reference to the specific "prequel" question that was asked. I offered no opinion on Shirey's RS-ness overall, or in any other aspect. If there are other issues that Shirey may be contentious as a source for, I would be happy to give my opinion on those as well, if you submit those questions to the RSN board. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your professionalism here and at RSN. JJB 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive behavior by IP socks of Garnerted

I've had enough of these IPs, and hope others can review the situation. I need to disengage from this user, as they refuse to accept any of my statements - twisting my comments, misrepresenting my actions, etc.

Note: While I was typing this, they created a new username at Superchargedone (talk · contribs). Their two prior named accounts have been indefinitely blocked by other admins, and several of their IPs had been blocked by an assortment of admins (some of the IPs were blocked by me, which is likely related to their calling me out - as a result of which I became involved with attempts at discussion which have been less than productive).

The most recent interactions have been at Talk:World Tomorrow#Name. Despite multiple requests to keep the discussion on the topic of the article, they instead repeatedly attack me and anyone else who they feel opposes them, claiming they are up against some giant sock cabal of assorted other editors and admins (although only two of us have been called out by him, the rest referenced as "et al").

The issue boils down to a dispute between two broadcast programs using near identical names: The World Tomorrow (1934) and World Tomorrow. All edits have been to articles related to these two programs. Past actions have included:

• Garner Ted Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit warring over the insertion of an image (which was a cell phone photo of a copyrighted photo, which they ignored repeated advice to review WP:COPYVIO for guidance on establishing their ownership).
• The World Tomorrow (1934) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - they had a dispute over if the show was in continued production. My only edits to that article have been to clarify that it was in fact in production, but their most recent posts to User talk:Barek#The World Tomorrow Television and Radio Broadcast have been to claim that I was "reluctant to concede" that fact. At
• The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - they have edit warred over both the mention of the other program, as well as the sequence in which the programs are listed. My only edits there have been to revert their blanking and to apply page protection (done prior to my getting involved with discussions with them).
• World Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - they have edit warred over unsourced claims - when they finally did provide a source to demonstrate part of their claims (that the program uses an alternate title in the USA), others and myself were quick to use that source to update the article to state that fact. The talk page on this one then degrades rapidly from that point.

related discussions

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs
• Talk:World Tomorrow#Name
• User talk:Barek#The World Tomorrow Television and Radio Broadcast
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Garnerted

Can others please look into this? At the least, can a few others add the involved pages to their watchlist? When I started typing this, I was going to ask if some range blocks would be appropriate; but they have claimed with their most recent user account that they are done with Wikipedia. However, after I responded they returned again with an uncivil post to my talk page [124], which I reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: User has been appropriately notified of this ANI discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This morning, I noticed on my watchlist that there was some activity on The World Tomorrow (1934), this time related to images which have been removed by others twice now (once by an admin, and then again by CommonsDelinker) due to copyvio issues - so they are remaining active and still running into the same issues as before. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The accusations and demands for immediate compliance with Superchargedone/Garnerted's desires are getting in their way of any meaningful discussions or logical arguments that they might otherwise make. Too much emotion and not enough professional decorum. At the present, he's shooting himself in the foot. Superchargedone needs to calm down and back off the combative attitude. What was that about flies, honey & vinegar?
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from dialogue on my talk page and User talk:Superchargedone, this user just doesn't "get" Wikipedia. He seems to think that we are some corporate entity which are demanding that their business/program is not "legitimate" or something to that effect. I have tried, to no avail, to point the user to the proper channels if they want to officially release the copyrighted photos, but either they don't understand or they don't care. The posts on my wall are especially flummoxing. I don't know how to proceed; blocking seems harsh, as they seem legitimately confused rather than disruptive, but I've often said that competence is a requirement on Wikipedia. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review for User:NinaHj

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 would like someone to review the indefinite block of User:NinaHj (contribs). She has written a long blog entry in Norwegian titled «When conspiracy theorists are allowed to edit an online encyclopedia» about her experience with trying to correct the bias on the document.no article. The title is based on edits by User:Meco, who's blocked on Norwegian Wikipedia for repeatedly adding conspiracy theory material. From the entry, it's my understanding that she acted in good faith, but did some mistakes from not knowing how Wikipedia works.

For instance she tried to remove the {{Islamophobia}} sidebar from the document.no article (where it clearly doesn't belong), but she did it the wrong way – by blanking the template. So she did a technical mistake, and when reverted, she did it again. Mistake, but people should be given some chances to try and fail, shouldn't they?

Then she did a few other edits to document.no. It's clear that she has a COI here, but her editing appears sober to me (and I'm actually critical to the given website), merely aligning the article to the article on Norwegian Wikipedia. – Danmichaelo (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

She's blocked for legal threats and vandalism. She's never even asked for an unblock. Posting in a blog the way she did probably reduced her chances. There's no need to review unless she actually comes on Wikipedia, follows WP:NLT and WP:GAB and requests one herself. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the user has not (yet) understood how to apply for an unblock, but why should that matter? I also see absolutely no reason why posting her experiences with editing Wikipeda in a blog entry should "reduce her chances"? With regards to "legal threats", I don't really get it how this can result in an indefinite block. As an admin on Norwegian Wikipedia, I know I would never have blocked anyone for something like that. At most I would have given a warning, together with a reference to the given policy. Newbies can't be expected to follow all kind of policies from the very beginning, can they? – Danmichaelo (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Newbie editors are still editors. What an experienced editor would get an indef block for, a newbie should also get a block for. It's straight forward how to request an unblock, and the editor in question would just have to read the block notice for instructions how. If there is no signs of wanting to return, why go ahead with the unblock? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 11:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"but will not stand for untrue allegations by an unkown [sic] person - we will take the matter further" Considering the earlier discussions of police and lawyers, this is pretty unequivocal. Legal threats is a bright line policy. Although I typically am lenient due to assuming ignorance of the rules, we cannot with legal threats. Blocks are indeed cheap, but unblocks are even cheaper. Remember that "indefinite" is not "infinite"; it means until the community is convinced it won't recur. WP:NLT expands on that: it cannot be removed until the legal threats are retracted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I would have no problem with unblocking her given that she requested an unblock and removed the legal threat on her talk page. However, I would make sure she's aware of the COI policy and is willing to discuss, not blank, the Islamophobia template before doing so. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:19, 11 May 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 talk:99.132.67.105

The user: 99.132.67.105 (talk) is continually disrupting the Witch house (music genre) page with biased criticisms that have nothing to do with the definition of the genre. He has a long history of disruptive editing. Here is his talk page.

needless copy

"October 2011 Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from We're New Here. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Lindisfarne / Unluck, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC) December 2011 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Djent. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acabashi (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Axe to Fall Please discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Talk:Axe to Fall. Message added 18:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Witch House Okay, all of your quotes are coming from blogs, Pitchfork is a blog, what are you doing? You post something biased over and over and apparently (see comments above) have a continual problem with that. If you're from the genre and have an axe to grind message me there. Everyone in the genre knows I'm about preservation of the genre and not bias.If you want to have a real discussion and have nothing to hide then set up a proper user name and don't post from an ip. If you change it again I'll just go to an admin over it and he'll decide. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)"

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance and guidance on the matter. Baku Shad-do (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the copy of the talk page--it's needless and confusing. All those warnings are old anyway, and you, Baku Shad-do, have no right to unblank that talk page. Moreover, Pitchfork Media is probably more reliable than you think, and to conclude from a company website that this odd genre has entered some mainstream is original research based on a non-reliable source. BTW, that article is a mess in both versions; the version you restored reads at least partly like an essay. Finally, you are just as guilty of edit-warring as the IP is. I'm leaving warnings for both of you. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Registered editor with blocked IP requests unblock

Please see User talk:200.55.135.211, specifically [125]. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not very clever, that's the caveat. I've unchecked the "block account creation" box, which should fix the problem. But let's keep an eye on it: there is a suspicion of socking, it's been used for vandalism before (Materialscientist blocks judiciously), and "ichlugner" means "me, liar". Drmies (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting and semi-automated edits

I would appreciate some assistance here. User:Alan Liefting has started recategorizing animal rights articles without discussion. He is removing articles from one to another, creating a new cat, removing pages from existing cats, and adding others. He's using AWB and Hotcat.

I've asked him to stop and explain (see discussion here), as some of the distinctions he is making make no sense to me. They might make sense if he would explain, but he won't. One red flag is that he said there is a "subtle" difference between animal rights and animal welfare groups. But there is a significant difference between these groups. Therefore, if he continues, there's a chance he will start categorizing groups together inappropriately, and because of the speed of his edits, undoing them would cause a significant amount of work.

Alan says he plans to continue without discussion. I have seen similar complaints about his category work before. Can anything be done about it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've also asked him to stop and explain here. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have two main concerns. First, there is a big difference between animal welfare (AW) and animal rights (AR) advocacy, which Alan indicates he doesn't recognize. The distinction has narrowed over the last 10 years, and will continue to narrow in my opinion, but in the view of some groups and individuals it's still a stark distinction. BLP kicks in because people don't like to be labelled incorrectly -- I've had several emails from AW people over the years asking to be removed from an AR category or template.

Secondly, the AR movement consists of established organizations (e.g. the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), as well as amorphous groupings set up for one specific campaign (e.g. SHAC), and then leaderless resistance movements (e.g. the Animal Liberation Front), which are not "groups" in any meaningful sense. To avoid confusion, I created an Animal rights movement category, so that editors not familiar with the differences don't have to worry about them. Alan wants to split this category into "organizations" on the one hand, and something else (he won't say what) on the other.

I'm not totally resistant to change, but I'd like to make sure that whoever carries it out knows something about the movement, so they can spot the pitfalls, and that requires discussion before making the changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please credit me with at least a little intelligence in being able to distinguish between an organisation and something else. You will note that I am only moving the organisations to the category that I created. And I said nothing about creating any other category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You categorized Safe Humane Chicago as an AR group though there's no indication that they are, and their use of the word "humane" suggests they're an animal welfare group. You categorized the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as an AR group, which they're not; they have AR sympathies, but several of the senior members don't see themselves as AR, and AR is not their primary focus. Then there are the rallying cries sometimes used by one section of the AR movement – such as Oxford Arson Squad and Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade. These aren't organizations in any meaningful sense, but you've moved them into that cat. Those are just a few examples of the problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

• Safe Humane Chicago - animal rights org according to infobox
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - they promote animal rights but not via activism. What the leaders of the group say is not relevant. What are they looking from the outside in an neutral, unbiased manner?
• Oxford Arson Squad defined as an organisation in the article
• Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade - self described as leaderless resistance but is quite clearly an organisation

You appear to want to have a narrowly defined definition of what should be called an animal rights organisation and to me it seems overly narrow. I sorry to make accusations SlimVirgin but this does smack of WP:OWNERSHIP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to make editorial decisions according to what infoboxes or unsourced additions to articles say, or to impose your own idea of what an AR group is, or what a leaderless resistance is. For example, the word "humane" in a title almost always signals animal welfare, not rights. I have yet to see an exception to that; if this group is such an exception, we would need a source.

Making mass changes without being familiar with the background, and failing to stop when someone who is familiar with it points out problems, just makes no sense. It's not a question of OWN, but of not wanting to get things wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the mass changes you talk about the edits I did to avoid a template redirect, and setting the collapsible option, and then setting most of the article to the collapsed option because the template was too big? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You say "It's not a good idea to make editorial decisions according to what infoboxes or unsourced additions". This is clutching at straws. If I cannot carry out the simple task of reassigning a category after reading an article then either the article is at fault, I have made a mistake, or you do not agree. If I you do not agree with four of the edits it is an editorial issue not worthy of an ANI. Like you, I also don't want to get thinks wrong. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I find this all very ridiculous and very frustrating. I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of mu edits to SlimVirgin. I did not say that I plan to continue without discussion. And, I am yet to be told why my edits are contentious. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"I have made an attempt to explain the rationale of my edits to SlimVirgin". I read what you wrote on your talk page, and it was not clear to me. Perhaps you could be more specific? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoeSperrazza and Slim Virgin, I read the talk page and did not see any clear rationale for what you're doing. I have, at this time, no opinion about your actions one way or the other, but that's partly because you really haven't explained yourself adequately and, specifically, you have not answered Slim Virgin's reasonable questions. You should address those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Communication should be better, yes. I understand that it might make sense that there be a category on organizations (and the response to that would be a terse 'why not') but there are questions of scope that need to be hashed out and editors must discuss those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But I did communicate. Am I dealing with a bunch of thicko's or am I not making myself clear? Don't answer that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is above such mere trifles as policy and consensus. This issue arises regularly and his behaviour is an infallibly unperturbed as we might expect from such an Olympian presence. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A mere opinion Andy, and given you grumpy attitude towards me I give it no credence to it. ("Olympian presence"? Huh?) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Also of concern is this - tagging an article with 3 sources as 'BLPPROD'. GiantSnowman 11:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of editors make that mistake, as long as he doesn't keep repeating it, then there shouldn't be a problem. More worrying is AfD nominations like this. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)What is wrong with it? he-he.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Editors turning up at the AfD should easily be able to make a judgement on the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)"Ah! But it did not have references! It only had external links." crowed Alan triumphantly. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that such pointy nominations (and proddings) are rather common--I'm not going to give a full list, but see his talk p. and edit history. (in this case I think his point here was that the reason for deletion was so obvious it didn't need to mbe mentioned (lack of third party sources). That he failed to consider merging or redirection is typical. There are two possible solutions: one is dealing with his contempt for reasonable procedure, and the other is altering deletion policy to require the use of WP:BEFORE, both with respect to a reasonable search and explicit consideration of other options. We could figure out how to deal with him specifically, but I think it would be much better to deal with the general problem. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The general problem I think you are referring to is new page creation? Using WP:BEFORE to try and keep the crap out of WP is not going to work. We have been forever tweaking policy to keep crap edits under control BUT IT IS NOT WORKING. It is pathetic that WP is flooded with crap new pages. I want to build WP yet seem to waste a lot of my valuable editing time at new page patrol. The inherent conservative nature of Wikipedians and the bureaucratic behemoth that the project has become (but I am not opposed to some degree of bureaucracy) is not conducive to policy change. So we are stuck with the problem. Maybe that is why I have become POINTy with my edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If its not working then we need to consider why it isn't working and what factors if any are exacerbating it. May I suggest that you look again at that AFD nomination and ask yourself, how clearly did that explain our standards to the creator of that article? The problem with a deletion nomination that would only be obvious to Wikipedians is that to a non-wikipedian it could comes across as unprofessional, or even malicious. ϢereSpielChequers 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah! Go on you lot! Kick me over a little levity on an AFD and bending the rules (rules? what rules?) on a PROD in order to incrementally up the quality of WP. But ignore my other 10s of 1000s of edits!! I need some wikilove or a barnstar or milk and cookies or a cup or tea. Naarh. Piss off. Just kidding! And that's another thing. All that cloying budding up with new editors who do a crap job is pathetic. We need to encourage good new editors not only old new editors! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

certainly we ought to encourage good new editors; we also agree about the need to discourage the hopeless; where we apparently disagree is in the possibility, or at least the likelihood, of teaching those who at first are less than satisfactory. I don't want this to become personal between us--we share about 90% of the same goals. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here. And you have been very tactful with the 10% on which we disagree. I try not to judge people on initial face value in the real world but in the wikiworld it is real easy to judge if a new editor is worth grooming. I have encourage a few over the years but more often than not I just want to tell them to piss off. I don't think I could be an administrator. I would be listed here every day! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I'd like to see this discussion result in your agreement to respect process just a little more, especially when it comes to mass changes. We're left with a bit of a mess now at the AR cats where (it seems) you won't discuss how to move forward in a way that makes sense, so I may have to undo the category moves you've made so far to restore consistency, which is work I could do without. (I'm assuming, perhaps unfairly, that you won't undo them yourself.)

People have expressed concern about this before on your talk page, e.g. here and here. The key issues are that you make mass changes (ones that you must know might be contentious) without prior discussion, and when asked to stop won't. So I hope you'll agree not to do those things anymore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course there will be disagreements with my edits. I have done quite a lot of them. Sometimes I come across an area that is closely guarded from outsiders, or there has been a fractious past discussion, and I am hounded until I leave. I stumble across them because the categories are way out of line with convention and/or policy (they don't alway match). Also, I respect process most of the time but if process stops me from improving WP I ignore it. There is policy on the somewhere. And which animal rights edits do you want me to revert? I did almost a couple of hundred of them. Calling the result of my edits is a mess is only your opinion at this stage. We have yet to get someone else to corroborate that opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You assume correctly that I will not undo my edits because I think I am right in this case (note - "in this case"). Arrogant I know, but to me the edits are quite clearly an improvement. I want to finish what I started. I don't want it sitting there half finished. Also, how is the "we" that you type about? Is the the royal we? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And as I stated on my take page I did stop when you contacted me. I had to to answer my talk page msgs for one!. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You've created mistakes and inconsistencies because you've labelled some animal welfare articles as animal rights, and now some groups are in "organizations," and some in "movements," and others that are only ephemeral rallying cries are in groups (the latter is like calling "BE BOLD" a Wikipedia group).

Alan, this is what I mean. I had to ask you the same thing several times on your talk page, and you kept giving non-answer replies. I've made the same point here about the difference between AR and AW, and groups and rallying cries, more than once already. But still you respond as though I haven't explained. This is the repeated complaint people have of your approach, going back months, namely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This can be annoying when it comes to normal article edits, but it's disruptive when it comes to mass changes that are harder to undo. So that's what really needs to end. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to disagree, but you have to acknowledge and try to accommodate (or at least address) people's objections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To respond to your point above that you stopped when asked, that's not correct. I asked you to stop at 00:39 7 May, you replied to that post at 00:58 7 May, and at 01:10 7 May, you continued with your changes, [126] then started editing the category pages to reflect those changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, as I have already pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_for_using_AWB. I am tiring of this which is why I gave a short-form reply and why I won't bother with the rest of the nit-picking. As my parting shot, unless my editing capabilities are going to being questioned again, and since you are making a serious effort to discredit me, I will say this: it is all about WP:OWNERSHIP isn't it? I did maybe a couple of hundred edits in your patch and you did not like it. All you have managed to do of substance out of all of those is wrongly query a few categorisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a score here umpire? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an "umpire", but I'll try to offer a suggestion. I write this not looking at anything to do with the dispute itself. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Alan, this would normally merely be an issue of "the second mover conundrum". A response to which might be to try to get one or more WP:3PO, to hope for a resolution. (For example, something potentially possible here at WP:AN/I.) However, the way you are acting, and your responses in this thread, would seem to me to be alienating those who might step up and look at the situation, and potentially support your assertions.

I've been there. You feel you know and understand the "way things should be done", and someone else comes along with a different interpretation of how they think things should be done.

Something important for any Wikipedian to learn is the duality of how WP:BOLD actually meshes with WP:CON. And how self assertion of "what is right" only goes so far.

Not everyone fully understands this, and what makes it more challenging for some is that it's constantly evolving on Wikipedia.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that at this point, I suggest that if you still feel that your position is correct, and you don't feel that you are going to come to a consensus with SV, then start an RfC of some kind. Express your views and see how the rest of the community feels about it.

But continuing to "shout to the sky" is obviously not getting you anywhere, and is probably not the successful action that you may be hoping it to be.

I hope this helps. - jc37 04:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Yep. Yep. I consider myself to be BOLD on occasion but I am not reckless. I understand consensus but only seek it if is potentially contentious. I have just come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights, SlimVirgins' little fiefdom, and I am not impressed. I was a mess! Granted, how she/he manages the WikiProject is of a lesser concern than the actual content side of WP but it may not bode well for his/her other edits. I am now under the impression that this ANI is a mean of getting me to stay away from animal right related articles. I don't like making these assumptions about other editors motivations but I have been pushed TOO far in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of WP:NOTTHEM and bordering on personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have read the reasons given by Slim and by Alan. Slimvirgin seems to be an editor knowledgeable of the field who has been working on the articles for a long while, while Alan is simply using his personal idea of what an organization is. I suggest Alan to stop changing these categories and to move to a different set of articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And, Alan, please, members of the local wikiprojects have been reading the sources and writing the articles. They are bound to know better than you how the article should be categorized. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge on a topic does not necessarily translate into a knowledge on what is the best way to categorise articles to serve the Reader. I had come across a lot of improvements that were needed relating to the animal rights WikiProject. Admittedly, some were just minor administrative changes, but it also showed a lack of knowledge by SlimVirgin about WP policy/guidelines/conventions. And if I am incapable of the simple task of categorising articles relating to organisations then I should not be anywhere near Wikipedia. Do you want me to leave now? But I would really like to stay... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I too have found that categorization seems to be a special province of Wikipedia, where there is a considerable amount of OWNership from a few regulars; when I participate in a discussion there, I am sometimes made to feel less than welcome, for suggesting a change in the settled way they do things. But I disagree with Alan that categorization is always a simple matter: categories are inter-related, and it is of surprising difficulty keeping them consistent. When I first came here 5 years ago, since I as a librarian have some training and experience in the general process of classification, I thought I might be able to make some contribution there, but I soon learned I was not wanted. So for many years I avoided the process, figuring that I indeed might be as a newcomer not realizing everything that might be involved -- and I found quite enough other things to do here. But all processes at Wikipedia -- and elsewhere -- can benefit from occasional look-ins by the non-specialists. Indeed, that's the whole basis underlying WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To some extent this is true of the Animal rights wikproject also. SV has a definite opinion on the overall subject, and it is very different from my general opinion--neither of us have a NPOV in Real life here. I don't think either of us should be trying to coordinate the project. Not looking for unnecessary quarrels, I've kept away except when there's an incidental overlap with one of my primary WP interests. I regret it was necessary. (I also would say just the same of a number of other areas here--I mention this one only because it has been brought up already.) DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On-going disruptive edits by sockpuppet of user Ana Sušac

For those that follow China-related articles, recently there has been a spate of vandalism that resembles some sort of 'hero worship' to former Chinese president Li Xiannian. The user goes around and inserts random passages praising Li or otherwise inflating his importance, on each and every article of with which Li has even a cursory relationship. It is becoming a serious nuisance because the user continues to resurface in different reincarnations, using different accounts and IP addresses. Perhaps he is just a kid. But whatever the case some sort of serious warning is due. Some of the recent offending IP addresses are: 95.156.174.188 (talk · contribs), 95.156.169.34 (talk · contribs), previously socks of this user are believed to have included Koroknait (talk · contribs), Ana Sušac (talk · contribs), etc. Anyway, the sock investigations can be seen here. Colipon+(Talk) 17:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They fell off my radar for a bit. Thanks for keeping an eye out. These are without a doubt User:Ana Sušac, who is known to operate from this range. I don't think any warning is due, as all the blocks they received should be enough warning. Can an admin please once again block the IP range? They are very disruptive and there is really nothing salvageable in their edits.--Atlan (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This user is now back as 95.156.166.84 (talk · contribs). Colipon+(Talk) 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

Might want to keep an eye on and possibly protect this page. He recently fell ill at a conference and there are rumors circulating that he died. I just reverted to cases of vandalism to the page about this. WTF? (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Requests for page protection is that away. I've already requested the standard 72 hour semi-protect for BLP death rumors. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The semiprotection is not needed, and I think the "death" edit was someone playing a prank (I didn't notice any actual death rumors). According to the FSF, Stallman was treated in a hospital and discharged from it.[127] 66.127.55.46 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

block needed for BLP vandal

I didn't take this to AIV because there were no warnings. However This edit [128] by this user OmicronSquadLeader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requires a block even absent of warnings. Will notify user promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours (previously clean block log, or would have been for longer.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a note for Kim, but to expand, after the block a second account, Scientivore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinstuted the same edit. I'm not sure if it was coincidence, sleeper socks, or what may be the most likely, that someone has gotten multiple comprimised accounts under their control.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the second one as well. It's odd, both accounts have no previous edits like this in their histories and they don't have much in common except that they have made reltively few edits. The first one has been mainly lego and Dr Who articles, the second a wider range (but this was the first edit in over a year...) I'll be AFK for a while soon, so if others could keep an eye out that would be good. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The two accounts are unrelated, and I can't see anything that suggests OmicronSquadLeader is compromised. Perhaps he just really detests Mitt Romney. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Emery/Weiner School

There are repeated instances of vandalism going on with The Emery/Weiner School's wikipedia entry. And User:Darry2385 keeps reverting my corrections to the page back to the vandalized versions. I don't understand how to use usertalk, but I need to know how to get this editing person to stop reverting the page back to vandalism. If there is a way to revert the page back to long before the vandalism began, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.53.58 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The changes are not vandalism. For one thing, your changes were written in the first person and thus in improper tone, so the reverts were correct. I suggest discussing the situation at Talk:The Emery/Weiner School. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

…Though there was some earlier vandalism embedded in the page. I've rolled all the way back to 24 April to clear it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of process deletion and creation protection by User:JzG

I knew this was going to have to come here. I knew full well when I asked for the articles to be reinstated, he was going to refuse. But, hey, had to take the chance. And now we're here.

