Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730

Requesting a history merge

On September 2 2010 User:Plasma east cut the then current contents of Arctic Patrol Ship, and pasted it over top of Arctic Patrol Ship Project -- previously a redirect. They then turned Arctic Patrol Ship into a redirect.

I believe this kind of cut and paste is counter-policy as it violates the rights of contributors prior to September 2nd, 2010. We release most of our rights when we click "save". But we retain the right to have our contributions attributed to us -- and that it obfuscated with this kind of cutting and pasting.

Here is a diff of the two versions -- except for one small paragrpah they are almost identical.

For what it is worth, I believe this was a good faith mistake on Plasma East's part.

I request an administrator merge the revision history of Arctic Patrol Ship, prior to the cut and paste onto the revision history of Arctic Patrol Ship Project.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, but next time please use the Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves process rather than posting it on ANI. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

I wasn't familiar with {{histmerge}}. I'll use it, if there is a next time. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat by Doktorb

Resolved

 – the offending off-wiki comment appears to have been withdrawn. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am noting that a Wikipedia article about me (Rhys Morgan) had been nominated for deletion by User:Doktorbuk on the basis that it was/I am a "sophisticated hoax" and that I am a "mythical character" (http://twitter.com/#!/doktorb/status/143027459384815616). I made no contribution to the AfD nor the actual page (aside from posting on the talk page to correct an error) as I understand that this would be a massive conflict of interest. Nor did I incite people to take part in the AfD discussion.
Since then, I tweeted to someone saying that it was clear he hadn't read the article, given that there were numerous reliable sources underneath confirming that I am neither a hoax nor a mythical character: http://twitter.com/#!/rhysmorgan/status/143009818666475521
In response, User:Doktorbuk told me to revert the claim or his "lawyers talk": http://twitter.com/#!/doktorb/status/143037703787778049
I don't think anything really needs to be done about this, but was told that this was the right place to let someone know about it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewelshboyo (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not on-wiki, ergo, it's not really our business. Maybe Twitter has a comparable policy. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to this page. I understand and comprehend the seriousness of the issue, and withdraw any such threat which I made in the quoted tweets. I stand down from this issue and will make no further edits to any articles connected to Rhys Morgan or his work. I will make a public comment on this matter, to Rhys, on Twitter. doktorb _words^deeds 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a good idea. Sounds to me like this is common courtesy, and I wish you had thought of that before (that is my off-wiki comment--I guess I should tweet it). Sheesh, these AfD debates: I wonder when the first AfD victim is listed in the papers. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to give the background to this: Yesterday, Doktorbuk started a deletion debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Morgan. The deletion nomination claimed that Morgan was both non-notable and a completely made-up hoax. The reason for the latter claim was based around what Doktorbuk claims to be strange editing patterns of Penglish (talk · contribs) and Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs). There has been some controversy about the deletion, and it got taken to WP:DRV after a non-admin attempted to speedy keep the AfD. I'm slightly concerned about some of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on with the "hoax" claim. An influx of SPAs !voting keep doesn't justify ignoring genuine concerns from long-standing users that undermine a key plank in the rationale for starting the deletion discussion—myself, User:Krelnik, User:BrainyBabe et al. If the user had been more willing to listen to fellow editors and withdraw this hopeless deletion, perhaps it wouldn't have escalated to the point where off-wiki legal threats were being thrown around. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In the past, off-wiki behavior that is intended to have an effect on on-wiki behavior and/or people has been judged to fall under the procedures and norms of Wikipedia. Doktorbuk has withdrawn the comments, however, so I think we should let it slide with no further action being needed here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats block - assertions of libellous edits and repeated mention of the police

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

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

Swinton Circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton Circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Harvey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subject account with a D is apparently a sock of the older account without a D; claims to be (and probably is) Alan D. Harvey, founder of the Swinton Circle, and author/subject of the now-deleted article Alan Harvey. He doesn't want Wikipedia talking about the Circle, because he doesn't like what we report (he objects to our sources). All recent edits are to articles about persons previously or currently associated with the Swinton Circle, and his edit summaries and talk-page posts are generous in their use of the term "libellous". Additionally, edits to his talk page include repeated references to certain matters as "now being in the hands of the police", which led me to a legal threats block. Could somebody take a look at this one with a less jaundiced eye and see if this needs to be handled differently? Obviously, a lot of WP:BLP issues are also involved here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a legal threat equivalent to me. Not sure why the master account isn't blocked as well ... ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Master blocked also to prevent further legal threats. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it bad to have abandoned user pages?

Like if I am too lazy to memorize those templates for asking for an admin to delete old sandboxes...so I just delete the link to them and they are out of my mind...but still floating in space somehow. Is that wrong?TCO (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No. 28bytes (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Woot! TCO (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it's just {{u1}}. Not that hard to memorize. ;) Swarm ^X 02:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And the pages are easy to locate with the "Subpages" link to Special:PrefixIndex/User:TCO at the bottom of your contributions page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That helps. copied that link to my page.TCO (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A POV pusher

This user User:VVPushkin has been a POV pusher and has not been adhering to a neutral point of view. Like, should we as a wikipedian community block this user indefinitely? Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not without evidence, no. You're going to have to explain your case. Also, you have an admin userbox on your talk page, but you're not an admin. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That said. VVPushkin is making some pretty unusual edits... Nearly all of them are pushing the Soviet Union over Russia. For example, replacing Jewish with Soviet, changing a sentence from "collapse of communism" to read "the 'so-called' collapse of communism ([1]), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=463894289 renaming the mujahideen as "terrorist fighters against government". The Cavalry (Message me) 05:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent call with the indef. Swarm ^X 06:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TY. The Cavalry (Message me) 06:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Frederick G. Clausen