User:JzG has deleted two articles, L'CHAIM Vodka and Shemspeed, under CSD G11. He also then creation protected the articles so that no one could recreate them, which is entirely out of process, as there was no creation spamming or the threat to do so. Furthermore, both L'CHAIM and Shemspeed are clearly notable topics and both of the articles prior to deletion had such secondary sources in them. L'CHAIM could definitely have used some writing fixing, but it's about a product, which is difficult to get sounding perfectly neutral. But it was no way so non-neutral that it should have been deleted under G11 and Shemspeed didn't sound POV at all, it was a fine article.

I ask that this noticeboard please review this out of process deletion and creation protection (salting) of these two articles and I request that both articles be reinstated. Silverseren^C 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review....after you show me where you then followed the correct process by going to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you allowed to do a REFUND on an article purposefully deleted by an admin and creation protected? I didn't think of DRV though. But that wouldn't be the proper place to discuss the improper actions taken here. Silverseren^C 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that needed if G11 is misapplied? G11 specifically states An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. The deletion comment Advertorial written by self-admitted paid editor seems to be the reason. But does that make it a G11? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as an "improper action" needing immediate action by an admin. Take it to DRV and if consensus is to overturn the deletion, an admin can unsalt the articles then. Before that decision is made, it's a bit premature to take other actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

You don't think it's improper for an admin to delete and salt two articles because they dislike that the creator is a paid editor? Silverseren^C 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The deleting admin felt they were spam. Normally, that's what we do to spam. The issue is whether or not the rest of the community agrees it was spam. That's what DRV is for. If it's found they were not spam, then it becomes actionable. Until then, it's a bit premature to jump to ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood, i've started the DRVs. Silverseren^C 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to read this or this for a fuller understanding of this issue. Note also that L'CHAIM vodka co-sponsored a festival mounted by Shemspeed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The connections between the two have nothing to do with their notability or the state of the article prior to deletion. Silverseren^C 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRV is down the hall, third door on the right. Determining whether a speedy deletion is out of process is squarely within DRV's jurisdiction. T. Canens (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

DRVs started. Silverseren^C 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Related issue

For reasons which aren't clear to me, the three images that were used on L'CHAIM vodka have not been deleted with the article. They have been marked as CC-by-SA, but appear to be non-free content. There is an OTRS ticket, but OTRS volunteers tend to be very gullible non-critical when it comes to claims of ownership. One of these images (File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg) was copied over to Commons (commons:File:LCHAIM Matisyahu.jpg). although I believe that non-free content is no allowed on Commons. Taking the image which is obviously an ad, an editor has cropped it down to File:Matisyahu in shades.jpg and it is now being used in Matisyahu. Convoluted enough for you? Can someone take a close look at these images and decide which license is appropriate and if they should be on Commons or not? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the OTRS ticket, and I am dramatically unconvinced that the person who sent the email has any authority to give permissions related to this image. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't follow. Since he's a paid editor, the images he got would have been directly from his clients, so the permissions should be fine. Silverseren^C 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that the client (and the models, and the advertising agent, and the photographer, etc.) are all in on making their logo and advert available under GFDL and CC? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Who sent the OTRS ticket then? And, yes, I would expect Bernie44 to do so, since he's properly followed all of the other article making rules, via neutrality and referencing. Silverseren^C 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Being paid to create an article and being permitted to alter the copyright on an image are entirely separate issues. This is actually one of the most common problems with tickets sent to the permissions queue: a random employee of a company has absolutely zero legal control over that company's intellectual property unless such control is officially granted by the actual copyright owner. Many OTRS volunteers don't know this, and even fewer paid editors do. As for who sent the email, I do not wish to say due to the OTRS privacy policy. But I can say that I do not believe the person who sent it has the authority. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(after e/c) I'll second what Someguy said, since he said it better than I was going to say it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44 might not have known that actually or thought that someone with the ability to release it had done so, since he probably just asked his client (more specifically, the person in the client's company that was working with him) to go about getting the permissions released for the image and Bernie44 just gave them the directions to do so. I'm sure with some clarification though, Bernie44 will be able to get the proper permissions. Actually, i'm going to go notify him about this discussion, since it actually involved him directly now. I should have notified him about the DRVs anyways, I forgot about that, oops. Silverseren^C 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If he does come here, there is something else he should know about the permissions. We need an actual contact from the copyright owner directly, ideally from an email address we can be confident is the copyright-holder. An attached digital letter that could have theoretically been written by anyone doesn't cut it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bernie44 here. Permission to upload the L'Chaim images was given to me by L'Chaim's owner, not a "random employee" of the company. I was under the impression that the image's owner had the authority to place it into the creative commons. I wasn't aware it was necessary for the image's owner to send the email granting permission to do so, but now I know. I didn't intend to violate any of the rules regarding the creative commons. If an email from L'Chaim's owner is the next step in the process, please let me know. Thank you. --Bernie44 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the next step. I'd like you to know that I never thought you were breaking the rules, rather that you didn't know them. We have these rules in place because people actually do show up handing us copyright content, claiming to have the authority, and even pretending to be the owner of a company! Ideally, you can have L'Chaim's owner see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was brought to the OTRS Noticeboard before it was transferred to Commons. Permissions should probably be verified for the newspaper covers that Bernie44 uploaded to Commons as well. [129][130] Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernie44, I would be surprised if the company wants to change the license on these. If the intention is to use them in an article about L'CHAIM vodka, then I believe all that is needed is for them to be properly identified as non-free media. One is probably enough, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I agree that one image is enough. I will look into identifying the images as non-free media, and using just one on the page. Someguy1221, thank you for your response. So I'll either identify the images as non-free media or have the owner send an email as you suggest. Gobōnobo ^{+ c}, I already went through a long process/discussion after the first newspaper image I uploaded in February 2011. I located the discussions - they are here and here. I don't feel this warrants further discussion, but let me know if you think it does. --Bernie44 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the requests concerning the newspaper images were not handled by someone more competent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first step is waiting for the close of the Deletion Review discussions. If the articles are restored, as seems very likely at this time, then there might be a reason to discuss whether JzG is unduly prejudiced against paid editors to the extent of not following normal deletion policy. (I'm not entirely sure I would blame him in this case as much as I usually would, considering the publicity about this particular editor off-wiki). Most admins learn from an overturn at Del Rev, and that handles the problem--encouraging them to learn is part of the purpose of that process. When the admin continues on the same wrong-headed course that was opposed by clear consensus, then it may be worth going further. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Considering Jzg has continued to threaten to redirect the Diwon article even if the AfD closes as Keep, I assume that he has yet to understand what he's doing wrong. Silverseren^C 00:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of this comment by Jzg, please, for the lazy? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Richard Daft

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_proposal_for_editor_Richard_Daft

 – Nobody Ent 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff Delete

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.

---

Can an administrator please delete this diff? it's a bit crude and I see no good reason for it to stay visible. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:02, 11 May 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.

Greg L

DuLithgow (talk · contribs) apparently proposed an article started by Greg L (talk · contribs) for deletion. Greg responded to the nomination with rather severe personal attacks at his user talk. Greg has already been warned by Arbcom about his incivility at Wikipedia:ARBDATE#Greg_L_has_been_incivil and has been blocked for incivility and other disruption in the past. Since I've been involved with him in the past, I've brought the matter here for other administrators to handle, if they see the need for action. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support relatively short civility block. 48-72 hours. Unless there is some evidence that he is just having a bad day or something, in which case I'd AGF and give him a warning. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

His response to the ANI notification said it all. He'll be able to enjoy his weekend Wikipedia-free (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Talk:Cobalt_(CAD_program)#Multiple_issues (and elsewhere on the talk) contains a notability discussion, and DuLithgow has been involved in many prior skirmishs on this page. I'm hardly a fan of GregL, but I have to agree that DuLithgow WP:PRODing the article looks like a very bad faith action to take. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad-faith nominations still don't deserve the harsh personal attacks left on the talk page. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but blatantly baiting people should be blockable just like personal attacks. Both are unacceptable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I was too quick to WP:PROD as I was just tired of covering the same ground with GregL and being abused for pointing out that there is a problem with sources and/or notability on that article. The personal attack simply serves to strengthen my opinion that GregL in this instance is more interesting in defending his position than improving the state of the article to the level I'm requesting. Although I try to keep abreast of many products on the CAD market (one reason why I try to maintain List of computer-aided design editors) I can't be expected to find good references for him. As can be seen from the tag which is on the page now the problems go back a few years. Good to know that people keep an eye on this kind of thing. I apologise for reacting out of frustration. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gah. Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone with OTRS access please sort this out for me

Willys (on wheels)

Someone is keeping a source hidden with a copyvio template until someone with OTRS sorts it out, and I understand OTRS can take a month! The email I used is eggWILLYcentricWILLYwikiWILLY@gmailWILLY.com (without any WILLYs) and I sent it to permissions-WILLYcommonsWILLY@wikimediaWILLY.org (similar situation with the WILLYs) - which was arguably the wrong address to send it to, but it is an OTRS email. Info at s:Talk:Statement_of_Eric_Rudolph - because someone is inisiting on keeping it copyvio'd until some OTRS lady or gent verifies this case, I think this is more urgent than the usual case (most cases of course are accessibly until someone with OTRS verifies things) so please, please, please someone un-copyvio it, t'will be mere minutes of your time

Thanks in advance! Egg Centric 22:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Check your email. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied to permissionsWILLY@wikimedia.WILLYorg Egg Centric 23:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And responded again to your reply to that. (Bet this is keeping lurkers on the edges of their seats!) Egg Centric 00:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is "stop playing with your willy" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Willies everywhere. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I made another reply ya'know. Willy-tastic! Egg Centric 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

... on wheels.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WoW! Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Did Willy remember to pay his Bill? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

British Virgin Islands national football team's Current Squad section tampered

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 here to report that one of the sections of the British Virgin Islands national football team has been tampered by a number of unknown users I have yet to acknowledge, and I am unable to make any reverts because the tampered section somehow remained. It would be helpful if anyone would assist me on restoring the Current Squad section back in its current state and find the user responsible for tampering with the sections by adding fake date of births. JMBZ-12 (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem appears to stem from articles for the players.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Strike own mistake. Just appears to be a few little mistakes in copying info from the players' articles to the team's article and vice versa. If there are issues with the articles for these living people, possibly best to go the Biographies of living persons noticeboard to start with. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I will do so. Thank you. JMBZ-12 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 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.

Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky

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:Beyond My Ken is making a small but obviousy misplaced change to Reach for the Sky. He reacts to my reversal (including an explanation) with active attempts to prevent a discussion by repeatedly erasing the pertinent section on the talk page. Please make him join the discussion. Thanks. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox just protected the page. Neither of you had any productive effect — the comment does not change anything. It's simply a request not to erase a nearby space. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The nearby space is what the non-discussion is about. There shouldn't be a space.

BTW: Do you think an IP wouldn't have gotten away with the shit Beyond pulled? Not only avoiding the discussion, but actively disrupting it? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Nyytend: User:79.223.4.134 and User:91.10.47.34 (clearly the same editor) are very probably socks of banned user Otto4711. I presented the evidence that got Otto's latest sock account - User:Iridescentlavender - indef blocked, and this seems like some puerile backlash. (Otto's well-known for harrassing those who file SPIs against him -- just look at his behavior toward User:Lihaas.) The IPs are clearly WikiVeterans, not newbies -- they hit the ground running -- but the behavioral evidence is not yet sufficient to compare against Otto's many blocked socks: although editing articles about TV shows is one of his focuses. Filing an SPI would be silly, not only because the evidence is thin, but CUs generally won't connect an IP to a named account (although why not when it comes to long-banned sockmeisters I don't really understand).

In any event, I see no reason to discuss anything with probable socks, especially when they want to discuss a general issue on an article talk page, and especially when they post a demanding comment title and tell me to "Go", as if I was a recalcitrant servant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic, Otto's plan went like this: 1. Remove a comment from an article. 2. Hope that you will be around to re-add it. Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

I'm nobody's sock, my provider switches IPs from time to time. You should not violate AGF quite this blatantly. (I'm also not a newbie, but never claimed I was.)

I started running when it was obivous that you don't want to discuss the matter, and even deleted the discussion for others. Imagine that would have happened to you: What would your reaction be? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, you sound very much like Iridescentlavender when he was protesting his innocence. As for AGF, well, I have a pretty good nose for socks, and a good track record when I report them -- not perfect, by any means, but good enough that I've learned I can trust my instincts. When that happens and my SockSense is buzzing, my ability to AGF is quite limited. As a colleague of Carl Sagan once remarked, having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.

What "Otto's plan" was, I haven't the foggiest idea. I find it almost impossible to understand the motivations of a person who will come back to edit Wikipedia time and time again after it's been made quite clear that his inability to edit collegially makes him unwanted here, and who returns with the full knowledge that he will erventually be found out and shut down. A reasonable and mature person would find another outlet for their energies - but that does not describe Otto4711. I really can't grok him at all -- but fortunately I don't have to understand his behavior in order to recognize it.

Regarding the demanding comments on the article talk page: article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Wikipedia-related discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, they are not intended for general discussions about the topic or off-topic discussions, including general Wikipedia-related discussions". This is a very reasonable statement, and seems well grounded in policy. Perhaps the IP user can open a discussion on a policy page to discuss article consistency in formatting, and this section of ANI and the talk section could be closed? JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point out which policy page that would be. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given WP:COMMENT, I think a new section on WT:MOS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware ofWP:COMMENT, and since it supports my position, I see no reason to open up a discussion there. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it supports your position (which is that no comment should be included), as it states "They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors. Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode.". That's why a discussion may be warranted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." (my emphasis) --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See my response to this point on the article's talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What, a new one, I thought I was Otto?

Anyway, put up or shut up. Next time you accuse me of socking without evidence, I'm reporting you for making personal attacks.

The discussion is about the article. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a discussion about the article would be a content dispute, which would be inappropirate for AN/I, which deals with behavioral problems -- presumably why you brought me here. The thing is, when you file an AN/I report, the behavior of all parties becomes the scope of the discussion, including you, the filing party (or "OP"). This is why my thoughts about your probable sockiness are appropriate. It's quite often the case that an AN/I filing will bounce back and bite the OP; we even have a page about it: see WP:BOOMARANG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So I could legitimately accuse you of threatening me with a lawyer, with no evidence whatsoever? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in the page with or without the comment line. Why is the IP edit-warring over something so monumentally trivial? And how does he get away with calling it "vandalism" when it clearly is no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

AGF much? Why don't you ask the same question about Beyond My Ken?

It's vandalism because he was damaging the article, without even an edit comment. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

His change is invisible to the reader, therefore it does not damage the article. And your insistence otherwise demonstrates bad faith on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed it.

The main isssue (and the reason this was blown out of proportion) is his disruptive "discussion" style and his personal attacks against me. That's why we are here. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I really think it got "blown out of proportion" because you chose to come here with it, in the attempt to force me to discuss something in an inapproriate forum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I came here. You left me no choice by actively preventing any discussion about it. What else was I supposed to do?

What do you think would have happened if you picked up the discussion on /Talk, only to point out that the forum was wrong? Maybe even pointing out the right place? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ECx3) Call it a personal policy: just as the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists, I don't do discussions with socks, once I'm sure enough that they're socks -- this current discussion being a rare exception. (BTW, Bugs, the IP's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me.) Incidentally, I was EC'd in trying to say that the discussion was clearly going to continue to chase its tail, so I don't plan to participate further. Any editor -- apart from the OP -- who wants more input from me, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll dip my toe in again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. "BTW, Bugs, Beyond's willingness to fight over a trivial thing only really makes sense when you posit that the purpose is to annoy me." Now what? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That little blurb is not visible unless you go into edit mode specificaly looking for it. It makes no difference in the way the article displays in "read mode". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A small spacing difference in read mode has been reported, which is the point being made by the IP. However, I believe the difference is not materiel, and thus not worthy of dispute. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sheesh! All this over adding a nice bit of white space at the arse end of an article??? BTW, I liberally add those spacings to articles. Makes the page look nicer. Just remembered that there is some sort of footer template enclusure template. Might try and get a top spacing put on that. I am not holding my breath. Hard enough to do the the dab template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit I cannot discern a good faith reason for this huge dispute over something that is not an issue. This ANI section should be closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I want back the 15 minutes that I wasted reading this. I ECed with Errant, who basically said the same thing I was trying to close it with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'd feel better if you blocked the IP, as he's now continuing his ridiculous edit war on this incredibly minor matter, in other articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to stir shit up, but the change was supposed to have a visible difference: This diff shows the effect he was intending. The two extra newlines got stripped out, which BMK evidently didn't notice, and so the two versions that were being edit-warred over were functionally the same. The fact that he neither of the editors even looked to see if their reversions were even affecting (much less improving) the article is really the final, capping lunacy to this whole thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP-hopper is deliberately reverting BMK now, in other articles, further demonstrating bad faith. I'm guessing he hasn't been blocked yet simply because the admins are enjoying the ping-pong match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting Beyond's reverts of my edits which are implementing WP:MOS. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I chucked the IP a 24hr block for continuing to edit war over trivialities (on another article). At least I think I did... some parts of the interface say he is blocked, but it threw up a wierd error when I blocked him, and it is not showing in the logs :S --Errant ^(chat!) 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have worked, just is not logged :S Anyway - we immediately have an unblock request. Someone else can handle it from here, I need my bed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Handled. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 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.

Additional discussion about BMK's behavior

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 was pointed out to me that closing the chapter on the disruptive IP also shut down conversation regarding BMK's conduct. That was not my intent. I am opening this subthread (as the closer) to facilitate the requested discussion on BMK without rendering any opinion on the matter. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent to this re-opening, it appears that BMK understands that his behavior could use improvement, based upon the acceptance of the awarded Oncorhynchus. I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I must say that this issue arose because a probable sock deliberately chose something that would rile him up. With that I entirely empathize with him as someone who socks have targeted for years. When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK. Socks are unwanted. The sock was going to find any issue to engage him on.

That said above, I doubt this "I suspect acknowledgement of the need for better behavior is all that is needed". The addition of his < ! spacing > hidden comments and other style issues, and edit warring to keep them, has been going on for his entire wiki career over three accounts. His previous accounts have a block log for it. He has his own peculiar style that he puts on articles that goes against the project approved MOS, and he justifies edit warring with WP:IAR. He's been asked, and refuses, to discuss his style differences with editors on the MOS talk pages. The MOS must take into account more than just typical desktop usage, and as pointed out to him, some of those style differences he implements are actually destructive to users not using a desktop browser. He continues to ignore that his style doesn't benefit the project and creates a bad experience for some readers.

This issue was raised, and asked for justification by others besides the IP sock. It shouldn't just be ignored because of the obvious issue of being provoked by a sock. This is a cooperative project and his attitude when confronted on non-standard style is... pompous. This does need correction. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

RfC/U, maybe? Unless this is garnering support for some sort of necessary preventative block, to protect the project from harm, of course. Doc talk 06:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The only real harm is the minor annoyance of having to manually verify every one of BMK's edits to ensure he hasn't snuck any whitespace in. I agree that in theory RFC/U is the right approach here if only to get a record of this somewhere less ephemeral than ANI or in some old talk archive (under a different user name in some cases). The difficulty is convincing someone to waste an entire afternoon of his life writing said RFC/U. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me clarify something: You said " When I know I'm dealing with a sock, I throw AGF and rules against edit warring out the window and so should BMK" That is very bad advice. Many a time have I seen someone reporting socks get blocked because of their behavior during the Checkuser process. If you think someone is a sock, got to SPI, report it, avoid them. 3RR against a sock will still get you blocked for edit warring if their edits are not clearly vandalism or major BLP violations. And there always exists the chance that you are wrong, in which case, you have acted in bad faith and edit warred against a non-sock, likely biting a new user. A claim of "sock" doesn't exempt you from the guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the above. I agree with all of it.

I believe it was me who requested the reopening of the thread because I was not able to comment before the thread was closed. I asked User:Toddst1 here for advice to proceed and I thank him for reopening the thread.

Basically, what happened I believe on Reach for the Sky was that User:Beyond My Ken inserted whitespace here, was removed here by User:91.10.47.34, was readded by User:Beyond My Ken here and removed again here by User:Bzuk. On the talk page of the article in question, there is consensus that white space is unnecessary, and aforementioned undos of the article indicate the nonstandard of User:Beyond My Ken's formatting.

User:Beyond My Ken continues to add white space to the articles. Obviously this is against consensus because User:Beyond My Ken has been told not to do this and because he is the only person who does this; In this same thread I explained the guideline where it whitespace should not be used and suggested if he wanted to change the guideline that he can propose to do so at its talk page. I hoped he stopped adding whitespace but it is obvious he is oppositional and does not and uses WP:IAR to continue the formatting. And it seems this is the only guideline that he does not want to follow. The rationale behind NOT using his "white space formatting" is that it is excessive.

Here, User:Beyond My Ken files a Sockpuppetry Investigation because multiple unrelated editors have told him to stop inserting idiosyncratic formatting. On the Sockpuppetry Investigation, an independent editor User:Viriditas says: "Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits.".

Regarding RFC/U, I can file it, but I would appreciate some help and pointers as it will be my RFC/U and I am not sure the work that is involved.Curb Chain (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, the SPI was closed by the clerk as " The three accounts appear Unrelated at this point. There are similarities, yes, but no smoking gun. ", with no comment as the content dispute. The observations of a single editor regarding a dispute in content in the middle of an SPI isn't something I normally consider as demonstrating a consensus, so not really relevant here. This edit by Ken [131] seems to indicate that he gets the point, and this was after his last edit on the page. Granted, the page is fully protected now, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt since he has admitted some error. At this stage while the article is fully protected, there is still nothing for us to do at ANI, however, and I am not inclined to unprotect it. What I DO suggest, is that everyone, especially Ken, go to the talk page of the article and make the consensus clear. And do so in a neutral, fair and polite manner. It could start as simple as "I think $x because of $y". This is missing, and is always the first step in dispute resolution. Until that happens, I see no point in taking any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also added a friendly reminder on his talk page, which should suffice and get the point across. If not, then he has no one but himself to blame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper trouted me on my talk page regarding my edits on Reach for the Sky with the comment:

"Edit warring is one thing, stupidly lame edit warring is another, but stupidly lame edit warring where you're not even using the right revision to revert to? C'mon now."

He was correct, my actions were distictly sub-optimal, which is why I accepted the trout. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any other issue, which I have no plans to discuss here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to go ahead with your white space editing?Curb Chain (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given his complete dismissal of the complaints against him based on the rationale that every editor who has complained is part of a tiny minority of malcontents, and that he recently edited the MoS with a seemingly-innocuous "clarification" to the introduction of whitespace of articles with the purpose of allowing him to lawyer away because his introduction of whitespace is not "inadvertent", I'd say that's a given. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BMK's changes make no visible difference in the articles. There's no reason to do it, and there's also no reason to remove it. It looks the same either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Someone gave me a better example. It's still not worth edit-warring over. If it's detrimental to iPhone users, or whatever, then it should be stopped.