Doncram (talk · contribs) recently created the article Fritz G. Clausen. He then proceeded to dump information about Clausen, his son, and a current name for one of his firms into the article. When I removed all the extra information, he promptly moved the article to Frederick G. Clausen and associated architects‎. This is getting a bit ridiculous -- can someone please explain to Doncram that articles are about subjects, not indiscriminate lists of information? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It's a legit article about an architect and associated firms. In this case, as in others that I have created, SarekOfVulcan asserts that there is an item in the included list that doesn't belong, but he chooses not to say which, or explain why. That should be discussed at Talk page. I don't care to create separate articles right now about the son and the son's associated/successor partnership; I happen to think one article suffices. Split could be proposed at Talk, however. If the article is not legit, that should be discussed in an AFD. Frankly, i am building the wikipedia and SarekOfVulcan is disrupting, IMHO. --doncram 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This situation is similar to the situations with Charles L. Thompson and associates (Charles L. Thompson was perhaps the most important architect in the history of Arkansas, but instead of developing an article about him or allowing others to focus the article on him, Doncram renamed it to encompass a jumble of content related to Thompson, everyone he ever worked with, his son-in-law, and everyone subsequently associated with the firm that Thompson retired from in 1938 and its successor firms) and Architects of the United States Forest Service (originally "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" because that was the entry in the computer database that Doncram relied on to start the article), which is a similar jumble. Talk page discussions are unproductive, because Doncram makes it clear that he WP:OWNs these articles and is willing to talk to death anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Doncram has a very bad habit of creating an article at one name, then dumping the kitchen sink into it and claiming that that was his intention all along. How about knowing what article you want to create _before_ you create it, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(And I love the way he was so anxious to revert me here that he reverted himself as well. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Umm, i did not revert myself in that diff. I removed a commented-out section and replaced it by better formatted new material. Also the diff is confusing because apparently i accidentally deleted one sentence and a citation, which Sarek has restored (thanks). Are you implying I originally added that citation? It is not formatted as I would have formatted it. For this you post to ANI?! --doncram 22:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally, huh? And I'm heartily amused by your attempt to claim this is thread about you reverting one citation, instead of starting an article about an architect and claiming it was actually about everyone he ever worked with. Again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What I saw in edit mode when I was adding and removing a lot else, was a sentence fragment "Normand Smith Patton and Grant C. Miller" with some following stuff that I assumed, too quickly, was an unformed reference. I thought it was a stray fragment that should be removed, while I should have gone back to the prior version to check. But I was in the middle of a big edit, and needed several follow-on edits to address ambiguous links that my edit added. I am sorry that I removed it and didn't remember to go back and check that bit. And, I do resent your implication (edit summary "nice try") that I am misrepresenting that it was an accident. Why on earth would you think that it was really intended? Please tone it down. --doncram 23:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify -- it's very clear from looking at my last diff that what you say you did above is not actually what happened. To have restored the categories and underconstruction tag, you went back to your last "good" version and edited that, to save yourself the trouble of removing my changes manually. If you were just "removing a sentence fragment", you wouldn't have reverted every change made since May 10.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it further, Sarek seems RIGHT about one thing but WRONG about his main point that I "self-reverted". The edit I made does appear to have been implemented against a previous version that I must have been looking at, which explains why the UC tag came back in and some categories changed and that referenced sentence got dropped. But the main point of my edit was to add in a list of works, which it did, while dropping them from the And, my making those other changes was accidental. It was not intended. Okay? So what, i made a mistake in editing, accidentally losing a little bit, that has all been added back. And I made a mistake in reconstructing what must have happened, in explaining it here. So what, Sarek was wrong in his assertion to start this subthread. --doncram 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him before for unco-operative behaviour, but really this needs confirmation that a group of people agree with you guys. Is he actually edit warring to support his WP:OWNership? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are the people referred to in the "jumble of content" notable in their own right? - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell, because almost all of his articles are built off NRHP listings, with minimal other refs tossed in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, the recently-created James B. Cook. The sole reference is the NRIS database. No evidence is given that all the James B. Cooks who built these buildings are the same person -- and indeed, Doncram has gotten it wrong before, to the point of essentially inventing biographical details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, some of these people in those jumbles of content are independently notable, while others are probably pretty anonymous. In the example of Charles L. Thompson, I reckon that the "associates" named Frank Ginocchio and Theo Sanders are notable, but I don't know about everyone who might be treated as an "associate". The history there is (apparently) that Doncram identified Thompson as a prominent architect, (apparently) searched the National Register database for entries that included "Thompson, C.L." (or some variant) in the "architect" field, then created an article-space page for "Charles L. Thompson", into which he dumped the database output (in raw form). When he realized that not all of the properties in the database were designed by Charles L. Thompson, he added some other architects' names to the stubby prose section of the article.
While Doncram endured his extended block, the Thompson article existed in a trimmed-down form as an article that was just about Thompson, but shortly after his return from the block he went back to the article, re-added his massive list (by then at least semi-formatted) and invented the new title "Charles L. Thompson and associates" (not the name of an actual business, rather, it's essentially original research) for the article.
Back to notability: You couldn't tell this from the current article, but there's enough information available for a reasonably good biography of Thompson -- who designed a huge number of notable buildings on his own, without "associates". Ginocchio designed the Arkansas capital (not when he was working in association with Thompson, AFAIK) and some other significant buildings, so he's independently notable, although I've not seen much in the way of biographical information. The story on Sanders is similar to the story on Ginocchio. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. It looks like there should be separate articles for some of these people. Any verifiable linkages can be done via See Also; anything else should be binned. The fact that this is not immediately apparent to someone without extraneous knowledge is probably indicative of dubious organisation etc. It is not, btw, just architects who often have multiple collaborations: numerous other professionals go through these cycles and unless the partnerships are notable in themselves then they should not have articles (inherited notability would be the objection).Does this seem reasonable? Can this be discussed at the talk page or, as people have intimated, is it going to lead to another bout of WP:OWN? If it would lead to the latter then is WP:DRN a suitable venue? - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a standard at some point for writing articles about interrelated architecture firms. For example, the firm of Long and Kees in Minneapolis practiced from 1884 through 1898, producing some nice works like the Lumber Exchange Building and Minneapolis City Hall. But after they disbanded, Frederick Kees partnered with Serenus Colburn and designed buildings like the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Advance Thresher/Emerson-Newton Implement Company, and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company Building. Meanwhile, Franklin B. Long teamed up with his son, producing the Pence Automobile Company Building, and then they added Lowell Lamoreaux. You can't really try to tie all of those architecture firms into one article and say it's about Franklin B. Long or Frederick Kees.

In Doncram's case about Frederick G. Clausen and everyone he's ever worked with, I don't think this is a case of WP:OWNership, so it's not an AN/I issue, but it's a case of sloppy editing, thin stubs, and/or dumping poorly formatted tables into an article. We've all complained to him about this before, but those discussions have gone nowhere. It might be useful for the rest of us at WP:NRHP and perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture to figure out how to write timelines about architectural firms, so we can sort out how to write these things more clearly. That still won't solve the issue of data dumps, but at least I can write the article about Long and Kees and Colburn and Long and Lamoreaux and Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

By the way, Doncram, I sure hope you aren't accessing any of my NRHP query tools at www2.elkman.net. Since you accused me of about four different forms of lying three months ago, consider yourself unwelcome to use my server. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the creation of article pages like Frederick G. Clausen is not a case of WP:OWNership, but the reaction that ensues when anyone else dares to touch those pages (or criticize them) is. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Non admin: It seems odd that the OP requests that someone (an admin?) "explain" something (policy?) to the user in question. Unless I am missing something...and god knows I probably am...this looks like a content dispute amongst editors who have butted heads before, and should probably be hashed out on the talk page, or specific policy-related boards (or an RFC). Not ANI. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

cf. Elen's remarks above. This has come up at AN/I several times. In short, Doncram continues to use an editing style that a number of others have found problematic in the past and this has been communicated to him. This has long since graduated from a content issue to a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Choess (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The current title is wholly misleading as it isn't about a firm called Fred Clausen and associates. Can I recommend that someone Boldly move it either back to Fred Clausen, with the list of buildings under a subheading (notable buildings Fred had a hand in), or to List of notable buildings designed by Fred Clausen. I do find Doncram's behaviour extremely disruptive at times, and am tempted to suggest that he be required to go through some kind of process whereby he dumps his data onto article talkpages, and other editors pick through it, as he seems to have no mechanism for reviewing his own edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate text dumping as noted here was one of the basic issues that underlay Doncram's three-month block earlier this year. It's not a simple content dispute. Incidentally, these articles don't demonstrate notability for the architecture firms. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to all the separate bits above, as this is not the place for it. Content discussion about the Clausen page should be at its Talk page. But there is no real notability question about the Frederick Clausen article (or about any other architect article that I have started, as far as I recall). I am not doing "indiscriminate" work; I have usefully created many pages about notable architects, or added to existing pages, and linked them well to existing NRHP bluelink articles and also correctly linked them to redlink NRHP article topics. I have a damn good idea that a person or firm is notable every time I have started an architect article. There have been AFDs opened for a few, and I believe that they have all closed KEEP (or no consensus to delete). If there is a real question about Clausen, open an AFD which will be closed SPEEDY KEEP. There is room for discussion about what is the best title for the existing article, but no doubt that there is a notable topic.

Sorry I won't expect to respond here a lot more due to other commitments. --doncram 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. If I had a nickel for everytime you've said "I don't have time for this discussion" I'd... well, it wouldn't be much, but at least I could get a coffee. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... once again, a lot of this could be avoided if Doncram would simply draft his articles in user space before bringing them "live" into article space. This would allow him to create stubs, "dump" material to his heart's content, organize that material as he sees fit, figure out exactly what the subject of the article should be, and generally get the article into decent shape ... without others jumping on him for (once again) creating a poorly thought out stub... a stub that he must then "defend".

Which brings me to an underlying issue here... Doncram does seem to have a knee-jerk instinct to ardently "defend" his work... even when that work is considered problematic. It is his ardent "defense" that leads to the incessant charges of WP:OWN and disruptive editing. It was his need to "defend" his work that lay behind his conflict with Elkman six or seven months ago (and which led to his being blocked). That is an ongoing behavioral issue, not a content issue. And, it is that issue that ultimately must be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I fixed up the article (quite pleased with that) and Doncram was really quite co-operative (with me at least). However, the fact remains that this was not suitable to be released into mainspace, and Doncram was unhelpful when people tried to fix it up. The correct place to put data that you haven't yet managed to format into useful content is a sandbox, not tip it into mainspace. this is fine - yes it's a two line stub, but it hasn't got any unsorted crap in it, which was the problem last time when Doncram got blocked for 3 months, and he was running Elkman's script without doing any checking as to what he was dumpting into the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Block review for William S. Saturn