Besides which, a single white space works just as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary white space. I don't think so. In the example of mobile phone users, it can be a lot of useless scrolling and a lot of useless space that doesn't help the reader. Adding an extra line is not helpful, so unless there is a functional reason to have it in, I don't think this is necessary.Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, a single white space doesn't cause "a lot of useless space". No need to to get drawn out over something so minor. Moreover, a lot of his edits REDUCED the amount of space currently wasted. Let it go. Buffs (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We are simply asking him to stop doing it. As demonstrated by your comment, the white space may be minor, but still nonstandard. And regularly removed.

WP:COMMENT: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."

Wikipedia:BODY#Headings and sections: "multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article"

MOS:HEAD: "Only two or more consecutive blank lines will add more white space in the public appearance of the page."

WP:WHITE (summary: don't add whitespace)

WP:MOS#Formatting issues - blank space ... is for the style sheet.

{{-}} documentation says don't use it to add whitespace.

Help:Hidden text - don't use hidden text to create whitespace.Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of non-standard spacing throughout wikipedia. Obsessing over this minor trivia does nothing to improve wikipedia for the readers, who are generally interested in article content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in both the look and the content of an article. As such, keeping things similar sounds reasonable.Curb Chain (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you had best stop hassling specific editors, and start plowing through every article from A to Z and fix this horrible problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope I can do that without having the same problem made and reverted.Curb Chain (talk) 17:00, 11 May 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.

why is wikipedia blue, ugly, and foul at the moment?

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 see a poor horrific looking blue style sheet all over. Who broke what? 76.121.23.59 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a bug in the latest version of Google Chrome that shows a blue background if the browser zoom level is set below 100%. Reset the zoom to 100% with Ctrl+0 or adjust it with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+-. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Articles have big blue stars next to them, strange things are bolded...what's going on? --Blake Burba (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop using Google Chrome. I can't remember what caused it, but the latest version of MediaWiki isn't Chrome-friendly. If you go to the help desk, people will be able to point you to a more detailed explanation. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Within Chrome, you can also use the IETab extension, and configure it to use the IE engine to render wikipedia.org instead of Chrome's engine. Note: Chrome is rendering fine for me, at this point. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Users at WP:VPT are currently abusing MediaWiki_talk:Common.css in an attempt to circumvent discussing proposed changes to visual design adequately with the community. Fun css edit wars. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I saw the thread title and was going to answer "What do you mean, it's like that all the time", but then I realized I hadn't noticed the word "blue". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, "blue" is an old-fashioned term for "vulgar or obscene", so your premise still works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm using Safari, both iOS version and Mac version and I'm having the same problem. Its not Chrome.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It is actually a huge mess of a badly implimented user interface change. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Watchlist - bold letter article titles.21. Roger (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Chrome and everything looks fine, except the new bolding and for awhile hideous green stars. Heiro 00:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article names on watch list are bold-face until you go to the article. That's how it already works on Commons. Dunno if that's what they were intending, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I only saw one instance that had the "stars" shown before the article names. That was on my iPhone about an hour and a half ago. Other than that, its only the BIG BLUE BOLD that I have seen since.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm on Chrome and I saw the watchlist bolding, but other than that no problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• It appears by now that we need an administrator to step in and deal with the problem of failure to abide by consensus around this user-interface change. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I actually agree with this. And can someone stop the Helpful Pixie bot that's on a rampage and lighting up a horribly colored page to a nausea inducing point. Please? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• The original poster is an IP and unregistered users don't have watchlists. The IP's description sounds like the Google Chrome bug with blue background (screenshot) when browser zoom level is below 100% in the default Vector skin. See bugzilla:34551 and http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113711. Most of the above replies are about an unrelated issue with the appearance of watchlists for registered users. This issue is discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Watchlist - bold letter article titles.21. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 11 May 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.

Administrator action required against WP:VPT editors over failure to adhere to consensus

Resolved

 – default bolding has reverted while the community is discussing this

As mentioned, and seconded above. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What action is needed? Looking at your earlier comment regarding MediaWiki_talk:Common.css, the only user I see posting there, at the time of the comment, was you? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPT and other related pages today have had a large storm of user complaint against a MediaWiki implementation change. Nobody has clearly taken responsibility for this change which has inflicted a major User Interface change against the interests of a preponderance of users. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No witchhunt admin action is needed as what was seemingly consensus was followed. An early post to the VPT thread points to the discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_83#Enable_.22Show_changes_since_last_visit.22_on_watchlist. The change has been reverted after more input was given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The "stars" change was reverted. The bolding is still in effect (I had modified my common.css file to remove it). Whatever the case, discussion is currently taking place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? Holding forth 19 support votes in a limited domain from December, in a topic heading not describing key UI changes and, refusing to revert this with a snow grade community level of outrage. How is this not a conduct issue? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Who do you want blocked? And for what reason? What pages do you want deleted? And for what reason? What pages do you want protected? And for what reason? If you can't answer these basic questions, this is not an admin issue. Just name names, and explain why the admin tools need to be used, and we'll make some judgements. If you don't have a specific, well-justified reason for an admin to use their tools, it isn't an administrator issue and the problem needs to be solved in another forum. --Jayron32 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur; no admin action is needed here. MediaWiki folk might well need to pay better attention to avoid failures to communicate, but that's not something to be blocked, protected, or to get anything more than a healthy-sized {{trout}}. I'm still befuddled by the MediaWiki_talk:Common.css thing though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

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 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[132] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have previously tried simply reverting his irrelevant tendentious comments about other editors (namely, me) from user Talk. He restores them, and then complains even more. This behaviour was also mentioned at the previous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an "anti-JW" editor. I'm a "non-JW" editor; I don't consider their beliefs any more irrational than the beliefs of other religions. Aside from that, he did lie. When I said that no one had tried to have him banned, that was in fact the case. 3 days later, I did conditionally agree with a suggestion by another editor that if AuthorityTam is unable to modify his behaviour, a topic ban may be in order. AuthorityTam selectively quoted part of that statement, ignoring the order of events, to make it appear that I was 'trying to have him banned' and that I had previously lied about it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Within half an hour of AuthorityTam resuming editing (after an absence that coincided with the ANI while closer attention might be paid to his editing behaviour), he returned to the same petty retributive (and dishonest) behaviour as before. He's clearly not interested in 'playing nicely', and he simply ignored input from other editors at the previous ANI who confirmed that his behaviour is inappropriate.

It is not the case that only three editors complained in the previous ANI. Several editors agreed there are problems with AuthorityTam's behaviour, and an independent editor made several suggestions.

It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Other editors suggested that a topic ban may be in order, and I agree that may be suitable if he is otherwise unable to acknowledge his inappropriate behaviour and cease it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Jeffro77 notified me]As I have mentioned previously I couldn't still find what is so wrong with AuthorityTam's editing, other than shouting and crying for crucify him. In fact when I compared some edit history of all these three involved editors, ironically I found that AuthorityTam never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. So it seems to me that the main problem here is a long time discomfort towards AuthorityTam by the other two editors, because he have won/Wikipedia have won many of the debates involving the other two editors in those related talk pages. Also whenever these other editors express their discomfort in talk pages, AuthorityTam gives evidence of their own same mistake by posting back talk pages and then goes own silent. This may screw up the other two editors but in fact it gives the point that the accusing editors should try to improve first before accusing other. As some other editor suggested we need to shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd be interested to see the diffs of the supposedly "harsh/debasing words" Fazilfazil (a pro-JW editor defending another pro-JW editor) is accusing me of. There is no particular 'discomfort' about AuthorityTam 'winning debates' about article content; no track record is kept of how many 'debates' AuthorityTam has 'won', but even if his views are accepted more frequently than those of others (though I'm not aware that's the case), it has nothing to do with the complaints raised here. I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs (this factor of bias is in fact the determining criteria for AuthorityTam's expressions of contempt). (Even at the previous ANI AuthorityTam again presented his specious 'evidence' [a claim based on an ambiguous edit from 7 years ago] that I'm a former member though he's been explicitly told I have no status with the organisation.) It is not the case that AuthorityTam merely defends himself at Talk rather than starting problems, such as he did with his oblique disingenuous claim that BlackCab's removal of content that violated WP:FORUM was in some way 'interesting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to waste the time with digging out those words, I have posted some in the previous discussion. First of all although you frequently claim that you are not a former JWs, your style of editing appears to be those typical among self-claiming former Witnesses. Not only me, many other editors have expressed this implication. For one reason, it is very difficult for a common person to understand the deep teachings of JWs unless he have studied the basic Bible teachings with them. So my intuition is that you mostly use Watchtower library (for others sake: which contains all JWs publications in digital format) and come up either as a support to user:BlackCab's interpretations or being silent when he have an irrelevant point. It is not typical among an atheist to be only attacking on a particular religion. Since you and BlackCab are the frequent opposers towards AuthorityTam (in many cases I can see his arguments finally proves to be correct) it is of no wonder that he show other editors about former witness bias. Another thing is sometime you take silly things and explicitly claim that other editor lied (I believe even once towards me though I ignored it) but they might was never intended a lie. I don't want to involve in this discussion much since I feel its a waste of time and irritating. I would advice you to calm down and raise this issue if AuthorityTam showed obvious incivility towards you with a specific clear evidence. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I have relatives in the religion and am closely familiar with it. However, I do not owe any editor any such explanation. The claim that I simply try to support BlackCab is ridiculous because I've edited Wikipedia for several years longer than him. I have already provided evidence of AuthorityTam's improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Fazilfazil reply, who seems also quite frustrated, I would like to encourage both of you to assume good faith WP:AGF. I expressed my viewpoint of the situation on AuthorityTam' Talk page. User_talk:AuthorityTam#You.27re_maybe_not_aware_of..._.2B. However, Jeffro77 immediately started to reply on my personal message to AT, which I felt unwelcome. AuthorityTam do not answer so far on my post, although I assume that he perhaps read it. Originally, I wanted only notice him about some pages and summarize my viewpoint on the subject. But when Jeffro77 arrived, I tried to serve there as mediator and suggested solution. Jeffro77 felt the situation otherwise. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't apply when the editor has all but proclaimed that they are working in bad faith with a certain section of the Wikipedia community. Although, as I point out, my own interactions with AT have been nothing but cordial (in fact, receiving support from him) because I (1) don't work often in the area, and (2) haven't proposed anything that pissed him off or that got me on his "shit list", so to speak, based on the previous AN/I, he won't respond until this AN/I is over and has blown over, and he'll be back up to antagonizing Jeff and BlackCab (aka LtSally!) and this case will be back to AN/I (as, during the last AN/I, he ceased editing according to the same pattern). I have a spidey-sense that this will eventually be attempted to be escalated to arbitration. Fazil: stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. This is not about winning debates or scoring points or editors' possible former religious affiliations or "WP:TRUTH", it is about building an encyclopedia. I find it incredibly hard to WP:AGF when faced with a series of posts that so clearly demonstrate the battleground mentality.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom: I don't know AuthorityTam much as we met rarely. In most situations I felt it similar like you. His conduct is focused on content and he is cordial. I do not expect it, but if he would like to persistently continue with this non-responding and later attacking style, some temporary restriction of editing 'Talk pages' could be reasonable. But this resumed ANI is not the case. Single edit is not adequate for any action. Thus the ANI should be terminate. // Fazilfazil: I would like to see more co-operation within JWs articles. Hence continuous speculations if User:Jeffro77 is apostasy or not are not useful at all. He specifically wrote here “I never formally identified as a JW”, which I believe to be the exceptional truth. This express is common for those who leaved from the congregation during Bible Study with Witnesses or meanwhile in state of being Unbaptised publisher. That is similar if he raised in JW family and not identified himself with it. In every case that is not important. Some editors may decide practice shunning on Jeffro and BlackCab (like AuthorityTam' 3rd person comments), but generally "division" of editors to pro-JW group and ex-JW or anti-JW group (such division of editors is invention by the two mentioned above and cause unpleasant contact amongst articles' editors). Hence I suppose that another talking on this matter is not useful. Here is the irony that BlackCab since his start on Wikipedia openly said so and never hide it. I respect him more for that. I also believe that both of them are sincere with their motives on editing Wikipedia. It is said that BlackCab at least tried to solve common issues which I raised, while Jeffro often simply dismiss all as irrelevant. However, despite of that, it is unlikely that they edit this topic if they want to be evil only. So some mutual agreement is hardly to do, but it is 'must have'. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim that AuthorityTam's "conduct is focused on content and he is cordial." If that were the case, this ANI or the last one would not have been raised. Specific statements made by AuthorityTam at article Talk about other editors have already been cited at this and the last ANI, and it is that behaviour that I explicitly requested that he cease.

I have never summarily dismissed any specific editor's comments as irrelevant merely on the basis of who made them. Where there is any ambiguity, I have always provided a reason why something is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

* Comment {Jeffro77 notified me} After reviewing the edit in question, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so appalling in the edit that it brings us here to yet another ANI. My only conclusion is that this must be some feeble attempt at character assassination or some ill advised smear campaign. Unless I am looking at the wrong edit, I find nothing offensive in AT's edit at all and do in fact find this ANI to be the more offensive occurrence. Here is the edit I think is being addressed, please let me know if I have the wrong one: :::"The article currently states, "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature." None of the cited references explicitly supports the claim that JWs are "cautioned against reading other religious literature", rather, the references show a "caution" against reading "books like this one" and "religious literature that promotes lies". I've edited the sentence to: "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications.". --AuthorityTam (talk)3:33 am, 29 April 2012, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)" I am completely at a loss for finding anything offensive in that edit, so, exactly why are we here if not just for the purpose of stirring the pot? Willietell (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having found the edit in question, I see only an editor defending himself against an accusation of being a liar. Perhaps if the editor who raised the ANI doesn't wish for such evidence to be presented, them he should AGF and cease calling other editors dishonest, thus eliminating the need for a response that he may find offensive. In short, Play Nice, because your own offensive words(calling other editors a liar) may come back to haunt you when they present evidence to the contrary. Willietell (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He was not 'defending himself against an accusation of being a liar'; the misleading selective quote itself constituted a lie, with no regard to the actual order of events or my actual conditional statement. I see no reason why I should put up with that, particularly when the statement was appended to 'discussion' that had ostensibly ended weeks ago. The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs. As noted by JohnChrysostom above, AuthorityTam's response so far has simply been to 'lay low' during and shortly after the ANI process, and then return to the previous behaviour; he did this at the last ANI, and also did the same thing a couple of years ago when an admin instructed him to strike false statements about me at several AfDs (which he failed to do).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Obviously, as User:Quinn1 post here, “this is no closer to a resolution than when it started.” and “but you guys are just going in circles here”. Is there anyone, (nonJWtopics' editor preferred), who can propose better solution than Quinn1 wrote here, simply “Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay?” [133] If AuthorityTam and all others involved in JWtopics will trying to assume good faith and not focus on persons, but on content, there will be fewer ANIs needed in future. Perhaps none. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If AuthorityTam ceases the behaviour, the matter will not need to return to ANI. What about the suggestions already made by User:JohnChrysostom (a "nonJWtopics' editor")?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself. I think that the editors involved need to make a more determined effort to work for the betterment of the article instead of seemingly trying to "pick" at one another and "goad" one another into an uncivil response. But that is just a personal observation, and I may be misinterpreting their intent. I will attempt to AGF. Willietell (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He's only really been 'involved' to the extent that he's provided comment on the behaviour he's observed. It's unclear why you imagine JohnChrysostom to be 'biased', or what specific bias you imagine him to hold. He's not a JW, if that's what you mean, but then a JW wouldn't be unbiased either. He identifies on Wikipedia as a Christian, eliminating any supposed 'atheist' bias; I've seen no indication that he's a former JW, or that he has had any particular involvement with JWs. It seems that your definition of 'unbiased' is 'agrees with you'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'm completely uninvolved (was browsing the AN/I threads for interest). I have no connection to the JW, and have never that I remember edited a JW-related article (if I did, it probably was a bio of a JW who happened to be in my own areas of interest). I propose an interaction ban between the two editors, a warning to both on the subject of neutrality in JW-related articles, a warning to both about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a warning especially to AuthorityTam about bad-faith accusations of bias based on another editor's perceived religion. The warnings should include an explicit mention of sanctions if behavior does not improve. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your impartial insight. I started official propose as you suggested. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had made my position clear, but it seems Jeffro77 (talk) doesn't quite understand my clearly stated position, thus I will state it briefly again, just for clarification "User:JohnChrysostom is hardly an uninvolved and unbiased editor here, certainly he has contributed in discussions which have involved all three editors as well as myself." Notice that this did not require an opinion about who he chooses to agree with or how much involvement he has had with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, but simply his participation in discussions involving the three editors in question as well as myself. If I can be of assistance in making my position any clearer in the future, please continue to let me know. Additionally, I don't feel that any harsher sanctions should be applied to AT than to any of the other two editors in question, because there are no innocent victims here. Willietell (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand your position. I just don't agree with you. But it hardly matters because another entirely uninvolved party just responded above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the last ANI, AuthorityTam is 'laying low' rather than acknowledging his part in causing problems and ceasing the behaviour. If, when he returns, he simply ceases the behaviour, it may not be necessary to return here. However, if no action is taken and the behaviour continues, the issue will be raised here again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin cherry stones]. "laying low" = "turning the other cheek"? I'd sort of been assuming that there's no smoke without fire and that an accusation against a JW doesn't need evidence to condemn. However if you actually look at the link Jeffro posted in evidence [134] all it shows is AuthorityTam notifying the page of the ANI, and Jeffro being caught calling AT a "liar," and then AT posting Jeffro's own words to show that he hadn't lied and Jeffro seems to have forgotten what he said at ANI. Is there any editor on ANI who wouldn't have responded in exactly the same way? At this point in terms of disruption it all seems to be coming from Jeffro, and although not an admin or an expert in JWism if this isn't WP:Boomerang, what is? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No. AuthorityTam partially quoted, without regard to context, a conditional statement I made three days later, in response to a suggestion by another editor. No such mention of 'banning' had been made at the time AuthorityTam made the claim. The actual sentence, in response to a suggestion by JohnChrysostom, that AuthorityTam partially quoted was "If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order." Support of the suggestion was also explicitly marked "Provisional".[135]--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Interaction ban propose (with all consequences Jorgath offered) [136]

Support I support this idea, but I think it should not be permanent. I suggest tentatively for 3 weeks. If next conflicts will continue after end, it should be applied again for longer period. But certainly not forever. --FaktneviM (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - At the last ANI, AuthorityTam claimed that his disingenuous comments about other editors do not constitute 'interaction', and he made the claim that—while making such accusations—he was actually 'avoiding' contact with those same editors. AuthorityTam would therefore need to be told explicitly what any 'interaction ban' would include.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban means you don't talk to the other user, you don't talk about the other user, you don't comment if someone brings up the other user's name, and you stay away from editing the same articles just to be safe. In short, you behave on-wiki as if they and the articles they work on do not exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Question: Do you think is it appropriate to apply it on BlackCab? I suppose that likely yes, because many comments were towards BlackCab, perhaps even more than on Jeffro77. BlackCab also participated in discussion against AT. Since the start of 'first' ANI, it was 3-person dispute. I didn't participate on those previous disputes. Some editors could still think that 'tag-team' and 'JW watchdogs' and other similar expressions are corresponding to reality at Wikipedia. However, there are no innocent editors on each side. Please comment. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support as initial proposer. I didn't name a length above, but considering the apparent hostility I would say 6 weeks would be more appropriate for the initial ban. I also support formal warnings that continued behavior of this sort might also lead to topic bans, but no topic bans yet. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, the topic need a more balanced view, and AuthorityTam is an important contributor with unique knowledges about the topic and the ability to give the topics discussion a balance. This proposal is strongly favouring the most active users, as it blocks out opinions and contributions from AuthorityTam, as I consider less active than some of the other users mentioned. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported contains sanctions and notifications of 'both sides'. Thus I don't understand why this could be bad for articles or for other editors. Simply those 2 or 3 persons will neither edit JWarticles, nor talking about other user names etc. (see Baseball Bugs contrib here). I think other editors can substitute them for some time and it cool down emotions amongst editors. I realized similar valuation like observed JohnChrysostom, who wrote here that some action have to be taken at all cost. Otherwise this dispute will come back continuously many times again with no result. In ictu Oculi and Quinn1 observed it similarly. There is very likely WP:Boomerang on AT oposers' side. I am not against AuthorityTam. I simply acknowledge that some revision between involved editors is absolutely needed or comes back here soon. I can imagine that some spontaneous self-censorship/self-control of other JWtopics editors have to be applied, each on himself (=Others have to be silent, no comments on account of those restricted, during interaction ban of those 2 or 3 editors). I hope that other JWtopics editors could cooperate normally or better after end of restrictions and this would help overall ambience amongst editors. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot speak for BlackCab (who has been the target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour more often than me). But as far as I'm concerned, all that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs; if he is able to modify his behaviour, there should be no problem with him continuing to contribute to JW-related articles. If he is unable to alter his behaviour, he needs to cease interacting with editors he is unable to work with. The fact of the matter is that after disappearing during the last ANI, upon returning AuthorityTam couldn't help himself for even half an hour before continuing to impugn another editor (namely, me) at article Talk. Jorgath's suggestion is ambiguous about who other than AuthorityTam might be included in any sanctions. Of course, I have no problem with not interacting with AuthorityTam if he abides by any imposed interaction ban.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, when I said "both" in my proposal, I meant you (Jeffro) and AuthorityTam. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any interaction ban imposed on AuthorityTam would need to include BlackCab, who has been the primary target of AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour.

The terms of any such interaction ban would also need to be made clear, and would ideally not prevent discussion of article content. As I stated at the last ANI: "When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I am going to have to oppose at this time unless someone says something to convince me otherwise, because I don't really see anything particularly egregious in ATam's comment. I see only an editor defending himself against what he feels is a false accusation of being a liar and providing evidence he feels supports this. In a way I can see his point of view, that being, if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place? Later when the ban was proposed, both Blackcab and Jeffro77 supported it, whether conditionally or not, they supported it. I therefore see nothing sinister about ATam's posting those edits as evidence in his defense. That being the case, at this point, exactly what has he done that deserves some form of sanction? I see nothing! Who on this board would not like to provide evidence to the contrary if someone called you a liar? Usually, in such a circumstance, I don't justify such an accusation with a reply, but I am not like most people. Most people will reply, just like ATam did, with what they feel is supporting evidence. I personally think that calling a fellow editor a liar, especially when evidence can be provided to the contrary, borders on incivility, and a particular editor seems to have adopted this as his favorite phrase, using such an accusation against a number of editors. Perhaps, this incivility also needs to be addressed here. Willietell (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're still trying to stir the pot. I very clearly indicated that I would only support a topic ban as a last resort (though it should be noted that the action you are opposing is not a topic ban), and I only made that provisional statement days after AuthorityTam made the dishonest claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell asks, "if the editor was not trying to get him banned, what exactly did he hope to accomplish with the ANI in the first place?" I have already been fairly unambiguous about the result I would prefer.

• April 2: "It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise."
• April 8: "The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content."
• April 30: "It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages."
• May 1: "I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs"
• May 2: "The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs."
• May 6: "All that really needs to happen is AuthorityTam should acknowledge and cease the improper behaviour, which specifically includes making comments—directly, or by implication—about other editors he imagines to be former JWs."