Resolved

 – unblocked for time served. Horologium (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked William S. Saturn William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) 24 hours yesterday for edit warring and he subsequently used an alternative account William Saturn (talk · contribs) to edit through the block[2]. I have therefore blocked William for a further 48 hours as a consequence of sock-puppetry and indefed the alternative account. I invite review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful if someon else stepped in as William is now threatening to repeat his action. [3]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think he definitely means well; his attitude, though, leaves a lot to be desired at present. — Joseph Fox 06:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block to me, although I agree with Fox. Edit warring goes through all 4 diffs with the same content being removed. And if he's evading, then yep, increase the time. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, edit warring is bad, and the approach totally incorrect (and reverting vandalism while blocked is not permitted), but William S. Saturn is correct about the content issue: this edit introduced two red links that are essentially promotions of unknown candidates in Template:United States presidential election, 2012 which is transcluded into lots of articles. I would hope that a gentle discussion might salvage the situation, and a clear indication that the alternative account will never be used in a similar manner might result in it's being unblocked. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Please don't block William Saturn and William S. Saturn differently. Indef blocks for socks are meant for people who use them to sneak around blocks/bans or for people who have been banned from using multiple accounts; it's a wrong use of an otherwise legitimate account. Extending the block was definitely the right thing to do, but both blocks should expire at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Considering that it was a short block for edit warring he evaded solely to make one vandalism reversion, I would match the alt account's block duration to the main account's. As for doubling his block duration, it's certainly "standard procedure", though I'm not convinced even that is necessary. This is about the most harmless form of block evasion I can imagine. Swarm ^X 06:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Agreed and modified as so. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Copied the following three-comment dialog from User Talk page on request... (-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

Does IAR even mean anything? I ignored a rule preventing me "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" yet I remain blocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:LAWYER — Joseph Fox 06:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that is not my intent. Also, please note that the 3RR block occurred 28 hours after the incident, after it was already settled. And I used an account that redirected back to my main account to do nothing else but revert vandalism. Why is this looked down upon?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that a) There was nothing covert - the alternative account redirects to the user's main one, and he openly stated what he did, b) The second account was not used to further the edit-war, c) All he did was a single edit to revert blatant vandalism, d) The original block was 28 hours after the edit-war had ceased: Is there not a case for leniency here? I'd support shortening both account blocks to time served, as they are already over the original 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the "I'm right and therefore rules don't apply" argument. There are probably thousands of unresolved cased of vandalism on Wikipedia at any one time. There is no particular urgency in fixing any particular one. In this blatant yet harmless case there was no reason to assume that anybody would have been misled, and a good chance that someone else actually reading the article (as opposed to routine maintenance visits) would fix it. WP:IAR is a good and useful rule, but it should not be involved frivolously. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The right way to handle it would have been to make a note about it on his own talk page, to remind himself to fix it once the block expired and/or to alert someone else to fix the item. Socking should not be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know why it should not be allowed. The block was placed to stop edit warring. The alternative account did not hinder that in any way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the above points, but I see someone who was just a bit pissed off at being blocked a full 28 hours after the edit war in question had stopped - and I think I would have been too. It was right to block the second account, but in the circumstances I don't think the extension to 48 hours was necessary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Right" is never a reason for either a) 3RR or b) block evasion - I'm not sure how many hundreds of times that's used to decline unblock requests, etc. A user like William S. Saturn should know better by now, and IAR is not ever an excuse on this. There are specific reasons to allow alternate accounts, and this is not one of them. The alternate account should be indef blocked, just as we would extend to anyone else who used their alt acct while their main is blocked. The block on main account being instituted 28hrs later is potentially questionable, which means an unblock request should have been used instead of WP:EVADE. There are a half-dozen ways to get the article "fixed" without resorting to WP:EVADE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Indef blocking a new account created to evade a block, yes, but not one that has been around for years for doing good work and which is openly associated with the main account, but has been used for just *one* minor infraction. Admins are not supposed to be blind rule-followers, we are expected to apply case-by-case evaluations, and in each individual case arrive at the solution that is best for the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Look, I understand that temporary blocks are meant to stop people from editing for a while and get them to reflect on what they've done wrong. But all he did was revert blatant vandalism under his alternate account. I don't understand why people adhere to such a strict interpretation of Wikipedia's policies; a minor infraction committed with good intent should not be a hanging offense. William's action was very much within the spirit of IAR, and I think we should let this one slip. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also, having examined the edit war on this template, I can certainly understand William S. Saturn's frustration. A couple editors were adding non-notable candidates to the template, and Saturn was just trying to make sure it didn't get cluttered with irrelevant information, so readers could navigate easily between the biographies of candidates. Yes, Saturn handled the situation poorly — he should have made an effort towards working through the disagreement by discussing it with the people he was edit warring with. But blocking him for 24 hours over a day after the incident occured does seem punitive. And then afterwards he tried to point out the instance of vandalism on his talk page three times, but nobody paid him any heed. So he took matters into his own hands. Now he's blocked for 48 hours. Why not forget about the rules and do what's right for a change? Master&Expert (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• And just as a side note, I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse him of Wikilawyering or being disruptive to illustrate a point when all he did was use an alternate account to revert blatant vandalism. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would agree with that summary. The last one was removing inappropriate content when nobody else seemed to be around to do the job (and it looks like there had been an effort to bring extra eyes onto the issue). I don't think that deserves an increased block. In an ideal world it may not have been necessary; but that's an ideal world where edit-warring IPs stop if you simply explain the problem to them, and an ideal world where neutral editors will promptly come and help out with any dispute. Many political articles are a long way from there. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone for taking the time to review this. I must confess that the gap between the last revert and the block was larger then I realised at the time of the block and arguably I could have called the AN3 report stale. Given this, and the views expressed, I'd be content for any other admin to reduce the outstanding block to time served. I'll do it myself if there is a quick consensus but I'm sick and not very alert so feel free to act without waiting for me to check back in if that is the agreed outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is NO EXCUSE for sockpuppetry and/or block evasion. Keep the block length as is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I have unblocked (reduced to time served) as per Spartaz, the blocking admin. That template might be a good candidate for protection; it (just like everything that intersects with US politics) turns into a black hole whose gravity is so strong that even logic cannot escape. I have also let William S. Saturn know that use of alternate accounts is not appropriate, even if they are properly disclosed. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

One thread is enough; please add your comments there. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

---

ScottyBerg (talk · contribs) keeps restoring a personal attack, although I told him that I would not tolerate other insults or accusations. PA's: [4], [5] and [6]. Warning to stop with that: [7]. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The removals of the PA were conform WP:RPA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: I did notify mr. Berg, but he did not like that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See AN/I report above [8], especially admonition of this user toward the end by User:Thumperward and report of further misconduct, which seems to have sparked this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2011 (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.

HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal

In nearly five years of editing here on Wikipedia, I don't think I've every actually brought somebody to ANI. But I feel compelled to do so now. There has been a long and contentious discussion going on over at Talk:Pregnancy relative to the lead image. In September, an RfC ended with no-consensus. ("If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion.")

Everybody, including HiLo felt the original RfC was poorly executed/run. The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. [...] I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. HiLo48 24 October 2011 Yet, even acknowledging that the first RfC was a disaster, he chooses to use it as the primary reason not to discuss the subject further. According to him, further discussion is not allowed and any arguments presented should be "deleted" because the "umpire" declared that no-consensus existed.

Well after the first RfC ended, another RfC was opened. I initially didn't like the new RfC so close on the heels of the original, but during over a months worth of discussion, have changed my mind. Numerous new arguments/positions have been added. But HiLo refuses to acknowledge them because according to him we had a "perfectly good" decision already---no-consensus. Since I've chosen to take an active role in this RfC, he now accuses me (and anybody else who posts) of bad faith. He's been insulting and refuses to discuss the issue. I think his own words summarize why he should be topic banned:

• Since the new RfC began I have actually not debated the merits of any of the images. (Surely you've noticed that!) So I haven't said anything about liking any picture. I have certainly discussed censorship. Too many people here seem keen on that.[9]

HiLo has declared that his role is to "persist in highlighting" the bad faith editing by poor losers. He has also declared, "Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't." In other words, compromise is not an option and that he will hold dogmatically to his stance regardless of the process. HiLo refuses to acknowledge any argument that does not conform to his own position. When presented with an argument, he accuses the editor of bad faith and being motivated by conservatism or "anti-breast" campaign. He holds firmly to the mistaken notion since the closing admin of the first RfC found no consensus, that the first RfC "which DID NOT convince the closing admin that the image should change, all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision." This week he declared, "I have not initiated ANY discussions. I reserve my right to treat garbage posts with contempt, as should you." Garbage posts, based on his comments are any that come from the "anti-breast" "conservative" camp---which is how he views anybody who wants to move the image.

Beyond that I want to give you a taste of his contributions to the discussion. He "strongly believe[s] everything [he] have posted on that page"[10]

Rather than discussing the issues, he assaults the character of the people who post contrary positions. He regularly called people "prudes", "stupid", "irrational conservatism", "bad faith editing", "unethical", "poor ethics" etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America 19:54, 17 November 2011 so why post such rubbish? Your post is pointless 07:48, 10 November 2011 I find debates with people who say stupid things very frustrating 19:51, 17 November 2011 Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. H 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (emphasis his) But, if no good reason for a new RfC is presented, it will just be bad faith editing by poor losers and I will persist in highlighting that (not time stamped but between Nov 16 and 17) (emphasis added) You clearly don't, and won't, get it. It's not worth explaining such matters to people so obsessed. I will not waste my time. 02:40, 13 November 2011 Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011 I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.) No, the reason for the current RfC is that a number of unethical editors on the conservative/censorship side could not accept the umpire's decision ... Having supporters with such poor ethics does not say much for the merits of the case. 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) My views haven't changed, and they don't disappear just because some people here don't have a life. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo regularly makes assumptions of bad faith, according to him anybody who participated in the RfC acted in bad faith. Here are 9 examples of him calling the edits of others bad faith because they disagreed with him
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote) There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.} I'm just glad I at least occasionally had the time to come here and point out the bad faith behaviour of those failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:50, 13 November 2011 People ONLY interested in the good of this article and Wikipedia would not behave in such bad faith. But people pushing a POV through unethical means would. 06:45, 14 November 2011 all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision. 06:23, 14 November 2011 I actually love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play within the rules. 04:18, 17 November 2011 (Note---According to him, anybody who is debating the issue now is not playing within the rules.) And any editor who has used this second RfC to argue against the image in the lead has acted in bad faith. 20:03, 14 November 2011 (This includes any editor who joins the discussion now.) I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I usually like to think that people will behave more ethically, but this page has proven me wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He falsely believes that the only reason why people might want to change the image is because they find it morally offensive, are conservative prudes, and want to censor the lead image. The reality is that many of the arguments are based around other issues, but he has declared that he will not be swayed. That moving the image is censorship and he won't even consider it. Here are several examples of his proudly declaring that he will not budge, compromise, or listen to what others have to say:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship. 29 October 2011 Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't. 23:55, 29 October 2011 Any deadlock here has been created by the pro-censorship crew seeking action that breaches Wikipedia guidelines 23:24, 29 October 2011 What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards. HiLo48 19:57, 30 October 2011 If you cannot tell us what your real problem is with nudity in this context, you're not being honest. 23:25, 21 November 2011