I think it would be expecting a bit much for an apology from AuthorityTam, but what I have repeatedly and unambiguously requested is that he cease his improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, should be for all 3 - an "interaction ban" would have to cover BlackCab as well as Jeffro77 and Authority Tam. Also difficult to see how an "interaction ban" can work when the only topic areas 2 of the 3 editors edit are in JW-space anyway. How can the three editors continue editing the same controversial article together and not "interact"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As I stated earlier, and as suggested by In ictu oculi above, it's unclear how an interaction ban would work while still working on articles related to the JW WikiProject. Despite claims by a couple of editors at the last ANI that AuthorityTam often has to 'defend' himself in a '2 against 1' situation, there are currently 2 regular non-JW editors and 5 regular pro-JW editors (AuthorityTam, Grrahnbahr, Fazilfazil, Faktnevi and Willietell, some of whom explicitly identify as JWs) involved with the JW project. Without regular editors representing a non-JW view, articles would rapidly be affected by bias. If the terms of any interaction ban were to relate to editors not referring to other editors but not preclude content-related discussion (which I have suggested from the outset), I would Support. However, if a proposed interaction ban implicitly amounts to a topic ban for the only regular non-JW editors, then I would Oppose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Jeffro77 makes several good points here. I have a feeling that, much as most of us may not like this, that maybe WP:ARBCOM should be consulted. It seems to me that discretionary sanctions on any disruptive edits by any individual is probably the best way to go here, and ArbCom is really the only place that such sanctions can be enacted. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, but I agree. I'd have preferred it if this could be resolved without going that far, mostly so that we could go to them if the problem continued. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my initial proposal of this same measure in the previous AN/I, for a limited time (no more than thirty days). If the antagonism continues, or if the terms of the interaction ban are repeatedly broken, I believe a thirty-day topic ban or short (fourteen days) outright block is in order, followed by standard escalating sanctions. Note that my support changes to oppose pursuant to Jeffro77's caveat speaking of a practical topic ban for non-Bible Student editors of JW articles. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I am highly disagree with the classifications used by Jeffro. I am a regular contributor, who have started several hundred articles within several topics, among them politicians and soccer players, but also philosphy and religion, and made significant contributions to several FA in Norwegian within different fields. His definition of non-JW-editors is editors supporting heavily use of sources made of defector and critics of JWs, rather than searching for neutral sources (several secular sources are warning about relying on books written by defectors, newer sources more often than older sources). Pro-JWs are those challenging his defector-based "facts", and challenging the systematic bias found in some of the JW-related articles. As a proposed pro-JW contributor, I shouldn't have supposed to remove a watchtower source, as I recently did, and not been disagreeing or criticising to proposals or behavior of other members of Jeffro's pro-JW-list. It is also other persons on his list who could be caracterized as regular users, users more accurate to scientifics methods and source critics than Jeffro, for not mentioning BlackCab, who have openly confirmed to be an ex-JW, and to have a need to "expose" JW. I'm sure nothing disturbing and irrevertable would happen to the topic if Jeffro and BlackCab gets a time limited topic ban, together with AutTam, if that is his worries. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that you only edit JW articles. Nor did I provide any "definition of non-JW-editors", other than they would be editors who are not members of Jehovah's Witnesses. I absolutely did not suggest that "non-JW-editors" would or should make "heavily use of sources made of defector and critics of JWs". Nor have I added such sources to articles, because I don't possess any of those works (I have sometimes restored statements that might be classified that way by JW editors; most of my changes to articles relate to copyediting of existing material). Grrahnbahr, and anyone else, is welcome to indicate what "defector-based "facts"" I have supposedly added to articles.

Being a pro-JW editor doesn't automatically mean that such an editor is not working in good faith, nor does it mean anything so absolute as never "supposed to remove a watchtower source". And nor does it mean that all pro-JW editors always agree on everything.

BlackCab was implicitly included among the "2 regular non-JW editors", and his position as a former JW is not in dispute. In the context of this discussion, I'm not aware of any recent regular non-JW editors other than BlackCab and myself who might otherwise have been implied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Several of the users on your list has chosen not to self identify their religious status (or political status), myself included. If not clearly identifying what you mean by pro-jw, you can't expect any support to a suggestion to protect yourself and BlackCab from a topic ban, as the classifications of non-jw-editors and jw-editors are nothing but a personal opinion (if pro-jw is indicating a member of the JWs, then BlackCab is more likely to be included within your definitions than any other of the users on your list (with one or two exeptions), as he has confirmed not officially to have left the building). Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Then just be glad AuthorityTam hasn't decided you're a former JW.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just stop using your personal opinions on others. It is so easy. Just reject existence of prejudice and preconception to other editors. You have dirty hands as well. Not only AuthorityTam. Just stop using your personal opinions on others. It is so easy. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: former members, apostates, ex-JW, anti-JW, non-JW, pro-JW, JW editor, JW supportive, ... etc. All of these slang idioms were developed probably by Jeffro77 or BlackCab and are used frequently with aim to divide "editors of JWtopics" and achieve hostile and unpleasant ambience amongst Wikipedia editors.

• Even I don't like been described as whatever of those expressions. Any affiliation of editors is their own personal affair and should not be fabricatelly forced if there is no such open permit for that. Otherwise they express bad faith. Those all expressions are based on prejudice and cause preconception within editors. Neutral and not-pre-judging classificiation is one of best ways to achieve better ambience.

• Why all editors can not be simply "Wikipedia editors usually/or/just by the way editing JW-related topics" ?!

• --FaktneviM (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"slang idioms"?? None of the terms were 'developed' by me, and all have a fairly fundamental meaning based on the simple meaning of the words. The notable exception is that the term "apostate" is very much a term frequently used by JWs, and that term is given special meaning by JWs.

In a perfect world, it might be nice to just classify everyone only as "Wikipedia editors". The fact of the matter though is that editors' biases (particularly the core of this ANI: that AuthorityTam behaves a certain way toward editors he believes to be former JWs that is different to the way he behaves toward other editors) necessitates that the matter be raised.

Ambiguous circumlocutory aside, it would be quite simple (though there is no obligation) for the editors named or any other editor to state directly whether they do or do not identify as members of the group or whether they do or do not adhere to the beliefs of the group. As I have stated previously, "Membership of the religion is not in itself remarkable nor does it immediately indicate that an editor cannot edit objectively, except insofar as it is relevant to possible bias where the same editor also claims to be an impartial non-member."--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

former members, apostates, ex-JW, anti-JW, non-JW, pro-JW, JW editor, JW supportive, ... etc. All of these slang idioms were developed probably by Jeffro77 or BlackCab and are used frequently with a purpose to divide "editors of JWtopics" and with purpose to achieve hostile and unpleasant ambience amongst Wikipedia editors.

Even I don't like been described as whatever of those expressions. Any affiliation of editors is their own personal affair and should not be artificially forced if there is no open permit for that. Otherwise users which use those expressions assumes bad faith. Those all expressions are based on prejudice and cause preconception within editors. Neutral and not-pre-judging classification is one of best ways to achieve better ambience. Who originally started to use those divisive words and why? Possible reasons and consequences of using such words are written above.

Why all editors can not be simply "Wikipedia editors usually/or/just by the way editing JW-related topics" ?!

this is possible solution to avoid existence of prejudice and bias based on such prejudices. of course this should be implicate to every member of wikiproject jehovah's witnesses. non-members of wikiproject have to use this improved behavior as well if wants to edit JW-related topics even henceforward. --FaktneviM (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you repeating almost exactly what you stated above?

Because you are not listening at all. Just bring that improved behaviour on other editors to practice! Or have I repeat it for you again? --FaktneviM (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If it were the case that I were 'not listening', there really wouldn't be much point saying the same thing again. But the fact is, I responded directly to your statements, so I was obviously 'listening'. I just don't agree with you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership of the JW WikiProject is optional and arbitrary, and not particularly relevant to the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership in the wikiproject in time when first ANI happened, and second one as well, is in fact more important information than any else. Only members of the project were active and involved in the issue "Jeffro77-AuthorityTam-BlackCab" when happened. Nobody Ent, JohnChrysostom, Quinn1, In ictu oculi, FaktneviM, Jorgath, Baseball Bugs, John Carter, OhioStandard, Mangoe, Dominus Vobisdu, Maunus, Dougweller, Saedon, Kansan, Nyttend, and Georgewilliamherbert are not members. Only few of them were ever editing something JW-related. Jeffro77, BlackCab, AuthorityTam, Grrahnbahr, Fazilfazil, Willietell, etc. are members and express certainly bias and taking sides. This was mentioned many times. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am the same person as Warlordjohncarter, having changed my user name at my RfAdmin. I am a member of the group, and have been for some time. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

'Membership' of the JW Wiki-Project (as listed on the project page) is not really "more important information than any else". Sometimes an editor edits JW-related articles for a few days, adds their name to the project page, and then never returns (just as editors probably do at other WikiProjects). Many of the editors listed on the Project page are not actually regularly involved in the project, and the only reason that the list is not more out of date than it is, is that I have occasionally trimmed the list of editors who have not been active on Wikipedia for over a year.

What FaktneviM refers to as the issue "Jeffro77-AuthorityTam-BlackCab" has not only involved the recent incidents; AuthorityTam has frequently baited editors (mostly BlackCab) over the course of a couple of years. I have also previously advised BlackCab about leading statements he's made to AuthorityTam, and those incidents have greatly diminished in the more recent past, whereas AuthorityTam's behaviour—particularly his dredging up of old irrelevant edits—has not improved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Hey guys, we're going in circles again!!
• Jeffro77 lied about me. I clearly stated many times that I am not member of Wikiproject JW, nor would be again. I was formerly member of the project, including completely Wikipedia (see my user page). Last year I was JWtopics completely indifferent! I started to edit there about 14 days ago when I realized what happened during time I was silent. I clearly stated that I am impartial in the matter. Since last year I gained deeper insight in many matters. Though I can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor. From the start I am trying to serve as mediator, because I don't think that unbiased means always JW-viewpoint even though sometimes it is the case. JW editors could trust me and non-JW editors could at least admit that I was not involved with disputes in which I try to mediate. Hence, in fact I am impartial.
• As I read from Jeffro77' and In ictu oculi' latest comments, there is a consensus that interaction ban should include BlackCab as well. I asked Baseball Bugs' on his viewpoint in this matter. (because he is absolutely impartial and I want not taking any sides).
• I also said that nobody here is completely innocent. Everyone should learn what WP:Civil and WP:AGF really! means. Bad faith accusations are still frequent as I read terrible discussion in JW article talk page yesterday (Grrahnbahr and Jeffro). I suggest that all current members should not to have a right to poll here (oppose/support etc.), because is evident that Jeffro taking sides and JW editors taking the other sides. (not surprising, it is very common as I am knowledgeable well of the ambience amongst JWtopics editors). So no result can be achieved in any case.

--FaktneviM (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you're "a member of Wikiproject JW" ('membership' of any WikiProject is generally informal anyway); I said you've been a recent regular editor of JW-related articles. If you are not a JW, I might have mixed you up with Fazilfazil, and if that's the case, I apologise.

I don't recall a "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr, and I've actually found him to be one of the more reasonable JW editors to work with. This doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but I'm not aware of any issues about conduct between Grrahnbahr and me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon review, I see that FaktneviM is the editor from last year who avoided discussion of his conduct at ANI by claiming his 'right to vanish' after he was reported by User:Danjel. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User:FaktneviM, used WP:RTV to avoid consequences, continues to harass (neither of the incidents were raised by me).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past, you've called me a "fanatic non-believer"[137], and said I'm "not so clever, as [you and another JW editor]", but "not fully stupid as well"[138]. You have also suggested in the past that you are a JW.[139][140][141] If you're not a JW, just what did you mean by linking the JW's translation of 2 Cor 6:14-18 and then saying that scripture meant "It does mean very close friendship [with non-JW editors such as myself] or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that"?[142]

You've previously claimed that my User page (which is and was composed almost entirely of User Boxes) is "preaching" and "propagandistic and hatred"[143] and "hatred and pride ... propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance"[144] (my user page at the time is here[145]).

You've also previously stated (incorrectly) that AuthorityTam has lied about you.[146]

You seem to have suggested here[147] that you consider the term "JW editor" to be a "slang idiom"; in case there is any confusion, the term "JW editor" is intended to mean a Wikipedia editor who is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your past behaviour, I'm not sure it's appropriate for you to claim that you're an 'impartial mediator'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that AuthorityTam is aware of the kind of inappropriate remarks he makes, because when he thought he'd offended a JW editor (specifically, FaktneviM) for a very minor misunderstanding (which actually was not even AuthorityTam's fault), he provided an elaborate apology, stating "I am very sorry that my comments originally included the username of a certain editor. My insult was unintentional. I discern that the editor is not fluent at the English language, and it was thoughtless of me to use his username in a manner which has proven to be ambiguous. I should have thought more. My thoughtlessness added nothing to the discussion, and had the unintended consequence of seemingly unambiguous disruptive editing" (formatting from original).[148] If AuthorityTam applied this kind of contriteness when offending editors he considers to be former JWs, we would not be at ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not care about personal attack and POV civil pushing from Jeffro. He responded non-logically and he assumed bad faith. He didn't consider my last edit at all. It is said that I remember it is very common. ((If someone other read my contributions here on this ANI and whatever else from past few months, could see what I have in mind. I just want to help here. I am ready to go away from Wikipedia again after solving this ANI. In some JW talk discussions I simply suggested everything what I observed after reading many last year edits when I was not involved. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"POV civil pushing"?? You claimed that I lied about you. I didn't. I did not say you were a member of the JW WikiProject.

When you said that you "can only say that I am JW-sympathetic+knowledgeable, what is big difference to call me JW editor", then you either ceased being a member since last year, or you lied when you said you were a member, or you lied when you said you're not. In any case, I did not lie about you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you could indicate what you consider to be the "terrible discussion" with Grrahnbahr.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This may be a side point, and a little off topic. But I think of all the editors mentioned, I am the only one who I personally have noticed publicly stating they they are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't have a problem being referred to as a JW editor, but I am not everyone and others might. Willietell (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership of the religion is not in itself remarkable nor does it immediately indicate that an editor cannot edit objectively, except insofar as it is relevant to possible bias where the same editor also claims to be an impartial non-member. I have already provided links where FaktneviM said he was a member. I was going from memory for the other 2, and if I confused them with other editors, I apologise. In any case, they hold pro-JW positions in discussions, which was the main point of the context of my comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• [I had no longer internet connection]. [answer on Jeffro77's original question to membership] Well. There is no strict definition of being "member of Jehovah's Witnesses". Someone could consider to be a member when is closely involved with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when has Bible study with Witnesses. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Unbabtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when he/she is Babtized publisher. Someone could consider to be a member when simply attenting their meetings without any other close affiliation. Because definition of "member" is not objective criterium, but subjectively based (aka feelings), I don't prefer to call myself "proJW editor" nor "JW editor", because both is prejudicaly defined. It depends only on encyclopaedic content and such division is not useful, becuase it is prejudice (by wrongly! so called "nonJW editors") ((=in fact "apostates" ... what is also prejudice) to expect that "members of whatever!" can't have balanced objective view in some matter. Moreover, it is personal privacy of each one and Wikipedia is not chat with person which do not exist. I can presume that Jeffro77 doesn't exist, because I never saw him. Such person is perhaps only imaginary and my messages are not read and I waste my time in Wikipedia what is also only imaganary. Due these circumstances I prefer to be "JW-sympatehetic+knowledgable" or even "JW-knowledgable" only. I didn't say that I am not Jehovah's witness. I only stated that I am not "JW editor" nor "member of WikiP JW". I said that I am impartial in case of this ANI, because I was inactive uninvolved editor in times when "AT vs BC,JF issue" happened.
• [I had no longer internet connection]. [answer on Jeffro77's original question to terrible discussion]. I had in mind discussion of Jeffro77 and Grrahnbahr, where Grrahnbahr accused Jeffro to being in a "Trinity" with BlackCab and John Chrysostom. I mentioned this, because it is a evidence of continuing tension amongst JW Project members. Due of that it seems logical to enforce my suggestion in 4th paragraph of first contrib in ===Comments=== starting with words "I also said that nobody" (4th paragraph). It is worth to mention that I agreed with observation of John Chrysostom, as well as all really impartial editors here. I think that this is evidence I am trying to be really impartial as well and no taking any sides in this ANI. See "This is simply wrong. Propose which Jorgath did and I supported...." for that contrib where I agree with John Chrysostom's observation. I also drew JCH minds from User_talk:JohnChrysostom#AuthorityTam and several other places, where John Chrysostom noted his position and thoughts on JW project.
• Summary again: Personally, I don't see any utility of Jeffro77' trying to discredit me on the basis of very old edits. His comments adds nothing to achieving solution (aka finally) and could be seen as a way to avoid his share on restrictions as well and personally intended comments like disruptive here. I still trying to assume AGF from all, but it is evident, as I said, in first contrib in ===Comments=== that members of wikiproject JW taking sides.
• --FaktneviM (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that I lied. I didn't. Semantics aside, your edits indicate that you're a 'proJW' editor whether or not you're a member of the religion (and you have indicated in the past that you are in the edits already indicated). I have also already indicated the manner in which such membership is relevant here, and that it does not automatically mean that an editor cannot be objective. Additionally, "nonJW" is not the same thing as "apostate" (neither the normal definition of the word nor the more narrow sense attributed by JWs). And I can assure you that I am not imaginary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The trinity-comment was ment partly as an practical joke (like mentioning USAs terrible record when it comes to human rights, followed by Jeffros hillarious comment), as JW are anti-trinitarists, but also with a kick to his side, as I think it is common interests between the three users, even though I won't suggest an openly cooperation. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The intention of Grrahnbarh's 'Trinity' comment was ambiguous, and seemed to mildly imply an accusation of collusion, but I certainly wouldn't have called it a "terrible discussion".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue

Despite the attempts by various pro-JW editors, the bias that may be held by such editors is only a factor here, although they are trying to make it appear as the issue. It is expected that debates will arise about sensitive topics, and that editors will have various biases, and in general, editors are able to debate these matters of article content without resorting to personal attacks. The issue here is that AuthorityTam behaves a certain way toward editors whom he believes to be former JWs that is different to the way he behaves toward other editors. Upon his return—which will likely be a few weeks after this ANI has disappeared—he should cease that behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not observed anything particularly offensive in ATam's edits/remarks/comments, certainly no more so than the edits/remarks/comments of the editors who have brought the ANI's in question. I don't think anything here rises to the level requiring any form of sanction and would advise all the editors involved to attempt to display a spirit of co-operation rather than give the appearance of hounding and harassing from article to article. It appears many times that certain editors revert edits, based not on the edit, but upon who the editor was who made the edit, giving little reason other than they don't feel it is necessary or that is provides too much information or is too detailed for the article or that it might be better suited in another similar article., and I feel that this leads to much of the frustration that brings us ultimately to this ANI. This kind of action by certain editors is a form of passive-aggressive harassment that is not constructive and is unnecessary and is more than somewhat uncivil behavior, and does little to further the project. It needs to cease. Willietell (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you are attempting to deflect from the actual issue. Many times, you have complained about omissions or deletions of article content, and you've raised many raised several RFCs objections at article Talk, for which the result has usually been that you have not received support from various independent editors. It is not necessary to attempt to distort the issue of AuthorityTam's conduct by complaining about the lack of agreement you have obtained for your edits. You also attempted to do this at the last ANI, which resulted in various editors noting that your behaviour has also been quite problematic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

While I did not know all the rules at first (and still don't entirely), and may have at first taken some somewhat regrettable actions, I don't think you can make a valid case that I have done anything recently that merits such a remark. Additionally, I personally have never raised an RfC, much less "several", though I have stated that I felt it might be necessary to do so due to a lack of a cooperative spirit from certain POV editors who work in tandem to attempt to control content on pages related to Jehovah's Witnesses in an attempt to push an anti-Jehovah's Witness POV. I am not the only editor who has noticed this tag-team editing in operation, as a numbers of editors have made reference to its existence. Also, Please do not try to make this ANI about me, as I have not made any negative personal reference about you or any other editor on any page in recent history other than at this ANI and its predecessor. Also, I have not tried to "deflect from the actual issue", but have addressed it directly by stating what you have ignored, which is " I have not observed anything particularly offensive in ATam's edits/remarks/comments, certainly no more so than the edits/remarks/comments of the editors who have brought the ANI's in question. I don't think anything here rises to the level requiring any form of sanction and would advise all the editors involved to attempt to display a spirit of co-operation rather than give the appearance of hounding and harassing from article to article. " . The issue has therefore been directly addressed with a pointed comment. Willietell (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You have made many claims about "POV spin" about JW-related articles, and none gained support from the several editors who responded. Your further claims about editors 'working in tandem' are a continuation of your own improper conduct; no doubt you would object if someone suggested that you were working in 'tandem' with other pro-JW editors, just as could be claimed about other pro-JW editors who have endorsed such a claim (Grrahnbahr previously made an accusation of collusion but later struck it out when it was shown to be false). You have not provided any evidence for your claim that I am 'pushing an anti-Jehovah's Witness POV', and any attempt to do so would require that you ignore where I have also removed negative statements about the religion. Your opinion that you haven't observed anything improper in AuthorityTam's behaviour is countered by the comments of several editors who have; this includes comments by other pro-JW editors who have indicated that AuthorityTam has often unnecessarily baited BlackCab with entirely irrelevant snide remarks about his previous username.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, you have claimed that you have not made negative comments about me outside of the ANI, but you just falsely claimed in an edit summary that I am 'hounding' you, for allegedly "ridiculous, baseless and nonsensical reasons".[149] The stated reason for reverting your edit was that the edit was redundant.[150] Specifically, the sentence in question previously read, "Members are expected to participate regularly in evangelizing work...", and you inserted (after to), "be active ministers and". The manner in which JWs consider themselves to be "active ministers" is that they "participate regularly in evangelizing work"; your addition was therefore plainly redundant. I would not be terribly surprised if your edit was made with the knowledge that it was redundant and would therefore be reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Again you take half of what I say and ignore the other, here again is my statement " I have not observed anything particularly offensive in ATam's edits/remarks/comments, certainly no more so than the edits/remarks/comments of the editors who have brought the ANI's in question. I don't think anything here rises to the level requiring any form of sanction and would advise all the editors involved to attempt to display a spirit of co-operation rather than give the appearance of hounding and harassing from article to article. " try to refer to it in it's entirety. As far as the edit you reverted AGAIN, it is not redundant, and your continued reverting of my edit's from page to page demonstrates a pattern of hounding. It is ridiculous for you to continue to demonstrate this pattern, the edit was not redundant, therefore the revert was baseless and the idea that the edit is redundant is nonsense and demonstrates either a passive-aggressive attempt at harassment or a complete lack of understanding of the English language by someone who make use of it as their mother tongue. Additionally a comment is not made in a negative way when its attempt is to correct inappropriate actions, such as following me from page to page reverting good faith edits based on the editor and not the content. [151][152][153]. Additionally, this is somewhat out of scope here, but JHVH is the Latinized form of the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton that is considered most familiar to the general populace, thus its more common usage. Its usage is also more consistent with other familiar names translated in the bible such as Jesus, Jeremiah, Jehoshaphat and many others who would have entirely unrecognizable names if the transliteration to YHWH was made with consistency throughout the Hebrew scriptures...Just FYI...in case you really didn't know Willietell (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

1) There was no reason for me to state the whole passage in its entirety (nor for you to repeat the whole thing again), because your entire comment was readily visible immediately above my comment.

2) I have quite clearly explained the specific manner in which your edit that I reverted was most certainly redundant, invalidating your tendentious claim that the edit was made 'based on the editor'. I have not 'followed you from page to page', I review edits to the pages that are on my Watch List. Willietell will be conveniently silent here about User:Amusingusername's edits to Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline that I reverted around the same time.[154][155].

3) Your last comment is indeed entirely out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts to rein in vandalism and obvious inflammatory POV pushing, as was the case with the two diffs you supply, are commendable and I applaud your efforts in this regard. That aside, please do not accuse me of being tendentious, as this is simply uncivil [156] and please do not continue to revert my properly sourced edits, deleting the cited source as well as you have done here [157] and here [158] as this could be viewed as tendentious editing itself [159]. All I ask of the editor is a for there to be a spirit of cooperation for the betterment of the project. With reasonableness, disagreements can be worked out. However, when an editor tries, not to discuss content, but to dictate it, problems arise. Please attempt in the future to be more cooperative. I'm sure that together, we can make this project a success. Willietell (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edits have certainly been tendentious, and I'm not the only one thinks so.[160][161]--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 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.