Rather than discussing the subject, over 20 of his posts are centered around why any current discussion should be summarily discarded out of hand as we already had a "perfectly good decision" (which was "no consensus").
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011 Pointless RfC, [...] It will be a failure of process. And bad behaviour by that admin. I do not intend to comment again 22 October 2011 That reinforces my point that this would then be an RfC decided on the basis of who shouts the loudest and most often 23 October 2011 everything posted since that earlier RfC up until now should now be struck out, 10 November 2011 Please just note that the minds here that won't be changing include those who refused to accept the result of the RfC a month ago 30 October 2011 And we already have an RfC result confirming that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2011 We already have an RfC result confirming that there is nothing wrong with the current picture. HiLo48 07:51, 10 November 2011 (Note* the first RfC did not make that conclusion, only that there was no consensus to move.) No acceptable reason has ever been presented for commencing a new RfC so soon after the first. HiLo48 18:42, 10 November 2011 There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. Wait, didn't I say that just above? HiLo48 04:25, 17 November 2011 There was an RfC decision a month ago. To re-open discussions so soon shows very poor faith. 07:44, 8 November 2011 There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011 Absolute rubbish. It gives legitimacy to nothing. It demonstrates that some editors will do anything, with no regard to rules and principles, to get what they want. And please subtract from your total of 200K any posts like mine and Desources' saying this should not be occurring. HiLo48 20:02, 8 November 2011 We don't need a new decision. We had a perfectly good one a month ago. Some people didn't like it. HiLo48 23:42, 6 November 2011 We have a decision. No justification has been presented for requiring another one so soon, apart from not liking the one we have. 02:59, 8 November 2011 No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon. 03:13, 8 November 2011 That may or may not be true, but to totally ignore the impartial decision of an independent arbiter, just because it didn't go your way, shows incredibly bad faith. It means that Wikipedia judgements are likely to lean in the direction preferred by those without a life who are able to spend virtually unlimited time here pushing POV here without fair and due process. 19:02, 9 November 2011 Nothing posted since that most recent, completed RfC should count for anything. It should all probably be deleted. 22:09, 13 November 2011 [A long tirade on the RfC] 00:40, 14 November 2011 No amount of time is appropriate. This RfC is an abuse of process. The fact that it was started immediately after the closure of the last one showed an incredible absence of good faith 06:58, 25 November 2011

If he did more than impugn the motives of others, he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument. Since somebody might be offended by any picture, then the logical course is to leave the one that we know has offend some.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people are offended by bare skin. What you really should have said is "To satisfy MY cultural biases, we should use Image 1." 02:05, 8 November 2011 And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ( There are some conservative groups that will object to almost any bare flesh. Every proposal here is still going to offend somebody. 1 November 2011 This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter 20:13, 25 November 2011

This is not the first time this issue has been raise. At least 10 other editors have called him out on his behavior and failure to adhere to the basics of civil discourse here at WP. I personally think civility blocks are ridiculous, but when a person brags that their purpose is not to let others win, to stand up to them, and regularly impugns others rather than discussing the issue. And when 10+ people on at least 14 different occassions tell him that he is out of line, then it is getting a little ridiculous.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(his talkpage) I look forward to seeing this case go to arbcom so that I can see you and others taken to task for disregarding consensus, encouraging a battleground atmosphere and engaging in edit warring, and for failing to compromise or promote alternatives to your disputed, obsessive demand that we insert a single disputed image into an article against the complaints of multiple parties. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2011 (his talkpage) It may be time for you to step back from the Pregnancy discussion. This is grossly inappropriate behaviour. Why not fold your arms for a few days and see what the hundreds (?) of other volunteers, many even more experienced and some possibly even as sensible as you, come up with, without your constant badgering Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2011 Are you going to badger everyone that doesn't agree with you? Where have I said that the nude image was unacceptable? I was agreeing with WAID's excellent reasoning. You need to take a step back, you are taking this far too personally. AIRcorn (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) The discussion is already tedious enough. Please don't start trolling it.[7] Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2011 Come off it HiLo, your badgering and cheap shots are starting to border on disruptive.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) There is no good reason for you, or for that matter, anyone else to impugn the motivations of others and at the same time introduce unverifiable personal accusations against others. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (his talkpage) It seems that you must be urged once again to desist in your refusal to deal with any matters of substance and your repeated stating of unsupported personal assumptions regarding the opinions and motivations of others. In doing so, you are violating the standards of acceptable behavior. I very, very seriously urge you to review and abide by talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) Anyway, please knock it off with the "ethics" and "conservative" baiting. If you're truly unhappy with the RfC results, you should start a new RfC, not attack the people who participated in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 HiLo48, would you leave off the "conservative" and "pro-censorship" schtick already? Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 . But you have stepped far past the line. And you still have to answer my question about RfC's above.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC HiLo/Powers, your language is all about us and them and how they must not be allowed to win. It has no place in a reasonable discussion where folk respect other people's opinions when they differ from your own. You've lost the bigger picture Colin°Talk 11:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) your only objection to this image is that it lets them win and that that their behaviour is thus not only unpunished but appears to have been successfully rewarded, then please please let it go. Colin°Talk 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you're frustrated but I don't think we can make blanket statements about the editors here. Olive 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) Yeah, can you stop with the personal attacks against Balloonman, and others?--v/r - TP 21:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I once again urge the above editor to act according to WP:AGF and not make unsubstantiated allegations regarding the motivations of others, or make remarks which may well seem more incendiary than productive. John Carter 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not your battleground against the forces of conservatism. You have swamped this page and, from what my watch list tells me, at least one policy page in your crusade. Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011

In closing I want to quote the post I made at 17:47, 19 November 2011:

Perhaps that is why I have found you to be particularly unhelpful in this thread... all you seem to do A) Whine about how this issue was decided (via a no-consensus) !vote in the previous discussion B) attack others for bad faith and other reasons, and C) whine about censorship without actually addressing the issues presented. You've added the most to this discussion without adding anything of benefit.

If he actively engaged in constructive dialog regarding the image, I would not be here... but he has drawn a line in the sand and has declared that anybody who posts on the subject is doing so in bad faith and should be ignored. He has not added a constructive comment relative to the discussion, he merely criticizes the current discussion and anybody who partakes in it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: It should be noted, that I waited until the RfC was closed before filing this ANI report, lest he accuse me of arguing in bad faith.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing much I can add here. It's not as if you were the only one who noticed the problem.

Your post was full of asterisks where one would have expected colons. I fixed that to make it easier to read. Hans Adler 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had written it with colons to start every quote, but realized that was hard to read when I posted it here... so I did a find/replace in NotePad to make them asterisks... guess, that didn't work ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad there was such a negative reaction to the nude photo, which was beautiful and harmless. And it's hard to figure why Wales got involved with this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear your opinion on the images but that's not what the AN/I is about. It is also not about the totally uncontroversial close of an RfC by an admin (who happens to be Jimbo Wales). Let's not make additional drama here please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. What an ungracious win on a Sole Flounder decided RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo, this isn't about the way the RfC was closed or about the image itself, but rather about HiLo's behavior during the discussion. If he contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way, other than to impugn the motives of people who commented, then I would not have opened this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the RFC, it's about your fee-fees being hurt - we get it. Show a little compassion for someone that put a lot of heart and soul into a project that he believed was an egalitarian, free, uncensored attempt to broaden the world's knowledge who, found that when the curtain was peeled back, it wasn't quite as egalitarian, wasn't quite as free and wasn't quite as uncensored as he thought it was. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the evidence I do want to say that I find responses like this entirely unhelpful. People need to realize that it is behavior that is or is not problematic not intentions. Surely good intentions can mitigate the response the community has to problematic behavior, but first we need to determine if the behavior was problematic or not. So Hipocrite, while I appreciate your reading of the intentions and emotions involved here it simply doesn't convince me to dismiss the complaint, which appears to be your aim. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "complaint" is more like a novella. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Side comment. On pregnancy there were two alternatives: either keep the image in the lede; or move it further down in the article to a more appropriate place swapping it for the other image of the lady in blue. The image has been deleted and not moved; presumably someone can fix that. As for topic bans, I think that is a more general issue with several users, providing too much unconstructive and disruptive input on images (mostly on pregnancy and Muhammad). I am not sure that can necessarily be decided here, although it's worth a try.

While not disputing Balloonman's evidence, could he please find a more condensed way to present it? At the moment it is tl;dr. Perhaps a summary with details collapsed for readability? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SF certainly reviewed the RFC when closing it as replace one image with another, remove replaced image entirely, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's supposedly at 26 weeks, so I placed it in the second-trimester section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It should not be removed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I went back and hatted all of the quotes/supporting evidence. The key points are now highlighted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two. I was just going to collapse all the evidence in one collapse box, but your way works just as well. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidence would be a lot more condensed if OP didn't split/duplicate single posts and place them into different categories. For example:

1. And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote)
2. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011

• These are part of a response to Balloon: "And that is a bad faith post. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants, for several reason, least of which is that there was no reason for it to even start... "-10 November 2011

1. Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011
2. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.}

• These two lines are also both from a single response to Balloon: "Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision." HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.)
2. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
3. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• All from one 3-line post "OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?" HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are more. If we just deleted the duplicated lines and merged the different lines back into their original post then all of this evidence could be shrunken down and be more manageable. Balloon, considering you have spent weeks arguing over the finer points of syntax and the importance of the context wherein you place things I find it more than dubious that you would split a single post into multiple lines, taking them out of their original, intended context, and place them into separate, unrelated categories, and I feel it's hypocritical that you condemn his distrust of your motives for only caring about the subtext/placement of the image while you distrust his motives for editing on the talkpage. Also, if you are going to omit a line from the middle of a quote then you should place an ellipsis(...) in between the two lines your using to indicate that there is omitted content in between them.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• My only comment here is that my behavior at Talk:Pregnancy was not above reproach and my comments to HiLo should be taken with plenty of bad faith because that was how they were intentioned and made. I made several comments to be WP:POINTY and to cause some editors, including HiLo, to retaliate. Not my finest moments, but I want to clarify so HiLo isn't judged on issues he may have been provoked by me.--v/r - TP 15:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban - To put it bluntly, I'm astonished that this user has a clean block log after all this time. The examples presented above are unacceptable and should not be tolerated from any editor. And, sorry, but there's no way that sheer mass of examples is all a result of baiting by TParis. But most importantly, this is not just an issue on that talk page, where people are provoking each other and things are getting heated, it's part of an overall pattern of incivility, bad faith accusations and otherwise inappropriate comments (which can be easily seen just by scanning their talk/user talk contribs). I've also witnessed disruption on the part of this user at ITN/C, which led to a topic ban proposal against them in August. The proposal received unanimous support, but was never formally closed or put into effect. Anyway, it's absolutely time we do something about this editor, and if kicking them off the Pregnancy talk page is the first (and hopefully last) step, I'm firmly in support of that. Swarm ^X 18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. My turn. I won't say much. Despite insulting predictions to the contrary, I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have, even though I am disappointed by it, largely because it is clear and simple. Obviously Balloonman doesn't like my style, and I don't much like his, but I actually regard many of the things for which he has criticised me as positives. Unlike others, I have been completely consistent and honest in my position on both the process and the choice of image here. I do suspect the real motives of most of those wanting the nude image removed or moved. I doubt if some realise what is really driving their position. But I will no longer fight that fight. I am not from the same culture as most of those arguing for hiding the nude image. I know that means that my style doesn't always fit the "don't upset anyone" approach that they believe we must ALL follow. I am happy to accept different styles of behaviour, and admit that I do enjoy vigorous debate. I hope that is never stifled here at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked in to the evidence but personally I would be be mildly opposed to a ban at this time. The RFC just closed, let's see how everyone including HiLo48 moves on from there after a week or two. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic is already heated enough from both sides, and since I have issues with this ANI being used as a coatrack of incivilty by HiLo I will bring forth similar behavior by Balloon:

".... Speaking as a sample of one, the thought of natural childbirth never, really never, even crossed my mind till you raised it. I hav to agree with LO. Sorry 'bout that, mate! JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)"

"Wow, can you be any less eloquent in your rationale."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "it expresses one more thing; that pregnancy is also a state of mind"? WTF? Pregnancy is a state of mind? Please show that to me in a medical journal?
• "Now that is pure rubbish... your argument is strictly WP:ILIKEIT."
• "HiLo has essentially admitted that he is not contributing to the discussion on the merits of the image. His contributions are nothing more than 1) this is censorship 2) this was already decided ergo everybody who contributes to the discussion now is doing so in bad faith, and 3) making snide comments about users and their motives. He has added the most to this debate while adding the least amount of merit."