Indefing of User:Samofi

I'd like to have Samofi's case reviewed by the admins who have been involved in the whole affair, particularly User:Ironholds and User:AGK. But first and foremost I'd like point out that I'm NOT a fan of Samofi (far from it) and don't think that the month-long ban for the violation of his topic ban should be lifted. In fact I'm still convinced that Samofi's pushing his agenda (and luck :P) too much. Yet when reviewing the alleged sockpuppet's (meatpuppet's?) activity it became obvious to me that he can't be Samofi.

The fate of the sockpuppet in question (User:Savneli) is an interesting one indeed. First an SPI has been started against it by Nmate for User:Iaaasi. Unfortunately I've realized early on that Nmate was completely wrong about this account (he seems to have this tendency to see Iaaasi behind every hostile user/sock, while in fact most non-Hungarian editors editing Hungarians-related articles hate him, especially Slovaks, Romanians and Serbs): firstly Iaaasi's a troll, which's becoming more and more apparent (it's particularly evident from his comments on his SPI page) so his edits are mostly made with the intention of trolling (and inserting pro-Romanian content every once in a while). When Iaaasi poses as a Slovak user, this is particularly evident: almost all of his edits show signs of trolling meant to annoy Hungarian editors (especially Nmate of course). Moreover Iaaasi never seems to be able the resist the temptation of editing articles related to Romania too (especially Transylvania, where he has another opportunity of trolling Hungarian editors). Savneli's edits not only don't follow this pattern, but in his last edits completely break it: Savneli's edits consist exclusively of removal of Hungarian content (especially town names) and/or replacing them with their Slovak counterparts, asserting some historical persons' Slovak identity (IDK if Iaaasi ever did that) or adding a "famous Slovak" to an article of a town in Slovakia with predominantly Hungarian population ([162]), which Iaaasi would never do (since he lacks the necessary background information and lingual knowledge for that). So the gist of Savneli's edits point to a Slovak editor. I don't know when did Ironholds' and AGK's attention turn to Samofi, but since both Savneli and IndoEuropean1988 (a fairly blatant sock of Iaaasi) have been banned by Ironholds (and I haven't found any public records of AGK and Ironholds discussing this), I can only assume that Samofi came into the picture only later.

Yesterday I took the time of performing a more thorough investigation regarding Savneli, and that's when I figured out the REAL user who's behind it. There were two clues that led to this: his editing pattern(s) and his last two edits (the rest are reinsertion of his patent nonsense into Nmate's talk page hence they don't count). The first clue was the fact that all of Savneli's edits were either minor edits, replacement of Hungarian town names with their Slovak counterparts or reverts, with no talk page entries at all. This is in great contrast with both Iaaasi and Samofi who have made numerous talk page entries too and their English proficiency is well-known (and obviously on a fairly decent level, especially for Iaaasi). The greatest eye opener though was the text about a certain "Prof. Cavalli", because I knew that I've seen this text before. After a while I've realized that the first time I've seen it it was actually in Slovak. And guess who posted it on my talk page? None other than User:Bizovne himself (the IP account has been revealed to be used by Bizovne at the time)! So then I've taken a closer look at the rant (about Cavalli and Hungarian genes) and realized that it's basically a snippet of the translation I've made of my conversation with him (even with all the mistakes I've left in out of laziness).

So, the "executive summary" of the text above (for ADHD types :P): User:Savneli, which first been suspected to be User:Iaaasi's, then User:Samofi's sock, is in fact User:Bizovne's sock. Hence the indef ban of Samofi issued by User:AGK should be lifted. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a {{checkuserblock}} and can't be reversed by an administrator unless they have CU access themselves. I will re-check my results, and ask another checkuser to look again if I remain of the same opinion about the technical link between the accounts.

Were you e-mailed by Samofi? (I was.) AGK [•] 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No. In fact I'm not in contact with Samofi at all (au contraire - we have quite a few grave disagreements and he's even complained about me in a previous ANI report). And I'm quite surprised that CU has pointed to Samofi, since this editor's editing pattern just doesn't match that of Samofi. On the other hand it matches Bizovne's behavior quite well. As for geolocation, Slovakia's geolocation data is notoriously bad (basically only users of Bratislava and maybe Kosice and other notable cities get geolocated correctly, the rest gets either geolocated to the closest city, or Bratislava, or their geolocation's completely off), so even if that would've matched Samofi with Savneli, it isn't of much use. Sure, I can't argue with CU if it found some matching IPs (especially within the same time frame), but I think that it's highly unprobable that the Savneli=Samofi. -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if Samofi is still editing Wikipedia under sock-accounts, however , I know about him that he is not a trustworthy person; no matter what he says. Once already he stated that he did not use sockpuppets :[163], and it came to light that User:CsabaBabba was a sockpuppet of him. But of course it is possible that Savneli was Bizovne.--Nmate (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but we can still agree on the fact that it wasn't Iaaasi, right? :P -- CoolKoon (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I explicitly ruled out Samofit an Iaaasi sock. (Also, I have replied to you on my talk page concerning the fact that you took this block directly to ANI without first taking it up with me. Long-standing convention, the instructions in the header, and good manners would have you consult an editor about a problem with some action or another of theirs before hauling them to ANI.) AGK [•] 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

But I still fail to understand what led to surface Samofi as the puppet master of Savneli. Even Savneli's talk page shows that there's "technical evidence" against him, but I failed to find the records of this technical evidence (perhaps it isn't public?). All I'm saying is that even though Samofi's a heavy POV pusher, I don't think that indefing him due to the trolling of a Slovak maniac is a good idea. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

This is rather general: what do I do when I suspect sockpuppet activity from multiple anonymous IPs, none of which necessarily link to a registered username? Do I just go to the vandalism noticeboard? Thanks in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• SPIs won't link accounts to IPs, so that's not helpful--"link to a ... username" does not exist, in a way, and the term "sockpuppet" doesn't really apply either if it's not "linked", however one defines it. AIV is probably best, with some explanation: WP:DUCK-ness will be assessed by the admin on duty. Semi-protection is often in option if it concerns one or not many more articles. I can look into it, if you like. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I have often reported IPs to SPI, and many have been blocked for sockpuppetry. CheckUser will not link IPs, but that is no reason not to request a standard sockpuppet investigation. RolandR (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure, but the question was (I think) about the linking, which won't be done via CU. Admins there can of course decide to block based on behavior. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. If my response is not clear (and I can see how that might be the case) it's because the question seems a bit muddled to me, and without specifics I can't be more precise. Thanks Roland, Drmies (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be on a better wifi connection tomorrow, so I'll collect the necessary data and submit it. Thanks everyone. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Continued here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Another RFPP backlog needs clearing

The usual, WP:RFPP is getting pretty backlogged with 38 requests currently pending. Most are recent but a few are two or more days old so should be dealt with quickly. tutterMouse (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This problem could be alleviated if there were more active admins. But since becoming an admin requires running through a gauntlet of current malcontents and future banned users, the number of admins is understandably small. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a bunch, but I didn't realise the sheer amount of the backlog. I have to be heading out now, so some other admin can take care of the rest. I did the most recent (i.e. the least likely to be stale). Maxim_(talk) 15:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I drop by there regularly, but I have to say that some editors are awfully quick to request protection, and these aren't always quick and easy decision. The "paperwork" is relatively easy because of the templates, but not every admin fills it out (that is, responds by leaving the proper template) and so sometimes it appears there is a backlog when there isn't. For me, the way every individual request is a template and editing it requires the whole page to load and reload is a bit irritating, especially on a not-so-fast connection and with a small screen. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

How hard would it be to add it to the box in upper right corner of Template:Admin dashboard, with a count, and an indicator that turns red above a specified hurdle?

I always visit that page, and have a Pavlovian response to red bars, but don't visit as often, some of the queues popping up here with regular requests.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not possible to add that individual backlog to the boxie, as the individual articles are not placed in a category. However, there are many untended gardens needing admin-work that appear in Category:Administrative backlog (fifteen different backlogged admin tasks right now), so I placed a thing at the bottom of the chart that I hope will help. We can try it out -- Dianna (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried my hand at the more obvious cases, to reduce the load to an acceptable level. Feel free to trout me if it is justified, as it was my first time there. I didn't move the completed sections either, not sure why the bot doesn't do that any more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:RhymeNero

WP:DFTT - The Bushranger One ping only 11:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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  – Indeffed for "Disruptive editing: competence questioned, disruptive nazi-apologism".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC) User:RhymeNero is supposedly new 'contributor', who seems to be focussing almost exclusively on race-related topics. He/she has already broken WP:3RR on the Race and intelligence article, repeatedly removed sourced content from the Holocaust article, and attempted to start a discussion on Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) by suggesting that the Jews were responsible for the war. There is an open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev#Comments_by_other_users, where RhymeNero denies being Mikemikev, which may possibly be true, but given that the behaviour is essentially the same, I can see no reason why RhymeNero shouldn't be blocked anyway. Clearly here with an obnoxious agenda, rather than to make any useful contribution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC) This andythegrump person has been consistently harrassing me, cursing me, deleting my contributions, calling me all sorts of insults including 'fucking troll' and 'moron' and many other ignorant and stupid remarks without even trying to understand what I'm saying. He is simply a bigot who cannot stand that other people may have different views to his own. I did break the 3RR rule once as an honest mistake, being new here. I do not entirely focus on race topics as I've been on articles including movies and the second world war. I've never insinuated that Jews started the second world war and it is simply andythegrump who purposely misunderstood what I write because his only purpose in his constant stalking and harrassment of me is to silence me. If anyone should be disciplined it is andythegrump. He won't even let me discuss things in the talk sections of articles because he simply deletes them and every chance he gets he tries to attract the attention of mods just like he is doing here. Is this kind of behavior tolerated on this encyclopedia? RhymeNero (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Heh, I don't often defend Andy's intemperate tongue, but I gotta say if ever there was sufficient provocation, this is it. You're gonna be blocked, only question is how quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC) And your opinion is worthwhile why? RhymeNero (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC) His opinion is worth more than one who believes there are sub species of humans. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Diff for the attempt to blame the Jews for WWII: [164]. Seems to think that Hermann Goering's opinion on the matter is somehow valid. And more to the point, this was on Talk:Eastern Front (World War II). RhymeNero was obviously looking to cause trouble, rather than offer anything of relevence, considering that he/she wasn't discussing the subject of the article. Note that I first came across RhymeNero regarding the "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper) article, where he/she was attempting to argue that biological anthropologists aren't scientists. Bizarre... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Have you gone through high school Andythegrump? It's a historical article, hence we need to argue causes and motives. Why did Hitler exterminate the jews is a valid point of debate. I was trying to get at why the Nazis decided to suddenly gas the jews after an extensive period where they just left them in ghettos and concentration camps. As for Darkness Shines, if you don't believe in the existence of races then why don't you argue your original research with the actual scientists who posit the theory that they do exist. RhymeNero (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC) RhymeZero, great to hear that you have "studied the conflict to some extent". You then wrote this: "The Nazi Hermann Goering himself stated that because the jews caused the war (how they did that is up to interpretation), and because hundreds of thousands of German troops had died in it, some kind of retaliation was needed against the Jewish people while beforehand, concentration camps, deportation and ghettos were seen as enough." Do you have any source for this claim, or did you just make it up because you thought it sounded good? 109.153.208.115 (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC) If given the chance to talk about the subject rather than have it immediately deleted by my stalker, Andythegrump, then I'd have posted the source indeed. RhymeNero (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC) It is clearly a waste of time attempting to reason with RhymeNero. Not here to help, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Yeah clearly I'm not here to push your marxist points of view for the world Andy. RhymeNero (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) We have to stop feeding RhymeNero. If an admin wants to block him now, fine. If an admin wants to wait the outcome of the SPI report, fine. If an admin wants to wait until he does something further, that's okay, too. In the meantime ...--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Just to add to the mix, RhymeNero was attempting to argue at File talk:Sarah Gore wedding.jpeg that not using copyright-violating images is 'censorship'. Doh! AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC) This is hilarious, a brigade of marxist anti racists trying to get me blocked by any means necessary despite the fact that not only am I not racist, I am not even white. What sad little people. RhymeNero (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC) In spite of common misapprehensions it is in fact possible to be a racist without being white (and some allege also to be white without being a racist (the jury's still out on that one)). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC) If I suggested that the (unsourced) xenophobic propaganda of war criminal Hermann Goering was not worthy of serious debate in this encyclopaedia, would that make me part of this "brigade of marxist anti racists" or just a "sad little person". Or perhaps both? And what does the colour of your skin have to do with it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC) It seems to me that it is unlikely that RhymeNero is a sock of Mikemikev - it is possible that he's a sock of someone else (but I doubt it). But it seems that there are at least a serious question of competence and of battleground mentality. Unless RhymeNero can demonstrate very quickly that he is in fact willing to collaborate, by using rational argumentation, commonly accepted sources, and to listen when people tell him that his assumptions or statements are wrong it doesn't seem to be in wikipedias interest to let him stick around. (Full disclosure: this user has been known to associate with jews, marxists and africans)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Will block. No room for Nazi-apologist trolling here, which the user's edits indicate is what is going on here. Either that or complete incompetence. Maunus, I'm a Trotskist--can we still hang? Drmies (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC) I'm not that tolerant...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Wow, Drmies. "Nazi-apologist troll..." I didn't see any warnings, and could you do an hyperlink or two for that charge. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Who's administering the admins? Just discovered this thread, after being called a bigoted fool by RhymeNero yesterday (my time) in Talk:Race and intelligence (along with AndyTheGrump). I note that appropriate action has already been taken. Just thought I'd add some evidence in case of any appeals, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC) HiLo48, Okay I now see "Bigoted fools like Andy..." though it would've been nice if you hyperlinked it. And I disassociate myself from any comment like that. The appropriate action may have been taken, but it wasn't transparent enough in my view, and I'll risk still saying that there should have been a warning. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC) The immediate block was appropriate. There's no necessity for having people exposed to that kind of egregious garbage just so we can fill out Form D-473 in triplicate and get it notarized. If RhymeNero has a change of attitude, he can request an unblock and convince an admin to give him another chance. That's quite enough due process considering his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 13 May 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.

Constant disruption by socks of User:Loveshirley

This user's sockpuppetry case needs attention as there are spam link and travel guide additions to articles on various Chinese cities every day. GotR ^Talk 18:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a job for the editfilter, or if they really perservere, the global site blocklist. -- The Anome (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the global site blocklist won't resolve the second part of the problem: consistent addition of peacock-y material that belongs in the travel guide. GotR ^Talk 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Socks need blocking

See UP & recent contribs hf24 21:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think I really care to look into this. I did remove some incorrect "confirmed and indef-blocked" templates from this one and from hf25. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've indeffed User:Hurricanefan24 and emailed the functionaries. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow this is extremely disappointing, easily caught me and the rest of the editors who knew him off-guard. I saw lots of potential in HF25, and gained me and most of the community respect only to be a sock of a known troll. Sigh how many times is this going to be the same story over and over again in which a disruptive sockmaster evades himself with a new account, and it takes such a long time if ever before it gets exposed. And when they usually did that, the socking is usually obvious but ignored. I don't even want to know how many socks are editing the project. It is just upsetting on how the community didn't caught this earlier considering the main account was a advanced vandal sockmaster with a recent history of socking.

At least HF25 had the courage to self-expose himself and supposedly the rest of the accounts, as socks in what seems to be in good faith, which I've rarely ever seen in my eight years in the project. I don't know why he did it, maybe to make amends with the community and if that's the case I might support an unblock with restrictions of course. But we need to be more careful considering how well he hid his tracks, this would have been swept under the rug and probably would have been too late before we figured out he's a sock. Secret ^account 07:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Was he acting disruptively with these socks? Silverseren^C 18:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He asked for all the Hurricanefan accounts (he had several, but they did not appear to have breached WP:SOCK) to be blocked/vanished because someone was about to connect them with a previous account, but he didn't say what the issue with the previous account was. Before anything was agreed, this came up - apparently he had a previous life as a really rather disruptive sock. Shame. I though Hurricanefan was a reasonable editor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference desk troll

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but 84.61.181.19 is the current incarnation of the German reference desk troll. In the past weeks he has been trolling the various reference desks, redirects for creation (repeatedly, at length) and, rather pointy, requests for page protection when he created Talk:9Live HD, asked to have it protected from creation - and immediately recreated it after it was deleted. Twice. I have presented some more obviously trollish edits; others are much more subtle, some arguably even make good redirects, but he is a net drain on the project, and we cannot assume good faith with him. Blocking the IP won't stop him for good, but it has been stable for the past three weeks. Huon (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And I also speedy deleted the Talk:9Live HD page, as per the SD request, only to have it recreated once again. On the basis of the above, I have to say I support the request to block the IP. My one question would be whether we could clearly do so on the basis of it being used as a sock by an indefinitely banned user, as I myself didn't see on the Long term abuse page specific information regarding whether he had already been indefinitely banned. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Salted Talk:9Live HD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Reaper Eternal and now talkblocked by me after failing to drop the stick. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The blueness of this place

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.

---

When will this Chrome bug be fixed? For security reasons this is the browser I need to be using. 76.121.23.59 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you set your zoom to 100% everything doesn't look blue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're currently seeing blue then you might want to adjust your zoom. Try ctrl + 0, or ctrl and the + and - keys (or ctrl and the mouse wheel). ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 01:33, 13 May 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:Claude A. R. Kagan dead

According to what an IP and another website said, this user has apparently died last month at 87. I think this should be reflected in Deceased Wikipedians to give him a more proper tribute. --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, I'm not sure if you can't add to the Deceased Wikipedian page if the dead person don't have a specific number of edits. If you have that standard, he may not qualify as he has less than 500 edits. --Thebirdlover (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did an edit count, and this editor made less than 100 edits, so s/he's unlikely to be listed on WP:Deceased Wikipedians. However, I'll still make a request for full protection on the WP:RFPP page. Minima© (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Claude A. R. Kagan requires both recognition for his contributions to wikipedia and a biography article. A careful look shows that this pioneer of computing provides a valuable study of accessibility to the project. Please compose some text suitable for the page if you can, I'd like to help include it. Penyulap ☏ 15:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would love to, but I'm not really good at writing Wikipedia articles correctly. I only really go into the articles for minor edits and to prevent vandalism. --Thebirdlover (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this here. I had no idea that Kagan edited Wikipedia. I didn't know him personally but I might have left him a talk message if I'd known he was here. He was a somewhat notable figure in computer history, and in some ways he could be considered a spiritual forebear of Wikipedia. On the theory that a reasonable number of Wikipedians might know who he was, I'm inclined to go ahead and list him at Deceased Wikipedians. An actual mainspace biography might be kind of hard to source though, as he was influential in various ways that have probably not been written down, through people who learned about computers from him. 66.127.55.46 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Woodlands (Columbia, South Carolina)

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.

---

Found while stub-sorting this had just one bland sentence so I prodded it as "unreferenced, no evidence of notability", but looking at the page history it was created as vandalism/hoax/totally unencyclopedic (initial content: "The Woodlands of Columbia is an apartment complex in Columbia, SC(Richland County). It's a student living styled apartment with many amenities. The Woodlands has been made famous through the residents of building 12's back corner. Through there outrageous parties, beautiful women, and obvious good looks just all around, they have been held responsible for making many people's dreams come true. These residents have been compared to greasers, authority figures, and even gods to many!")

Short of waiting a week for the PROD, is there any way to get rid of this rubbish and deny its authors the satisfaction of seeing it stay around for so long? PamD 07:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. WP:G3. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Because its current incarnation was so bland I worried that if I just slapped that CSD-G3 on it myself it might get un-speedied. PamD 08:12, 13 May 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.

Disruptive editing by User:West_Eddy at Jeyvier Cintrón

Resolved

 – No admin action required, OP advised on how to proceed in similar future situations Nobody Ent 12:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, a couple of hours ago I created articles for two boxers that just finished qualifying for the 2008 Summer Olympics, Jantony Ortíz and Cintrón. I specifically asked to be allowed to add refernces latter in the edit summary creating them, because it was 2:00 a.m. over here. That was ignored and Cintrón's was quickly tagged. I removed the notice to comment that I was going to add a reference. But upon returning with the reference, Eddy had added a second tag, requesting "speedy deletion" because it was a "hoax". I added the reference, removed the "speedy" tag and told him to brouse AIBA's website, which has been covering the qualification all week long. But he quickly undid it, without any coment. I responded by adding several more sources to certify that he is indeed real, removing the tag again since it had been proven to be unwarranted. The user has just logged out and tagged it again, despite the additional sources. I will grant him that the first offical AIBA reference is not rendering well, only the title is seen now for some reason, but it was when I added it and he didn't mention it until the additional ones were added, including a second source stating that he qualified for the Olympics. The refernces are in Spanish, but they clearly state Cintrón's name and the boxers that he defeated and are both from reliable sources, including El Nuevo Día.

I initially considered talking it with him, but he kept trolling my talk page with templates and seems to have a history with "owning" articles and I have no interest in keeping the circles going. El Alternativo (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No real opinion on this, but in future try using the sandbox until you are sure your article is ready. I write a lot of articles and these days I always work them into un-speedy-deletable shape before posting them in the main space.  Tigerboy1966  09:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do have a "work page" of sorts. But in this particular I tought "it's late, I can add the refernces tommorow and expand later (as explained in the first summary) there's no way that they will delete it since being an Olympian is automatic notability". For the record, I am usually very mechanic in my editing pattern, first publish some "bones", establish notability in the lead, etc. then take some time adding content and "flesh". That pattern can be seen in all of my articles, the latest one being Josian Santiago. Had I not been met by a "speedy" tag in my talk page, I would have returned tommorow to add the references and an infobox as usual. It was incredibly rude of him to tag it without allowing me a break after knowing that the references were coming. Then continuing to do so without explain why after some refs were actually added. He seems to be trolling me and logging out is a sign that he is willing to continue doing so. I am done editing the article until this is resolved. But I can continue to look for refs, including the actual tournament bracket if allowed to do it without a deletion tag randomly appearing. El Alternativo (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, well, they actually are not yet Olympians - and won't be until they compete. As such, it's still kinda WP:CRYSTAL IMHO. BTW ... in your opening paragraph, I think you meant 2012 Olympics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they classified to the upcoming games, it's late and I am really tired, so my bad. In any case, being national champions and international gold medallists should establish some notability, at least enough for them not to qualify for the "speedy" deletion. Furthermore, the user was blocked and placed on some sort of probation (I guess?) since in his talk page there is a template that says: "User agrees to not edit war and a topic-ban on Ken McGowan", which is the reason why I tried to ignore his trolling of my own talk page. He has been "free" for less than a week and is already trolling around. El Alternativo (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The article that was not rendering well is back online in AIBA's page ([165]) with the details in English. El Alternativo (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A fine mess.

This should have been discussed here: Talk:Jeyvier Cintrón

Creators are not to remove CSDs talks, but rather contest the CSD putting the button, as described on the template and WP:CSD

Users Bihco and West Eddy would better serve Wikipedia by using actual words than just using templates.

EA needs to stop the personal attacks [166], [167]. Nobody Ent 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm done talking to him. But those "attacks" were the result of being tagged without explanation on my talk page, then reverted very rudely, again without comment. Before that I told him to search AIBA's talk page, because he acussed me of being a "hoaxer", which he clearly didn't. I have done my last edit to the page for today, removing the "verifycation failed" template due to the article being restored in it's source. He did, however, put the "speedy" tag back without comment. I didn't touch it. El Alternativo (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Additionally EA apparently failed to notify West Eddy as described at the top of this page. A second year editor should show more compliance with Wikipedia protocols. Nobody Ent 10:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was about to post something very similar as in Ent;s previous comment . It's very easy to push a speedy-delete-comment button and an admin will take such a comment into account in evaluating the speedy; and there is really no excuse for not trying to discuss an issue before bringing it here. I would on the other hand be interested in hearing what made West E decide this was a blatant or obvious hoax. It certainly isn't obvious to me and I therefore removed the speedy notice... L.tak (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as removing the template, this is the first time that I have been tagged with the "speedy". But his reasoning was clearly off, he was (and is still) argumenting that I invented Cintrón as a "hoax". He is not even trying to debate the boxer's notability. I did visit his talk page, but wasn't about to try and fight with a user with several blocks on his resume. And I did warn him that I would bring it here in two edit summaries, which he must have seen to tag me twice after that. El Alternativo (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries are NEVER the place to have a discussion. They are to explain the nature of the edit. You may not remove CSD tags from articles you wrote, period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I will not do it in future instances. This time I used that way because he was undoing my edits, figured that he would see that since he wasn't trying to actually talk to me in my talk page, just adding tags. However, I wasn't reverting to the same revision, because despite not being used to this kind of back and forths, I did read the reverting rule back in 2010. I added reference and removed the template, but didn't go back to it in fear of getting myself blocked for something that seemed random. El Alternativo (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the best pieces of advice for the future:

1. create drafts of articles that are fully compliant before moving into articlespace
2. do not communicate via edit summaries
3. do not remove CSD tags from articles you create yourself
4. WP:BLP's must be properly sourced before being live articles
5. always try to resolve issue directly with the other editor before coming here

Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for laughs vandalism

I caught a couple of minor changes made over a few days recently. Reverted them, but I don't think anyone is watching this page. [168] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.72.108 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There are only 3,947,805 articles, and fewer than 30 currently watching that one - I can guarantee, however, that it is being watched - your help is appreciated (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It has 17 watchers, 9 of them active in the last month. Although this isn't really an ANI matter. Help still appreciated though. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack/vandalism

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 please block user:KDOG97111 for this. CU would be appreciated as User:Bented123 just made an identical edit.Ankh.Morpork 12:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also his buddy user:Bented123 Ankh already noted it. Zad68 12:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Both now blocked indef by yours truly. Bencherlite^Talk 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, mate! Zad68 12:42, 13 May 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.

Churning at Names of Vietnam

There has been churning at Names of Vietnam for several years, beginning in October 2009. One account adds "Peopledom of Vietnam," and another takes it off. It has gotten quite active lately. Neither account does legitimate editing. They go from one article to another doing minor vandalism. See here and here. Kauffner (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the one who add that name be ban forever in vi wiki by same action. Because that name never be user in history of Vietnam anyway. And one thing that one use many username to do so in vi wiki so we lock off that paper, I think if you interested in this may be you can tell sysop to lock that paper too and of course since you at it can you lock this paper as well be cause the same person try to add the non exist party to it in both vi zh and en wiki and result is he be ban all from there. Sorry if my english it bad.Tnt1984 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I put 阮有用是下賤的越南人 on the vandalism board, and that account has now been blocked. Hopefully, no further action will be needed. Kauffner (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, look like his sock in here as many as ja, vi and zh wiki. I think next time he appear I will use sock puppet template with no hold back anymore.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesoguin (he's back!)

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 article was speedy-deleted some time last week[169] by Guerillero. I notice that the article has since been re-created. It's not quite identical to the previous version - this time it seems to be more blatantly advertising the home-pages associated with this meme. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a little "salt" on its tail might help. MarnetteD | Talk 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Admins are pretty good about reading the talk page of the article when you tag it with a speedy delete tag. Likely, it would be better if you expressed any concerns, or requests for SALTing there, rather than here at ANI. I've had good luck in the past with this method when it was appropriate, and this certainly may be. Still, nothing for us to do here at ANI, as far as I can tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DB, I'm not familiar with the jargon. What do you mean by 'salt' in this context? Thanks. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It means to 'protect' the article so it cannot be recreated. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It comes from Salting the earth, ie: to fix it so nothing will ever grow there again. The blank article is protected so that no one can create an article with that same name without an admin "unsalting" it first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SALT. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 13 May 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 page content removal

In reference to the above thread on User:RhymeNero, please see if this was out of line. I'm blocking the IP; I don't know if it's an open proxy or something fancy like that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Obvious troll, so removing it from regular view by either collapsing or removing entirely seems perfectly appropriate to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC) bumping you down for visibility, as you appear to be correct.

• On that topic, perhaps someone knows who Liopaiopsm (talk · contribs) is. CU? Drmies (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's editing on a proxy out of Iran..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wer34k234ksdfodbguwe4fod (talk · contribs) should be unblocked

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 notified the blocking admin but as it's an open and shut case and it's partly my fault this user got blocked I've decided to bring it here. So that I don't screw things up any more, suffice to say take a look at the three edits I made before this one and then trace the situation on FisherQueen's talk page to understand the situation. Said user said they had chosen a new username on the basis that no one else would have a username anywhere like it. I then created two users very much like it to protest indignantly. Not a violation of WP:SOCK because it ought to have been perfectly obvious that it was a joke, but anyhow someone decided this was a sock farm, and not only blocked the two accounts I created (which I don't care about) but also this completely innocent user. So, er, that needs sorting.

Egg Centric 21:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also the user "anontune" should be unblocked because that user doesn't exist, as they were renamed to "Wer34k234ksdfodbguwe4fod". Actually this was pretty trigger-happy stuff by the blocking admin. It shouldn't be that another user can get an innocent person blocked, especially not unintentionally. Egg Centric 21:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is a hint to you not to make WP:POINTY sock farms in the first place. Heiro 22:36, 13 May 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.

Revdel

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.

---

 Done - RD3 by User:OlEnglish - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone care to do the honours here, please? - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I don't know you nor him, but I looked at what is such a big deal to you. I've been called a cuntfaced motherfucker before. It hurts at first, than you find your self smiling one day. Pretty soon, you forget all about the fellatio and matricestriousness, and just go back to your business, which isn't asking other people to defend your dainty honor. You just ignore it, or call him a cocknosed unclefucker. Whatever, grow up. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"I don't know you nor him" - actually, there is a lot more that you do not know and that may be pertinent in this instance. Perhaps best to keep fingers away from keyboard until brain engaged? ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that was a pretty weak ad hominem, but you still just destroyed your argument with it. Anyway, I meant it, grow up. Don't come crying to an AE with a complaint and a single diff, suggesting that the editor ought be banned for calling you a motherfucker. Big-fucking-deal. Is he being disruptive? Then show how his personal attacks are getting in the way of content disputes. You could have responded to me by explaining why you are so not a cuntfaced motherfucker, but instead removed all doubt by calling me a dum-dum. Takes one to know one. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 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.

More disruption involving MMA

User:Agent00f

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.

---

Firstly Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability having derailed the last attempt to reach a proposal for an RfC by filibustering in the process driving off one editor he is now using it as his own persoal soap box and forum. See this edit. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For some background, this is a topic which has seen failure after failure in all previous attempts to be resolved for many months. The blindingly obvious common denominator in every single case are 3 editors: Mtking, TreyGeek, and Hasteur. Together they collude and dominate the discussion to the exclusion of actual contributors/users of the pages in question, then intimidate anyone who dares oppose or even question their methodology. This bred the animosity and untenable situation we find ourselves today: even though there are tens of thousands of users, hundreds of page contributors (dozens of which are were active in the discussion before), and many if not most have left in sheer disgust. None outside of their in-group have any trust or faith in them, and their string of failures are a stain on wikipedia's image. Simply observe Mtking's behavior below toward yet another user they've managed to provoke.

As to the issue at hand, I am not at all blocking their effort to repeat history, but instead only wish to introduce an alternative approach which is open to other participants. They can certainly choose not to participate, and we can move this new effort to another page if need be (several options exist). They of course see this as a threat to their dominion and engage in an active campaign to stop anyone who challenge their monopoly on power. If I just move the call for participation elsewhere, they'll simply retaliate elsewhere, so there's no safe harbor where another approach can at least be attempted. I strongly believe an effort which is not their direct control has at least a moderate chance of success, and the powers at be should consider all the other page contributors' wishes to resolve the matter when all previous attempt with our common denominators have failed miserably. Agent00f (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I request that you strike your assertion regarding the collusion and assertion regarding the common denominator. That is an assumption of bad faith on the behalf of editors in good standing with wikipedia whom have been attempting to apply the policy and standards as they exisist today. Long blocks of soapboxing and proposals which are directly contrary to the established policies are not collaberative, but disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to strike assertions that are objectively true and supported by empirical evidence. As just one example, in the last failed AN[I] attempt against me, after a round of intimidation Hasteur contacted the select group to provide (obviously biased) supporting statements. Not a single other participant on the talk page was contacted despite his claim of "neutrality". This is recorded in wiki for posterity. Singling out those who are not as well coordinated as them seems to be their modus operandi, as is clearly evident right here.

Also note that Hasteur continues to slam others for "assuming bad faith", when no assumption is necessary given copious empirical evidence. As further evidence of the tight knit nature of this clique, observe that TreyGeek immediately re-reverted when I tried to put back the comments that Mtking blatantly erased from the talk page. This is a consistent and repeated rule rather than the exception. Hasteur doesn't deny that my asserts are true, only feigning righteous indignation and wishing to strike them from the record regardless (and this is far from the first time). Again consistent with the assertion that they expect a monopoly on power. Agent00f (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now gone over the WP:3RR line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, I have filed a report at WP:3RR/N.Mtking ^(edits) 07:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule exists and I've reverted last change. This action in itself is forum-shopping FORUMSHOP, while a link was provide, they're clearly the same issue and no link was provide back here even though it was created later. Notable given edit warring is more straightforward offense (quick block action).

As more evidence of the persistent lack of ethics noted on this page, Mtking's now trying to cover his/her deletion tactics by posting a specious AN, then offering to withdraw it only if they agree to the wholesale deletion.

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:Mtking and User:Hasteur

Many obvious violations by Mtking:

• The "edit war" AN just above was a consequence of blatant whole revertion/deletion (including unrelated comments) in violation of WP:TALKO editing rules. By sharing 3 reverts between 2 editors who work closely together (simply look at history for evidence), they can successfully flaunted 3RR, leaving the status of any new material in doubt and successful blocking contributions of any one person they choose. General intimidation.

• The collusion between Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek to single out, harass, and drive off (esp new) users who do not wish them to dominate the discussion constitutes blatant BITE on all their parts. Using intimidation strategies in turn against people less versed in the long list of rules. This has apparently gone on for months.

• Just one specific case out of many by Hasteur is these "final warning" threats. Clear case of WP:Harassment. When they're brought to attention of broader community, he/she further ratchets up the threat level to force others to immediately apologize "or else". This is recorded at the MMA talk page. This resulted in WP:CANVASING, a very embarrassing ANI on their part, but this obviously continues unabated.

• Flooding of my user talk page by the lot above + Newmanoconnor (who just joined their gang a week ago), another case of #User_space_harassment. They never reply with any specifics when asked for evidence of violation. Seems the strategy is to flood for stuff they can't get away with at AN, and forums shop on anything borderline.

• Blatant ADMINSHOP given that multiple admins have already been involved in this general situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant WP:CANVASSING by User:Hasteur) and the common denominator for months in all these problems remains Mtking, Hasteur, and Treygeek.

• This whole AN is done in bad faith, no assumption necessary. The talk page in question has long devolved into the state it's in, and my edit was only to get normative processes back into order by analyzing previous failures and trying to avoid them in the future. Even the former admin was soapboxing. Nothing but desperate last ditch attempt at ADMINSHOP.
• One of the comments on the page above was "closed" completely at odds with closure rules, pretending to be the admin of the place despite having no authoritative power.

• In another blatant violation of ADMIN SHOPPING elsewhere, all 3 have conducted multiple aggressive campaigns of AfD's on entire sets of MMA pages even during collaboration with page's contributors, often voting in concord between themselves. Simply look at their histories, it's nothing but trying to trash MMA related pages and hunt down MMA contributors. They're not always successful, but doesn't stop the "try try again" approach. Even minor successes can break a set of page's cohesion, which is why they keep trying instead of waiting for any kind of resolution. This kind of SHOPPING is clearly an asymmetric "terrorism" against a whole wiki community since it costs them nothing while hugely disrupting others.

Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f named me in this subsection and did not notify me. Again, we have the same demonstration of lack of good faith. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur is already subscribed to this, aka already knows this AN exists. Note timestamp on his/her direct reply to me above. BTW, I'm also not going to spam TreyGeek's talk since he also knows this exist. Personally I think spamming someone's page with AN notices when they already know is close to User space harassment. Agent00f (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This list has sat here uncontested for many days. It can only be concluded that any admins who've seen it don't disagree with its claims, yet choose to do nothing about MtKing and Hasteur's behavior regardless. I was blocked by one admin for apparently posting too many claims (ie TLDR: ban, so it's not surprising he/she's yet to reply to any request to explain this odd decision), but no one's addressed these violations above. It's notable that even while this AN section is ongoing, the harassment (Newmanoconnor specifically) on my talk page continues. Agent00f (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of comments does not mean your accusations are uncontested or that anyone agrees with them. You have provided no evidence to back your accusations against any of these editors and your attempt on this page to manufacture consensus from a lack of comments makes it look like you, not they, are the problem. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is linked above where convenient, often by Mtking himself. Some are simply self-explanatory like the aggregate history of two users. The talk page where some of it resides is a mess, but note that none of the many users from there familiar with the intimate details deny any of this occurred. In every case below where someone asked for specifics, I've provided it to their satisfaction. Please be specific about your own personal curiosities.

As for consensus, I've simply listed the facts of the case, and it's up to others (not me) to use their own reasoning facilities. Note that Treygeek below has vetted the list for factual accuracy and it's been properly amended. Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So far you have a list, but no differences that back it up. You opinion is not evidence. Edward321 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you describe what constitutes evidence for you? Or opinion for that matter? For example, is Mtking's own link to the edit that he wholesale deleted evidence or opinion? Agent00f (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Portillo

Secondly Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to attack other editors, see this, this and this. Mtking ^(edits) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is simply more WP:Harassment by MtKing. Targets pages someone's involved with for deletion (since no sanctions for excessive AfDs, even failed ones), and when they lash back, tries to drive them out. Just look at Mtking's history, it's purely destructive, and it's daily routine. Agent00f (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors has been incredibly disruptive and confusing. Interesting how UFC articles were doing perfectly fine for years, enjoyed by thousands of visitors. Until someone suddenly noticed that UFC events are against Wikipedia policy. Took a while to figure that out. Portillo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is not now, nor has ever been, a defense to violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines consisting of "It's been up for years and no one noticed before now that they were in violation." Quite aside from that standards change, and that handwaving was done in the cowboy days that don't pass muster now, there is no statute of limitations here.
  That being said, those links were unacceptable personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, pure and simple, and it is curious that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have might not understand that. Strange though it might appear to some that an editor could think so without some unwholesome bias, it is quite possible to believe that a particular type of article fails to pass notability muster (and, indeed, continue to hold it) without having a "personal agenda" or being on a "witch hunt." Ravenswing 04:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the perfectly coherent defense is the 5th and last pillar of wiki: it is not a bureaucracy. This means that while following rules are convenient for daily operations, rules are not the defining characteristic. The MMA event articles are not some flash by night operation. They've used and appreciated by countless users. They also exist as a coherent and cohesive where it's worth as a whole is significantly diminished with deletion of each election. Without a consistent solution in hand, it's simply reckless (not bold) to allow individual hit-and-run AfDs to ruin a useful resource. Help the topic's long term contributors make it right, instead of capitulating to destructive editor with no stake in the outcome. I hope that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have could understand this. Agent00f (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Funny that, but a consistent solution is at hand: the omnibus yearly articles. (It's not that employing them is an "inconsistent" solution, of course; it's that you don't like them.) That being said, I note that you are perfectly willing to cite rules and policies when they suit your purpose to do so, and this strikes me as another area where you argue policy when you believe it favors your stance, and that policy should be ignored when you believe it doesn't. Moreover, what I note you do not attempt to rebut are your unacceptable personal attacks ... unless you believe that falls under IAR as well.
  That being said, there's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based boards which applies: "It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that I don't agree with your position." Ravenswing 02:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Their design is incoherent, user unfriendly, and aesthetically terrible. I've gone over the details at length on the omnibus, but I see that you've managed to understand the specifics even without knowing anything about the subject. More importantly, because of this, nobody in the actual audience for the rules and pages likes them in any way. You can of course "disagree", but unfortunately factual reality isn't very considerate about this type of opinion. Agent00f (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, you seem to be accusing me of hypocrisy. Please cite some evidence of this, or at least let me now if asking for citation is against wiki policy since these types of requests never seem to get fulfilled. If it's simply your "opinion", not meant to reflect factual reality, please note that in the statement to avoid confusion, thanks. Also, the only reason the sections above were written is because it's unfortunate reality that that idiotic AN's often get results. Not my rule, but we're in a place where it happens nonetheless. Agent00f (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Prayer for relief

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.

---

As an editor who has been around and around the bush with the various SPAs that show up, disrupt all forward momentum on developing a workable solution to the MMA article space and then vanish in the night to leave the crew of regulars to do their best to demonstrate good faith by addressing the points raised by the SPAs, I with to enter a plea for relief. I request an uninvolved administrator (or multiple administrators) to start calling out (and sanctioning) the violations of community policy on all participants in the debate (yes, I open myself up to the calling out). The only way forward is to demonstrate to the externally canvassed (as has been demonstrated multiple times) editors that violations of community policy and standards will no longer be tolerated in the space. Hasteur (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The regulars who don't support this small clique's monopoly over the agenda have long left in disgust. Admin involvement to sanction any remaining dissent from their agenda will only further antagonize a poisonous situation. In the broader picture, it's the MMA page contributors who have to live with the consequences of the group's polarizing choices. They have little interest in the actual subject as evidenced by their terrible design for "omnibus pages" (which they stealth-implemented to the protestations of everyone else), and this means the rest of us will be saddled with the a burden they have no real stake in. This is not only demotivating to the masses but breeds contempt and grounds for future conflict, which is exactly we are trying to avoid. My alternative proposal is simply that those from the sporting community get a chance to create a plan consistent with both wiki rules and also the stakeholders in this case. We can do this among ourselves without issue if only those who consider themselves an executive elite stop actively sabotaging any efforts they can't directly control and manipulate. For a renewed effort to settle this matter, I've spend considerable time developing a process which would prevent take-overs by single parties in decision-making in the hopes that everyone gets a voice. This is a obviously a threat to them, and why they're trying to block me in a panic.

As to the technical specifics of the matter, most of us want brightline tests for MMA notability, and some level of protection for coherent sets of well formatted/presented and cleanly linked event pages as long as they can fit a minimal template standard. The first issue is obvious. A brightline test would provide clear precedence of what's acceptable. Recall this is the same group that's been actively AfD'ing subject pages at random, even during the "collaborative" process demonstrating bad faith, to gain leverage. A consistent test would sap the power of this tool in the future, so it's against their interests and not an option they'd consider at all. On the second issue, the MMA wiki community has for years used a consistent and well-established format to chain together cohesive sets of events whose value in sum are greater than their parts. Breaking these chains inflict damage well beyond the individual entries and thus why they're the choice of target for this AfD group to gain leverage. We're complete open to more stringent requirements (ie template) to establish brightline tests, but not unexpectedly this minority also won't table this.

What's been even more frustrating is that these features were presented as appendages to the clique's existing plan (in something of 80-20 split in their favor), and they willfull ignored any mention it. Such is the nature of their attitude of complete domination. Rather than let anyone else present their ideas, this small group has intentionally driven off collaborators. No matter how you look at it, the common denominator of the string of previous failures is still them. Agent00f (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, can you link the specific edit where you made a proposal for possible guidelines on the notability of MMA events? I'm sorry, I haven't seen it. I've seen walls of text, much like this one, that don't seem to go anywhere, in my opinion. It is difficult to comment or discuss a proposal that I haven't seen clearly. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply search for "I took a look at the legalistic situation a bit more in depth" on the omnibus page. Note that it's bulleted to be easy to see and read. It was of course ignored by the clique.

More importantly, I believe the approach that you and Mtking took when writing your proposal is already poisoned. The broader community was never consulted, so they have zero incentive to buy in except to capitulate to the constant intimidation and harassment. This is why I proposed a new start with the MMA base onboard from the start. The can choose your plan, or they can choose something else, but they're not forced either way, esp by admin pressure. If it needs to be revised to meet wiki boundaries, so be it, that's their responsibility. It's not your right to take that away from everyone else.

I've started writing this when Mtking immediately saw it as a threat and started this AN. My first post in a line to be posted over time was wholesale deleted. You know what got deleted given you were part of the 3RR. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped you would provide an actual link so we could be sure that we are discussing the same thing. I am going to assume you are referring to this edit. If this assumption is correct, the reason I didn't respond is that I didn't understand it. I cannot tell what you want WP:MMAEVENT to read or how it is related to existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if at all. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it? Users want something with a given structure. The rules should be written to accommodate this, not the other way around. Maybe it's due to your background, but these are not physically or mathematically defined impermeable constructs to assemble towards an end. They're guidelines which can be simply created out of thin air as long as they're reasonably consistent to the general spirit of wiki. If you don't feel MMAEVENT can be stretched to accomodate, then it doesn't even need to enter into this. Agent00f (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seem like blatant ADMIN SHOPPING, esp when factoring in "multiple administrators". Multiple admins have already been involved in this situation (including previous ANI against me which was closed with no action despite blatant CANVASING by Hasteur) and common denominator in all these problems remains the 3 named above. Also, calling out "SPA's" with every breath, who are often the only people left to oppose them, is directly in violation of BITING. Rotating between them to throw the rulebook at newbies to intimidate them also seems like BITEing. Agent00f (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE says that if you see a SPA acting like a SPA you should call them a SPA. Tagging them as SPAs only allows other editors who aren't as quick on the uptake to see if the actions do warrant further response. Please strike your assertions of canvassing. No action was taken during the last ANI where you believe I canvassed therefore you should WP:DROP the claim. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP:BITEing with rulebook. Below are the CANVASING links. These are the only people to comment against me on the ANI directly after. These are the named people (Newmanoconnor is newest member and thus not part of the "common denominator", but he's already been WP:Harrassing me in turn with Hasteur right I joined), plus the admin who strongly endorses MtKing + TreyGeek plan (his own words). They are a solid votingblock. The ANI didn't go anywhere, esp after posting these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mtking#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newmanoconnor#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TreyGeek#FYI:_Agent00f

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#FYI:_Agent00f

I have no intention of retracting a 100% factual statement. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "SPA"s, one quick look through all these user's histories clearly indicate that all 3 of them basically try to delete or otherwise disrupt MMA articles for a living. Includes many trips to AN's and votingblock at AfD's. Fortunately there's no wiki rule WP:HYPOCRISY or we wouldn't all be entertained by this ridiculous forum shopping right now. Agent00f (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I again ask you to strike the above mentioned assertion. I am not a Single Purpose account. I do not edit exclusively MMA based topics. My edit history very clearly shows a focus on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) based articles, but no singular purpose in any editing. You on the other hand have exclusively edited the talk page for WP:MMANOT, your talk page, and this noticeboard. Your actions are a textbook definition of a single purpose account. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of the last 500 edits, the vast majority involves destructive tendencies against MMA material/users. Also, you don't "edit exclusively MMA based topics" since you don't edit anything in them at all. Agent00f (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f - statements that people are trying to delete articles "for a living" (implying paid editing) or calling edits "terrorism" are very serious personal attacks and if continued would warrant admin action under WP:NPA. They do not help to reach resolutions of the dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"for a living" is a figure of speech. If you look through history, the vast majority of their actions are destruction against MMA material. Asymmetric "terrorism" is much more literal. The idea of terrorism is low-cost strikes (which AfD's are, they cost nothing) against higher value targets (which articles in a coherent set are, take out one and the sum suffers). It is also a tool of threat/fear. Note that these AfD's are being fired even during the "consensus" process, implying that they will stop so long as we agree to their plan. This is not unlike bringing guns to arms reduction talks and randomly shooting at people until the other side capitulates. It doesn't always have to hit, but occasionally hitting helps. We literally have no recourse against this other than capitulating. The clique has no material to AfD, so it is by definition asymmetric. These are direct factual statements and abstract reasoning and thus need no retraction. Agent00f (talk) 21:49, 5 May 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.

Facts of the case

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 good faith I'll have to hold off on posting any "soapboxing" on the MMA talk page until this is resolved. So instead of working further on rules for proposals and proposals, I'll write some background to the case, valuable to any decision. Good decisions are based on factual knowledge.

These are mostly for any intervening admin (which I think should intervene). They are empirical observations, assuming good faith in all cases (and no value judgments to minimize bias). They are my direct experience after 1 week (and reading the history):

1. The current MMA omnibus "design" is the product of Mtking and Treygeek. An admin verified this. Mtking knows nothing about the subject, and Treygeek claims to but he's never really demonstrated it anywhere other than improving an event page with some generic prose. He also claimed this took him a significant investment over a whole week, so I guess he works slow.

2. The design they've come up with is both visual atrocious (mismatched sidebars, etc) and obscenely long (already hard to navigate even though only 1/2 complete). Not to mention completely irrational for a non-seasonal sport (which is not sorted by calendar year), and potentially inconsistent in presentation between different organization. This can only be because someone's incompetent or willfully incompetent. We are told to assume good faith, so logically that leaves the former, and it would make sense given 1. Regardless, this doesn't bode well for MMA on wiki in the long term. Because this was already stealth-implemented for one sporting org (the biggest), it's now inconsistent with everything else. This means the work falls on "the regulars" to do the rest of work implementing something they strongly dislike (a fact noted again and again). Rule-enforcing bad design on a volunteer community drives away both contributors and readers, ruins morale, and lowers the quality of everything. This is simply a fact of human nature.

3. Furthermore, despite the process going on for months, it's still incomplete and not ready for RfC. This work is something a competent person can figure out in a weekend, maybe two if they didn't have much wiki domain knowledge. Their excuse is that MMA fans have been obstructing them, but that makes no sense since work done in your own time can be completed regardless of what others do. Their plan eventually came to incorporate some suggested improvements from others, but still none of those contributors are supporting it now.

4. The editing histories of these two + Hasteur (which constitutes their votingblock on anything mma related) shows that they're all ardent deletionists. The histories for Mtking and Hasteur for many months is almost exclusively hunting down mma pages to AfD, plus the ensuing drama. This doesn't suggest they enjoy the sport to say the least. On the other, the Agent00f is clearly thus far mostly an SPA except some kinect material previously. The follow is not citable given privacy concerns so it's "trust me", but it's factually basic: I'm a sometimes MMA fan, and joined the fray because I saw some weirdness in the pages, and found what was going on. It seemed fundamentally unethical at the time so I wrote my two cents, but got trolled in by the clear BS and "warnings" I got in reply. I also know I'm somewhat motivated by anger that gradually built over the week over this as these facts surfaced. Now I would feel I would betray my own sense of ethics if I let this lie. This is simply what happened based on my own recollection of feelings.

5. Let's be honest, we all know that Wiki's rules can be game-theoried by a clique over less organized individuals. From votingblocks to avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest, or round-robin around 3RR (noted in section above), there are many moral hazards here that can encourage a small cohesive group to work together against singular targets. Their histories suggest they stick together on the topic, and never go against anyone in the group. I suppose assuming good faith that can be attributed to sheer coincidence. However game theory is math, and not an assumption.

6. One of Hasteur and Mtking's most notable attributes is unsubstantial replies. If you look at their histories, they rarely post more than a couple lines, often littered with WP: tags instead of actual english. I've found better contributors think moderately deep thoughts, that's just a fact. This is strange given that one of their favorite excuses for deletionism is unsubstantial content, or no prose. This is at least hypocritical as a matter of pure logic. Note this does not apply to Treygeek.

7. Speaking of excuses for AfD, another is lack of sources. But that's also ironic because these two often make frivolous accusations which they don't substantiate, which leads to:

8. Another attributes of all 3 is selective replies. There's apparently no Wiki rule for ignoring people, so they usually just ignore any comment or reply where there's no trite WP tag to counterpoint. This tends to frustrate those who are the exact opposite in substantive replies, so when those call them out, they flaunt WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVILITY. This is very evident in the whole MMA omnibus thread and it's clearly gaming the system as matter of game theory.

9. To be fair, one of Agent00f's attributes is being too verbose, and centering everything on reasoning/logic instead of human feelings. Based on personal observation, it's a character flaw.

10. Mtking and Hasteur often accuse others first of things they're guilty themselves for. This can be seen by the harassment on my talk page and the AN itself. In the abstract this is a psychological strategy but let's assume good faith so they just do it by accident. The effect it has is still real, though, like this AN. Point 8 above is a good example, too. They're simply very proactive about striking out first at everyone else as an empirical observation.

Agent00f (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fact - most of the above "facts" are purely opinion. But hey, why cloud the issue with actual facts supported by evidence? Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not they clearly are not. An "observation" is just that: something you see clearly, like a bottle on table. A bottle on a table is not a matter of opinion. If you need something cited, please point to it specifically and I will oblige. But as a matter of basic fairness you also must oblige to acknowledge in reply that it's observable fact. I didn't cite everything as a time consideration, because the MMA talk page is a mess of a revision history. Please do not think I don't have a very technical background where discerning the difference is critical. Agent00f (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet clearly, they are just your opinion about the matter. BTW - I totally love how you denigrate editors by labeling them. Hmm, how about calling you and those who support you rapid MMA fanboys? So we can have the AFD deletionists vs the fanboys. Hmm, suddenly labels aren't that attractive, are they? Ah, but you'll say, they are AFD deletionists! It's a fact (in my opinion...)! Ah, but others can point out, you are just an MMA fanboy! It's a fact (in their opinion)! And all of the vitriol, hostility and gamemanship you show on the MMA talk page does nothing to help the matter. Except, of course, chase several admins away that were trying to help. What's odd is you've not made a single edit to an MMA article. You do realize that the ultimate way to pull something out of the omnibus is to put the details that would show to anyone that it deserves it's own article. Good grief - UFC 145 probably could be split off without too much work, but that isn't being done. Think about it ... Ravensfire (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not bother if someone calls another a rabid MMA fanboy if they provide a proper definition, just like a bottle on a table is predicated on a definition of "on". Both are observable. Please provide a definition for you statement I'll be happy to accept the label since it changes nothing but the letters. Observable facts are largely linguistically context-free.
2. Also, the admin left of his own free volition. This is a fact as evidenced by his own statement.
3. Since you seem to expect substance from me, it's only fair you provide similar substance in reply. Please substantiate your claims clear as I've done mine.
4. Later I'm working on a set of interpretations based on external reasoning (ie knowledge from outside instead of simple observations) from these facts. This should make the difference abundantly clear. Note in the vernacular, "opinions" is not well defined, so please be much more specific so that we're on the same page.
5. Finally, a slight correction: these are not just facts, but also math as explained within the writing. For example, hypocrisy as formally defined is axiomatic, and easy to deduct. If you have disputes with any of the math, please point out which and we can either go through a thought experiment or the formally deduction. Agent00f (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For #1, can you link to an edit where I claimed to spend a week "full-time" working on UFC 140? If I did make such a claim it was in error, however, I doubt I said that. I spent a week researching the event so that I could write the prose and have it sourced as well as I could. If that is bad, I apologize, I was doing the best I could with the time I had available to me. I would love to see you bring an MMA event article up to the same standards or to a higher standard.

• I believe you claimed that you did this during an no-work week, and you wouldn't be able to resume this kind of commitment afterward, which would imply it was a sizable investment. I commend your commitment. Since we seem to more or less agree on the basics, I'll just reword it. If you wish to specify X hours out of 40 let me know, but I don't think that's necessary.

For #2, the original version of the article lacked the sidebars and raw event results. These other features were added afterwards in order to attempt to work with others interested in the MMA article space. For you to blame the current format of the article exclusively on me and/or Mtking is misplaced blame.

• This plan was specified by Dennis the admin as the result of you and Mtking's work. However, given that none of the those others you speak of want anything to do with it anymore, I think calling it you and Mtking's plan is fairly accurate. I will however amend 3 because not all elements of the design are yours.

For #3... you may not have intended it to be. However, it appears to be a personal attack against any and everyone who has participated in the discussions at WT:MMANOT because you are claiming we are incompetent since the discussion has lasted as long as it has.... thanks.

• This is a bad interpretation of a plain fact. The incompetence is displayed in a plan that no one liked. Had competent work been done in the first place, then the process wouldn't have taken months because people wouldn't have objected so severely. However I sympathize with your distaste for bureaucracy. I'm wasting time here much better spent coming up with proposals a superior plan which everyone except you 3 would like. In fact you and Mtking gaming of the system (wholesale deletion and then 3rr, remember that?) is blocking proposals from being tabled. Bureaucracy often means incompetence blocking ideas that aren't institutional. Such is life.

For #7 "they often make frivolous accusations"[citation needed] (particularly for the "frivolous accusations" I have made).

• It probably wasn't unambiguous that 7 follows from 6, where you are not named. I've clarified it. I hope this doesn't imply that you've internalized the clique. ;) If you want citations for them, simply read the flood of their spam/harassment on my talk page. There is of course much more in the talk page (WP:WARNINGS at every turn), and you should be aware of it from your history on this case.

For #8 I historically don't respond to comments, questions, etc that I do not understand. Also, I try not to immediately respond to talk pages (though I am not always successful) and in discussion that have rapid comments from multiple people it can be easy to miss something to respond to.

• I don't know what you're talking about, please clarify. This is one example of a good reply to a confusing comment instead of ignoring it.

For #10 I stand by the vast majority of my edits and actions on Wikipedia. If administrators and/or the larger Wikipedia community feels that I have been in error I fully expect them to let me know up to and including talk page warnings, blocks of editing privileges and/or topic bans.

• I apologize I didn't exclude you from this point, that was clearly an error and I've fixed it. You're actually a quite honest person and don't indulge in this like your colleagues.

For the points that I did not address, I don't understand why you bring them up aside from possibly blowing off steam. I had hoped that both in the original WT:MMANOT discussions and my attempts to renew the discussion that everyone could try to work together. Unfortunately, it seems those efforts are failing and I'm not sure why aside from the possibility that my involvement inherently negatively polarizes the situation. Now I must run, UFC on Fox is about to start. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The facts listed here are a large part of the reason why people are very reluctant to work with the 3 amigos, and frankly despise them even if they're not allowed to express it. I've noted above that background facts are important to making decision, like for example this AN. That's why they're placed as a primer for the admin who might not be familiar with the situation otherwise.

Replied Agent00f (talk) 11:11, 6 May 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.

Interpretations of the Situation

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 is based on my own value judgement and external logic (ie uses things not inherent in the observation). It's separated from the above because it is not 100% provably true.

1. It seems what happened is that when the group above was warring against mma pages, a few mma fans took matters into their own hands. This had a unfortunate polarizing effect on wiki administration whereby the latter became the "bad guys" as an aggregate, and the former by extension and axiomatic symmetry the good guys. This gave the former considerable more leeway when gaming the system. There is extensive psych research for this if citation is necessary.

2. Allowing a small disinterested clique to systematically ruin a whole functional community on wiki is a stain on the wiki reputation, even if it's by accident. By doing nothing to dissuade (ie allowing) gaming of the system, it paints a picture that the org is more about the letter of the law than the spirit. It defines the site as a bureaucratic nightmare instead of good judgement. This is fundamentally discouraging to smart and creative contributors which is what any site needs.

3. As a matter of good judgement, there are two issues to consider here: the good of the few against the many, and legal consistency. The former is obvious, but the later often encourages enforcing the letter of the law if only to minimize exceptions. However, in that case we also have to consider that allowing the precedent that a few people can game the site rules for months without punishment.

4. This seems a clear case where a few (again, perhaps only by circumstance) took over the reigns of power by abusing the common rules. In a way it's the wort kind of takeover since they've gotten to make substantial decisions even though they have no stake in the longer term outcome. This is very akin to predatory takeover or private equity business in equivalent function, which are very well documented cases. In all these circumstances, demoralization at the lower ranks and moral hazards abound. Given this has already happened, the question is how to resolve it: silence the whistle-blowers, turn a blind eye, solve the problem by closing loopholes, or solve the problem by sanctioning people've taken advantage of them (even if they only happen upon it). The decision is an easy one to make, and it's certainly not mine to make, but the necessary info to do it was presented.

Agent00f (talk) 11:17, 6 May 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.

Call for sanctions

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.

---

Administrators Surely this 3 ring circus has gone on long enough. The thread a few days ago coupled with these 2 threads should illuminate beyond any shadow of a doubt the disruptive actions of Agent00f who will filibuster, claim bureaucratic abuse, claim anything in the book just to slow down the process of building consensus regarding the MMA articles.

I do acknowledge that my own actions in response to Agent00f have been less than exemplary, however I challenge you to find any other editor who has dealt with the same intensity and duration of abuse of community guidelines as we (MtKing, TreyGeek, and myself) have and still maintain the same level of composure.

I call for an indefinite block on Agent00f on grounds of deliberate disruption, lack of Assuming Good Faith, Personal Attacks, and deliberate obfuscation after being warned repeatedly being asked to strike assumptions of bad faith and to discontinue their disruptive behavior.

My name is Hasteur and I endorse this set of proposed sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is so much admin shopping just like the last ANI it's not even funny. First, thorough explanations are not "Obfuscation". Some things in the world are just complicated. Second, sometimes facts can reflect badly, but that's no a function of facts, but interpretation. Just like a bottle on the table that you were supposed to put away can reflect badly on one's sense of responsibility. I suppose it's possible of all who sees this one will oblige and you'll get your way in complete violation of the shopping rule. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The user in question has a perfectly clean block log. Calling for an indefinite block at this point is inappropriate and easily seen as pointy. Please follow proper procedures and an escalating block system. Calling for this right away seems like an attempt to remove an opponent in a dispute, even if that isn't what it is meant as. Silverseren^C 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have striked my request for an indef block, however I point to the below created section, their blocking by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and their WP:NOTTHEM groundwork laying on their talk page in response to their block. While I prefer to see the good things in editors, I suspect that no change in behavior will result from the preventative measure that was taken. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 6 May 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.

Reflections on the Ridiculousness of this AN

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.

---

1. It was clearly created in ridiculously bad faith. Mtking wholesale deletes a new comment, which is a direct violation of WP:TALKO's editing rule and then has the nerve to FORUMSHOP and ADMINSHOP by creating this AN over his own violation.
2. When I tried to revert back this blatant disregard for wiki rules, Mtking and Treygeek team up to run around 3RR together, and Mtking creates yet another AN to FORUMSHOP/ADMINSHOP against me so that his blatant disregard for policy can't stopped.
3. When that didn't get anywhere, Mtking instead attempts subterfuge to make sure the comment is never seen.

This AN is basically an attempt to hid one comment by either keeping it deleted or blocking the user who created it. It's nothing bad faith to the Nth degree.

Frankly Mtking's actions here an insult to the intelligence of admins by assuming they're can't see through these flagrant attempts at flaunting wiki standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think I said it once before, vape the whole project. Failing that, just indef topic ban them all, then maybe this won't come up every week. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Blackmane's solution. Delete all MMA articles, SALT them, blacklist the acronym MMA ... guys can't play well with others - we get DAILY edit-wars, ANI filings, AFD's, PROD's, CSD's ... what a load of crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about you guys go create a MMA wiki on Wikia? Then you can all fight with each other and we don't have to read about it. --Laser brain (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Hear hear. Swear to heaven, this is a pretty basic situation:
  1) Some editors attempt to apply certain policies and guidelines to a series of articles, such as WP:ROUTINE, WP:IRS, WP:NSPORT, WP:CRYSTAL and the like.
  2) A handful of contrarians, whose arguments tend to rest on illegitimate grounds such as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, spam some bulletin boards with oft-obscene exhortations to "take the mofos down," whereupon the effort is flooded by wave after wave of SPAs, sockpuppets and meatpuppets, for whom civility and NPA rules are sick jokes.
  3) Although quite literally dozens of these sock/meatpuppets are indef blocked, for some astonishing reason, a number of parties are taking their filibustering seriously, and this organized, canvassed disruption is allowed to persist.
  These people do not care about Wikipedia. They don't care about our policies, our guidelines, our customs and our rules. They don't merely admit that they're bent on disrupting anyone who attempts to thwart their use of Wikipedia as a webhost for their information, they boast about it. Why in the hell are we letting them do it, and why would we want thereby to admit to the world that a well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies and guidelines to impose their will? Ravenswing 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• " well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies"
• The problem has rather been the opposite. The existance of many motivated but unorganized "SPA's" (mainly wiki contributors and users) vs an smaller entrench wiki "elite" (observations which no one disagrees with, given that it's your own statement) is by definition a demonstrate that a "well-enough organized pressure group can succeed in overwhelming policies" against a majority of actual users/stakeholder. Committee decisions reached via uninformed opinions, by people who don't understand the situation, against the interests of the afflicted userbase is the main reason why we're still here after many months. It's notable that ALL of the dozens of regular MMA contributors/stakeholders who were part of the process at the start have left or been pushed out. Please think about this per your recommendation above. Agent00f (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Conditionally Support Blackmane's solution. However, the parties targeted are the wrong ones. According to reality thishas been a war between a very few but active AfD enthusiasts and the rest of the community who contribute/read material on wiki. The former are the only ones who've been here since the start of this destructive ordeal and they've had their second chance about 5 chances ago. Everyone else has left, often in disgust. Of course those left get to point the finger. Can someone please provide a brightline rule of how many opportunities before the wiki powers that be says enough with epic failure? Agent00f (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd partially meant my comment to be facetious albeit with a very substantial portion of seriousness. The MMA project is becoming the very definition of a walled garden. This is the last thing an open project needs. This is Wikipedia not fricking Fanboypedia. And purely for my own benefit, how does one go about vaping an entire project? If this rather drastic idea gains traction, it might be worth putting it up for proper community consideration Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that this is going to require an arbcom case placing discretionary sanctions of the sort that exist in the Balkans articles, i.e. disruption by SPAs and IPs can be immediately vaped (blocked) by a patrolling admin. The MMA fanboys will never want to play on their own Wiki because it will never get the traffic that Wikipedia does. When you combine hundreds of meatpuppets with not only ignorance of rules but an outright refusal to believe that rules apply to them, you get this mess. We can't feasibly remove all MMA from the encyclopedia, but we can block all of this ridiculousness on sight. Chillllls (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say whether Arbcom would take this case on without the full gamut of dispute resolution cards being played, but given the sheer scale of disruption that the MMA fanboys are causing I don't think there would be much option. However, that doesn't really solve the problem, it merely enhances the administrative workload because the fanboys will not give up. The best option may still come down to nuking the project from orbit. A RFC may be the next thing to consider on this. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be tarred by both sides for saying this, but 80% of the MMA content is not a problem. It's only the hyper motivated enthusiast crowd that is causing a problem. Heck, up to when some editors came on the scene we were nearly ready to get the blue ribbon RfC moving along so that we could finish the debate about how to protect the smaller articles that are already here and how to ensure that MMA is covered reasonably. It was suggested previously that the way to get a discretionary sanctions like regime passed would be to go for General Sanctions at WP:AN. I've personally been holding back from using this route because I've wanted to demonstrate good faith above and beyond a WikiSaint so that claims of being biased against MMA topics can be deflected by the aforementioned good faith. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What is expected of this ever snowballing ANI?

Exactly what is expected to be achieved here? This started off as Mtking+Hasteur vs Agent00f and it's basically blown up into something about MMA as a whole. Would the suggestion of an IBAN between Hastuer and Agent00f as well as a topic ban for Agent00f' be off the scale? I've generally not been involved with the whole fiasco that is WP:MMA except for a few comments on, yet another, MMA related ANI I made some months back and when yet another MMA fanboy, BigzMMA, was hauled through ANI. I've seen and read through a number of AfDs on MMA related articles and would generally have voted delete on many of them, but decided against involving myself in that swamp. I give Treygeek and the other AFD regulars an enormous amount of credit for maintaining their sanity in the face of the some of the crap they've been through. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't noted yet, the prior attempts at resolving this problem only seem to have a few common denominators. Basic logic would dictate that repeating the same wouldn't generate novel results. However, your interpretation of the same info yields the opinion that the solution rather involves nuking everyone else outside the common denominator of previous failures. This isn't necessarily a terrible plan outside of its basic destructiveness, but do note that it's those outside that circle who will be saddled with the resulting rules/plans. In comparison, nuking the whole subject (including all contributors) seems much more consistent with the that general scheme. Agent00f (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• cough* Notification *cough* You make a suggestion of an IBAN between me and Agent00f, then give credit for "the crap they've been through". Inconsistent much? This entire thread has transformed from it's initial purpose of Agent00f screaming harassment that Mtking and I were perpetrating against him, into a request for undissolveduninvolved admins to start policing the community guidelines (which still has yet to occur), to a examination of how Agent00f has conducted themselves, to a ill planned request for an indefinite block (which I have since retracted), to a further look at how to improve the MMA article space. I will admit to being somewhat uncivil in some of my communication with Agent00f, but I contest the need of an IBAN as I have not been warned once regarding my interaction. Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd drop a notice on Agent00f's talk page about this sub-thread but I don't think any posting from me at this time would be well received at all. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just don't screw up the formatting or you'll get barked at. Ravensfire (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I asked the question whether my suggestion is off the scale. I bolded it to make it stand out not to make it a formal proposal. I'm more than happy to strike it out if you have issue with it. My preference would be to have at least something come out of this extended discussion and a rather extreme suggestion was hopefully going to push for a compromising position from others. A rather large amount of time and discussion has gone into this and to have it closed merely as "no admin action required" is, to my mind at least, nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I will agree that admin action (or involvement) is required, but jumping to the level of IBAN is unwarranted. It's been my understanding that interaction bans are for when there is mutual persistent incompatibility with both editors or one going and harassing another. While I don't think we're at that level, I think an uninvolved experienced editor taking Agent00f as a mentoree would be the best way to modify the issues that have been identified while at the same time allowing Agent00f to to continue contributing to the community. I'm staying away from other/further recommendations as I precieve myself to be already very involved with Agent00f's behavior. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"unwarranted"??? How many kb is this thread? Clearly that word cannot be used here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unwarranted!" There, I used it.

(ahem) I'd say this has gone beyond the scope of ANI at this point. And I personally feel IBANs are useless, as they're far too easy to game around. The whole MMA issue needs to go to ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the comment that the only people opposing the MMA articles are a small clique of 3 deletionists: I oppose many of them also, and support the consolidation proposal. So do some others, but they can be seem on the discussions--I don't want to bring them to this mess involutarily. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In like fashion, I oppose many of them, support the portmanteau articles, and spit contemptuously on the premise that failure to give every show of every fed its own article equates to wanting to eliminate MMA from Wikipedia. (Of course, if there were twenty experienced editors all over these articles, no doubt the disruptors would come up with some other Conspiracy To Get Us line of reasoning.) Ravenswing 03:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Endorse the sane and balanced comments of DGG (goes without saying; no deletionist he) and of Ravenswing as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please keep an eye Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability ,a little progress, but more recently more of the same..Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've read through (and am still reading through) the MMANOT talk page and frankly I'm appalled. The discussion that started there was moving forwards with contributions from a number of editors but has since been bogged down in a morass of circular discussions by Agentoof. I'm going to bite the bullet and take the hits that come. I'm going to formally propose a topic ban for Agent00f for sustained disruption at the WT:MMANOT. While I grant that it is constructive to have points debated and holes looked over and patched but not to the point that it becomes badgering. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to take multiple servings of seafoodBlackmane (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is this some kind of joke? Did you notice that I was just about the only one to bring up domain-specific Rfc-related points (~10 in total) to a domain-specific RfC in a flood of generic comments that don't even mention details? Or that the "circular discussions" is only one user repeating the same thing over and over again in the most obnoxious way possible while dodging a simple question? With a ready group of indignant editors ready to jump on their cross at the slightest perceived slights to start shopping, it's no wonder there are no regular subject contributors left in this discussion. Would you want to put up with this? Agent00f (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I quite doubt that anyone is laughing; certainly I'm not, after looking over that talk page myself. Indeed - after filtering out many personal attacks, broad attacks and irrelevancies - you asked a number of questions. Where pertinent, by and large they were answered. That you might not like the answers is another matter, but I hope and trust you can concede that no one is required to provide you an answer with which you agree.
  As far as "regular subject contributors" go, though, do you count yourself as one? I was quite startled when, upon review of your edit history, I found that you had only made two articlespace comments ever, both two years ago, that you had never improved an article (MMA or otherwise) and that you had never created an article (MMA or otherwise). As I remarked on that talk page this morning, your commentary in the couple weeks you have again been active has been entirely negative: trying to shut down AfDs, attempting to discredit editors with whom you disagree, labeling your opponents as serving a "deletionist agenda" and opposing any proposal to set MMA notability criteria. As such, I would Support a topic ban as Blackmane proposes, until such time as you demonstrate that you intend to be a productive Wikipedia editor. Ravenswing 10:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Where pertinent, by and large they were answered". First, I have no idea what these "questions" are since I don't need to ask questions about the RfC given that I understand the specifics quite well. The one question I ask about how you define "quality" is still un-answered btw despite the waffling.

1. I generally don't feel the need to log in and prove anything to the world when by chance I feel the need to append a technical entry. The main reason I did so for this MMANOT topic was due to the ridiculous SOCK accusations/"investigation" dropped by the deletionist crowd at every opportunity.
2. the accusation I tried to "shut down AfDs" is entirely true: I said it shows bad faith to use them as leverage during a discussion about the AfD's in question. This is a matter of acting ethically, and I don't know why you feel it's a slight to be ethical.
3. if stating that it's unethically to use AfD's "discredits" anyone, I'll be happy to take credit. I'll repeat again: it's unethical to keep AfDing while the articles are under discussion/review. If there are any other basic moral stances you dislike, please list them as well.
4. "deletionist agenda". I very explicitly said a couple people had deletionist histories, just as you very explicitly said my account has a lackluster history. Both are true, yet you seem to think the statement that's not yours is grounds for a block. Why is that?

Also, please note the impropriety of "supporting" sanctions in an argument you're part of. Same for Blackmane. Shopping for a ban after coming out the worse end of a conversation is a display of conflict of interest and unCIVILized behavior. Agent00f (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confused. What I was referring to was your conduct on the MMA notability talk page. If the mooted RfC was put up, I have not yet seen it. Secondly, your repeated insistence that I define "quality" for you is an example of the behavior which we find objectionable; that you tendentiously pick some irrelevant word, point or phrase to belabor. As far as sockpuppet allegations go, it was not at all ridiculous given the recent history of MMA here, where dozens of sock- and meatpuppets have already been blocked. Finally, another disruptive habit you display is in distorting people's words and actions. I am not "shopping" for a ban; I responded to a proposal for one here, as I often do, being modestly active in ANI discussions. My first posts on that talk page were less than six hours ago, to which you were quite prompt in tendentious and hostile responses which violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as even one editor quite sympathetic to you pointed out. Ravenswing 11:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "If the mooted RfC was put up, I have not yet seen it." What are you talking about? You replied in the RfC.
2. "that you tendentiously pick some irrelevant word, point or phrase to belabor". It was a simple question about the core your argument lies around. If you don't want to define it, whatever, just ignore it as you've done everywhere else. This is how you replied: "Now I see that you're not only inexperienced with Wikipedia, but you have almost no experience with article building (with only 280 edits, and only two in articlespace). While reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR would no doubt prove informative, I especially commend to you WP:ITSUSEFUL, as an example of a generally discredited argument at AfD. " An amusing answer given those pages undermined you own point. When that was pointed out, you were the only one throwing out personal accusations: Finally, while you are so eager to discuss the agenda of others ... what about yours? It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to improve articles - you never have improved an article. It is plain that you are not on Wikipedia to create MMA articles - you never have. You’re not even here to suggest ways to improve Wikipedia - your commentary has been entirely negative, from trying to shut down AfDs, to trying to discredit editors whom you perceive as opposing your agenda, to opposing any proposal to set notability criteria. Would you care to put your labeling and the talk of agendas to rest, sir, or are you comfortable with your own quite blatant agenda - it’s not that you can claim you are on Wikipedia for any other purpose - being the subject of frequent commentary? Now that you seem to be angry this about this, you appear to seek to sanction anyone who dares bring it about.
3. The only remotely "hostile" comment was the remark that the above was petty authority, which is it. The solution here is easy. Don't act with petty authority if that's not a good impression to leave. Agent00f (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• As Chillllls noted below, your battleground mentality is part of the problem. As such, I see no reason to further respond to your filibustering, and will restrict myself to answering other editors, who can reasonably be expected to keep their comments concise and to the point. Ravenswing 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban as one of the few ways to stop the incessant disruptive attitude. I note that a topic ban from MMA articles is a de facto siteban as Agent00f has shown effectively no interest in editing outside the MMA topic space Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, just a note this is the user who's been harassing me for the last two weeks, like just 5 min ago striking out anything which doesn't suit his/her sensibilities on the MMA talk page in direct violation of TALKO rules. It's pretty amusing nothing ever gets done about this kind of DISRUPTIVE behavior, like selective replies and whatnot, and all this AN harassment.
• PS. Hasteur, don't forget to canvas for more sure sympathetic votes like last time. Agent00f (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've never been involved in any of the discussions on articles/policies/guidelines regarding MMA. Unless someone can point to the relevant interactions that suggest otherwise, I would say I'm a fairly neutral party in this matter. Sure I have some strong opinions about how things could be done better, but that isn't clouding my judgement in this matter. Agent00f, you may think I'm here to "win" an argument, that is entirely untrue. I put forward my perspective and will debate them, but if others decide otherwise, then so be it. It's no skin off my back if what I say is judged not to be something worth pursuing. You may see that I have a conflict of interest here in that I am attempting to silence the opposition. Again, you are wrong as I have no horse in the race with regards to MMA, if you are topic banned then it is the community's decision. I decided to put forward the proposal after studying WT:MMANOT. If the topic ban proposal is not agreed to, that too is the community's decision and will not be something I will pursue adamantly to enact against the community's consensus. I have nothing against you personally and in fact have somewhat enjoyed the sparring, but it is what I perceive in how you have stalled the discussion at the talk page that has led me to decide to make this proposal. Blackmane (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, is this meant as parody? Just look at your own previous comments (note this is was all before the "studying" that supposed changed your mind):

1. Comment I think I said it once before, vape the whole project. Failing that, just indef topic ban them all, then maybe this won't come up every week. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
2. And in the rush to endorse this?: Hear hear. Swear to heaven, this is a pretty basic situation:... Ravenswing 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC), oops.
3. Would the suggestion of an IBAN between Hastuer and Agent00f as well as a topic ban for Agent00f be off the scale? I've generally not been involved with the whole fiasco that is WP:MMA except for a few comments on, yet another, MMA related ANI I made some months back and when yet another MMA fanboy, BigzMMA, was hauled through ANI. I've seen and read through a number of AfDs on MMA related articles and would generally have voted delete on many of them, but decided against involving myself in that swamp. I give Treygeek and the other AFD regulars an enormous amount of credit for maintaining their sanity in the face of the some of the crap they've been through. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur also claimed to contact "neutral" members in the last ANI, and I don't recall the admin look too favorably on this when it was shown otherwise. Seem like everyone is quite neutral here, if by neutral we mean kinda hopes the whole thing gets vaped. Remember these are all recorded for posterity. Agent00f (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot see that my opinion, from a bystander's perspective, is that sometimes the best way to deal with an infested paddock is to burn the lot to the ground and start again, then either I'm being too vague or you're not reading between the lines. If it looks like I'm siding with anyone, I'm siding with protecting the 'pedia. In fact, I'm going to expand on my call for your topic ban to include general violations of WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if by bystander you mean someone not a day ago was high-fiving with those berating "fanboys" and support dropping the bomb on a whole subject to prove a point, not a day ago. Surely you have nothing against someone who vehemently opposed the idea, and who you've now found is the only domain expert and stakeholder interest advocate left in the discussion. Oh and btw, the bomb was your proposal. But let's be fair here, you never intended these bombs to start any BATTLE, and it's just awful you need to block someone for the good of wiki. Is it standard policy to assume admins to be idiots who'll believe this? Agent00f (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have started a RfC/U in regards to Agent00f's conduct. Pending participation, I suggest that the suggestion of sanctions be tabled. Hasteur (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blackmane, an IBAN won't fix anything. I spent months working on MMA articles before Agent showed up, with a little success on getting the two sides of the issue together before I gave up due to Agent's passive-aggressive hostility and the unwillingness of the other side to stop bringing every thing to ANI. It seems that now the floodgates have opened up and everyone on both sides has literally gone 'nanners. Agent is the most culpable in this mess, by a large degree, based on my heavy involvement there previously, had I not been so involved previous to his arrival and could have arguably acted objectively, I would have already taken action a long time ago. It is hard to see with the reams of garbage over there now, so either you trust my judgement or you don't, I suppose. And I liked your first idea better. At this point, Wikipedia would be better off with none of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• After some thought and due consideration based on the various replies to my suggestion, I'll strike out the IBAN. I'll also retract my topic ban suggestion until the RFC/U has run its course. Blackmane (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that the RfC will help much either. Mtking ^(edits) 05:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Lets do that dance anyway. Blackmane (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects with related walled garden problems

To be truly honest, the underlying issue is about notability and I think it affects more than just MMA. The core question is simply do major MMA pay-per-view events, such as those held regularly by UFC, meet the notability requirements with just the basic fight information (location, crowd, payouts) and results? That question isn't limited to just MMA though. Take tennis. The tennis project's notability guidelines say that top tier tournaments are notable, but secondary ones aren't, but with 15 seconds of effort, I find 2010 GEMAX Open. For all the MMA drama, any of UFC event articles have far more information than that article. With a bit more effort, you can find similar articles for many other sports. I'll give the MLB and NFL folks huge credit that you don't see as much of this in those areas, especially in football. I have no question that any give NFL game, especially a big rivalry game, generates more and lasting coverage than the average UFC PPV event. There are some attempts to answer the notability question (when it's not being derailed by someone declaring a revolution), but it's a bigger question than just MMA. There are large number of articles across Wikipedia that are simply results for various tournaments / events. Per WP:ROUTINE, those should be simple and easy AFD's. Anyone care to start trying that? You can see the madness from MMA, I somehow think other sports will be just as bad if not worse. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Thank you for being thoughtful. Unfortunately these aren't novel insights, but rather tend to crop up each of the half dozen attempts at resolving this issue. Even more unfortunate, historically the persons bring up these insights and subsequent solutions have been ignored or otherwise driven off. Had they been acted on, there's no doubt this would've over months ago and probably set an excellent precedent for all other other entries of the type (you've noted). This isn't at all to trivialize what you're saying (esp since I entirely agree), just noting that we've already been here before. IOW, being more thoughtful about the specifics is very unfortunately not the solution.
2. As mentioned, these types of thoughtful replies constitute the minority on the subject. In fact through direct observation of this AN as a microcosm of the broader dilemma, we can see that it's mostly just throwing around trite WP:BULLSHIT. It's uncertain whether this is simply a relection of an opinion that application of "established" processes takes priority over thinking about what's going on; or at this point, implies a lack of capacity to self-refection or understand 1. Without the kind of detail/insight which you're trying to provide, it's not possible to resolve problems except by accident, and we haven't been that lucky due to WP:TLDR and WP:ASSUMETHISWORKS. Put another way, this is a classic case where the aggregate level of intelligence displayed has been insufficient to solve it, but this kind of observation is inherently difficult to appreciate.
3. This specific proposition of "nuke it from orbit" is the perfect reflection of the mindset and situation just described. The general idea is not only that topics which aren't "encyclopedic" don't belong here, but issues which can't be resolved by the same mindset don't belong here. While this isn't a bad point to make since compatibility with the wiki zeitgeist is a concern, but the solution proposed has nothing to do with the broader goal of serving wiki users. My main observation on it is that it's a mindset and idea mainly propagated by those with no stake in the outcome: iow, "I don't care for this subject so let's just get rid of it." Agent00f (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look at the link that Ravensfire posted for the tennis tournament, if you go to the category there are literally hundreds of articles which are little more than results scorecards and draws. Interestingly, sampling just a few almost all of them were created by just one editor. In fact, I randomly sampled about 30 articles from that category for 2009 and almost every one was created by them, with the exception of maybe 1 or 2. The ones I sampled in 2010 were created by another user. This is a little off topic but this surface scratching is only just revealing the scale of the issue here. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; these type of walled gardens are commonplace in many Wikiprojects, even those that don't focus on sports topics. When an attempt is made by a non-project editor to enforce what should be a site-wide notability policy for inclusion or an element of the MOS, the project editors come out of the woodwork to give their reasons as to why articles on such-and-such topic are exempt from the rules (mostly clever variations of ILIKEIT). It's not that the MMA project is the worst when it comes to stuff like this, they just have the most visible (and arguably the most obtuse) IP meatpuppets at this time. Chillllls (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Projects sometimes set their own notability rules or style conventions &c (with style, it's more often the habit of one or two prolific editors, rather than a written guideline); this is not inherently a bad thing, but when those project rules conflict with en.wikipedia rules, we get lots of drama and timewasting. In terms of notability, it often leans towards inclusionism, but not always. IIRC there was one case where a project had a spring-clean and took a bunch of articles to AfD which appeared to fall short of the project's notability guideline even though some passed the GNG by a considerable margin. I stumbled across one project which had a very widely used template which is inherently incompatible with the MOS. There are limits to centralisation - and I wouldn't call for millions of ritual edits to shift articles from project-style to MOS-style - but the conflicts between projects rules and en.wikipedia rules are a problem which we should try to mitigate. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've split this section off as it's not really related to the situation above and may just move this to the talk page, although we could continue this discussion on one of our talk pages until we can come up with some sensible plan of action (if such is required or desirable). We're coming to the point we're some of us have identified a deep rooted issue and it looks like this really requires a much wider community input than just a few people having a "hmmmm" moment on ANI. I'm not against any particular wikiptoject (although the MMA makes me sigh...repeatedly) but allowing each project to go off and establish their own rules and guidelines outside those of the core policies is going to be a nightmare to fix. Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's been a problem in the diacritics wars, too. It's not a crisis but we really ought to do something... somewhere... bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I contest there's a back room deal going on to make a lower standard for MMA than the rest of en.WP. We're having the discussion at the SNG page for MMA to help define a very specific set of "It Must Have"s so that the MMA community can know exactly what is needed.Hasteur (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. There needs to be a stringent set of absolute minimum baseline notability requirements that all sports projects should adhere to with no loosening. Projects should be free to build on the requirements but not weaken them to their liking so that articles can scrape by with notability. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically this is what the MMA userbase has said from the start: the general guidelines for established sports contains elements which are difficult to apply to the unique circumstances and format of MMA, a new burgeoning sport (high double digit year over year growth). This is a general problem for all such sports, and MMA is only notable for the often negative attention it draws from some elements in society. However, instead of using this an opportunity to fix the problem, we're only allowed to look at thoughtless and trite bandaids. Agent00f (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What the MMA user(fan)base wants is to have the SNG loosened so they can have their individual event pages policy abiding. This opens up a can of worms that allows virtually any sport to have similar pages. How popular a sport is, or is becoming, is irrelevant. Blackmane (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. The tactic they've gone with is obfuscation, delay, denigration of opponents and ignoring points made. Ravensfire (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a very substantive proposal on the talk page which avoids these problems. Unfortunately the anti-fans here continue to make assertion despite ignorance of these specifics. Also, Ravensfire, I can't speak for anyone else but can you point to which points I've avoided? I'd be happy to address them provide you can promise a reply in kind. All I see is the exact opposite on this page: dozens of points from me conveniently ignored by anti-fans under the banner of TLDR. Many of them were directly to you. This seems extremely hypocritical but I'll assume good faith. If it was because they were difficult to understand, I can try to reformulate. Agent00f (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"This sees extremely hypocritical but I'll assume good faith." Facepalm Chillllls (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is tautological, the only factor open to interpretation is intent. How would you describe it instead? That is not a rhetorical question. Agent00f (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're saying the hypocrisy may be unintentional when many of your posts here and at the WP:MMANOT talk page heavily imply that you believe there is a grand conspiracy of four or five editors attempting to deliberately sidetrack discussion of the MMA guidelines. As to my facepalm, I simply thought the juxtaposition of the accusation of hypocrisy and AGF was humorous. You can play rhetorical games all you want (and I actually enjoy them); but c'mon, I know apophasis when I see it. Chillllls (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no belief or assuming involved here. 3 editors have been the common denominator of all previous failures. This is a simple observable fact (do you disagree?). That they often work together is also a fact stated by an admin who worked with them, and also readily evidenced when they want to delete something (always vote together, always revert war together, whereas no one else is nearly as organized). The hypocrisy is also not much of an "accusation". It's blatantly obvious that Ravensfire, et al, stated the MMA fanbase avoids their points, all while ignoring many many points to the extent of remaining silent when this behavior is called out. This is recorded right above. That's what hypocrisy is by definition. I don't see how any of this is a "game". If anything, being told to AGF when I say a bottle is resting on the table feels more like a game. Agent00f (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, the only reason there's "3 editors" instead of a landslide is because a small group of, we'll call them "pro-MMA editors" for want of a better term, have so poisoned the well that nobody who actually cares about Wikipedia policy dares go there anymore. it's such an absolutely disgusting morass of fanboyism, incivility, personal attacks and bad faith that we've all washed our hands and left in disgust because we have better things to do than suffer the slings and arrows of outraged 'editors' for whom anything other than a page for every event, ever, is proof of a cabal that's out to destroy MMA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet, for all those previous failures, only a consistent tiny minority with no interest in the subject have been allowed to control the agenda while hopping on their cross, while regular MMA stakeholders (you know, people who'll be saddled with the rules) continue to either leave in disgust or forcibly. Can someone please provide a brightline rule of how many failures a given executive group are granted before we allow pursuit of alternative strategies? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell ya what - when you stop with the attacks on folks you disagree with, I'll start responding to your concerns. I'm way past tired of the crap from you that's directed soley at editors and their motives. That's been your MO for quite a while and you've been called out about it, but haven't chanced. Until you decide to change, quite simply, I'm going to ignore you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify if something in my fact-checking or analysis is amiss, or it just you don't like what the results say? Personally, I don't think the results are surprising given the history of this whole affair. They're unfortunate, I agree, but not unexpected. This isn't a rhetorical question and the answer quite important to my decision. Agent00f (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the big problem here is that you are fundamentally unable to comprehend this situation in a non-battleground mentality. You see it as a conflict between some cabal of "non-interested" editors who want to gut your focus area and a few valiant defenders of your noble sport. Your "Facts of the Case" in the above section is a perfect example of this: you describe your personal perception of how you see the debate as a list of objective facts! Your analysis is just that, your own personal subjective analysis. How do you not understand that distinction? You vacillate between alleging conpiracies and condescending dismissals of reasoning that doesn't fit your POV. You think you're frustrated? Try to step outside yourself for a moment and see things from another point of view. Chillllls (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully realize that it's not trivial to the see the difficulty of either my situation or anyone who dissents against a very dominant opinion on this topic. However, simply look at the record of my first week on the talk page: but a small sample of the threats ("final warning") and intimation. I've had so many calls for sanctions against me by now from the same predictable parties that I mostly act a comedy routine. If there's a BATTLE going on, it's not been one that anyone on the wrong side of dominant opinion on this subject chooses, unless their participation is that choice. When I look at the other side, I see mostly cross hopping by people who game the system with questionable ethics (eg. the "neutral" editor who just happens to call for nuking the space and everyone on the wrong side). Perhaps I've become biased, though, so maybe you can point to what they've been suffering in comparison. If anything with time I've only seen just how much they milk it.

The real irony though is despite my profession which dictates what constitutes "fact" to humanity, I still get these ridiculous accusations that I don't understand how empirical observation works. In a way it's poignant for a community like wiki to by populated by know-it-alls, but OTOH it's also why tight citation requirements exist on mainstream articles. The technical side of the project has quite lackluster sourcing, yet seems generally safe from the ridiculous AfD campaigns. Should we expect Liouville_function or Soft_Heap to come under attack by this group anytime soon or should MMA peeps make their articles just as obscure to protect them? Agent00f (talk) 16:08, 11 May 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.

WP:POINTy nominations of ANTM articles

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.

---

Some MMA fanboys:

• Mississippistfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.147.72.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• AugustWest1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have nominated/called for the deletion of some ANTM articles in the mistaken belief it will somehow annoy me, they are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model. Can an admin have a look. Mtking ^(edits) 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Never did I nominate any article for deletion. I gave my opinion on an existing aFd, and in no way did I ever mention you or make it personal. You drag me to ANI in retaliation? I quoted Wiki policy when giving my Delete vote. You have a problem with it? Debate it in the aFd. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious - based on your strikeout, will you also be going through and striking out all hostile terms being directed towards Mtking? Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious, which are you referring? The aFd's for ATM made no mention of Mtking, and I believe that is the subject of this ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustWest1980 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your (non) answer which was pretty much as expected. Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not directed any hostile terms at MtKing, but he most certainly directed one at me, which I struck-out. It is not my job to go protect Mtking from insults on WP, but I can most certainly react when they are hurled at me. I guess you felt it needed unstruck, so you're also okay with insults being hurled in ANI. Noted. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Does use of a derogatory insult like fanboys and resorting to name-calling really proper for ANI? AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "fanboy" is used 20 (now 21 times) on this page so it would appear so. Mtking ^(edits) 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course the person using the insulting term will jump to defend it. Definitely not civil. AugustWest1980 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand this whole section which btw assumes bad faith. Shouldn't there be a discussion led by people outside of modeling interests on the relevant talk page instead, while these AfD's are ongoing? I'm sure AugustWest1980 and other neutral parties will stop if the modeling fangirls or any others out to ruin wiki agree to a solution that divides up the shows by calendar months. Personally I don't know anything about modeling, but I'd vote SUPPORT for that kind of article design. To be fair though, in the words of Ravenswing, all these frivolous reality TV shows hardly seem notable given they have no lasting effect on anything. Agent00f (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have closed the two AfDs with a SNOW keep, as "obvious bad faith nominations". The MMA problem is difficult enough without this sort of game-playing. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the same vein would you close MMA space nominations if we're able to demonstrate "obvious bad faith" or are some subjects or editors more equal than others here? Agent00f (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I give a support for going a permanent (indefinite) block in these three users. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think we should indef the IP address, but a block is needed due to the IPs bragging that he/she can't be blocked, and gross incivility.  I don't know why Mississippistfan isn't already indeffed, maybe someone is trying to find a sock master.  I think that AugustWest1980 issue should be considered separately.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• I will admit that I may have had a hand in Mississippifan's participation in this set of AfDs by suggesting that if they truly believed that some WWE articles that they had complained about on another user's talk page were not notable that they should WP:SOFIXIT Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean?  Special:Contributions/Mississippistfan is a new account with 2 of the first 4 edits being AfD nominations.  Both AfD nominations were both procedurally closed as bad faith nominations.  By implication of the fact that Speedy Keep's can't be rendered with a Delete vote present, AugustWest1980's delete votes were ruled as inadmissible.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's on User Talk:Mississippistfan. I'm trying to put all my cards, good and bad, on the table. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment to User Talk:Mississippistfan was at

• 2012-05-11T15:15:12

Mississippistfan's last post was at:

• 2012-05-11T15:01:46

So your later post could not possibly have had anything to do with the two bad faith AfD nominations (refs here and here), nor the incivility here and here.  The question remains, why is Mississippistfan not already indeffed?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 13 May 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:ScottMMA

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.

---

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

It looks like Kelapstick has not been able to help this editor understand what consensus is and I suspect an admin might need to intervene given his/her edits to mine and his talk pages. Mtking ^(edits) 11:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reported to AIV, if that will help. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Which it didn't. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:23, 14 May 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.