The whole debate on that page just circles around, escalating in tension with each loop. The appropriate response to such circumstances is not to ban/block the first editor to cross the line, that will only escalate tension, generate distrust, and promote back-handed "civil" attacks on other editors while avoiding outright incivility. The correct response should be to try to cool down tensions on both sides, and not just comments on Hilo's talkpage such as "Please don't start trolling". Imagine the circumstances of an editor who is being singled out for incivility that they feel is justified, while others are being similarly uncivil but not receiving such criticism; when this type of one-sided criticism occurs there is a very reasonable and foreseeable possibility of your criticisms being viewed as a dishonest way to attack those who disagree with them, and not a genuine attempt to cool down tensions. Instead a promise to cool down yourself as well, an assumption of good faith, an apology for any misunderstandings, and a sincere request to remove hostility between you two would have been a much preferable path.

Balloonman, there is much you can do to be aware of your own actions and responses to editors, and how that affects the discussion as a whole. You frequently dismiss all the arguments made by the other side as WP:ILIKEIT and having nothing more than WP:NOTCENSOR as an argument, this will no doubt increase the likeliness of receiving uncivil comments. Your rhetoric at times makes it seem as though you are attempting to establish yourself as some sort of quasi-impartial outsider figure; this can make you difficult to work with as you portray accusations of you having a POV as baseless and uncivil, yet you feel fully justified to frequently accuse all those in favor of the image as solely promoting their own POV. The natural outcome of repeated confrontations with people will be misunderstandings, incivility, etc, these are not licenses to dismiss, ostracize or alienate editors, but are something you must accept and work against by demonstrating good faith, because that is the only way that a discussion will move forward. Turning the other cheek and assuming good faith is a requirement for having any chance of making an ongoing dispute productive, there is no threshold of civility that you must maintain up to, but not beyond, civility is something that must be exercised whenever the need arises even if you feel it is more then you should be required to maintain. An ANI discussion won't result in an editor you're having trouble with just being whisked away, it will likely make both parties look bad, bring upon lengthy/nonconstructive arguments about avoidable things, and result in more difficulties with future dealings with said editor who will likely not go anywhere from an ANI. As it stands this ANI is inappropriate at this time.AerobicFox (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF you are missing a couple of key points:

First, if a person posed an argument, I either addressed the argument or ignored it. HiLo takes pride in the fact that he didn't address the merits of the images. HiLo boasted that his role was simply to prevent compromise and to prevent the otherside from winning. This is not an attitude conducive to wikipedia.

Second, yes, I attacked ideas and posts. If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it shows that pregnancy is a state of mind, then you need to be prepared to support that notion (last I checked it isn't so having an image that shows it is, is not a valid argument.) If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it is the "best illustration... conveys so much emotional and human impact... sterile image... beautiful... meaningful...transcends the actual photo." Then I'm going to call it rubbish and decry it as ILIKEIT. Attacking ideas and positions is one thing. Accusing everybody who posted of acting in bad faith and having low morals/ethics... which HiLo did on a repeated basis... is a different story. He didn't attack ideas/posts, he attacked people. I could live with his attacking ideas/positions, but he didn't attack people for what they said, but rather because they said anything.

Like I said, if he were actually to have discussed the issue, I would not have come here. Hell if he hadn't boasted that he hadn't contributed to the actual discussion I might not have come here. Instead he chose to make his argument based upon making ad hominem attacks against anybody who posed an argument in favor of moving/removing the image. A handful of comments going back several archives, does not equate to the scores of quotes.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon."
• "There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011"

I don't why you think HiLo was unjustified in making comments like these against starting another RfC a month after another one when no significant change has occurred. Many of these comments aren't even impolite, "Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship," "What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards."; I have never seen such harmless quotes brought to an ANI before.

• "And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ("

Why have you characterized this as "he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument.", this is a perfectly valid argument.

• "I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?"

Your description of this "He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt), is extremely odd, he is not stating he is only there to disrupt. In fact, you have characterized him as stating he is only there to disrupt several times, but I have yet to see any evidence of him stating as much. Reading through many of these quotes I am feeling that you are taking way too much in bad faith on his part. While a handful of these quotes are concerning with their accusations of bad faith and dishonesty the majority of these are completely harmless, and indeed all of this could be handled much better.AerobicFox (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF, out of over 50+ edits, you pick a few... but let's see... the quote on the 18 was in reference to an issue that had been explicitly explained to him on numerous occassions PRIOR to his making this statement (look up the section where I talked about constructing a film/book/article with a controversial opening and explained how shocking events/scenes can be built up to and thus become acceptable---which he was involved in and is only one occassion of explaining this principle.) Rather than address the new argument/point, he routinely said, "No new evidence/arguments." As for disruption... when you brag that you haven't discussed the merits of any of the images and that you have drawn a line in the sand. That is disruption. When you routinely accuse others of bad faith for presenting an argument, then start saying that anybody who is participating in the RfC has low morals and ethics. That is trolling/disruptive.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban. I don't like his style in any of that discussion and he's pretty annoying in it at times, but I do not think it's at all within policy to topic ban him for the tone in which he asserted his point. The most bothersome aspect of HiLo's behavior is the badgering. HiLo is perfectly free to declare that he will not budge in his position or to muse about motives. The only grounds here I would see for a ban is if the continued reassertion of his position crosses over to disruptive (not just annoying), meaning that it keeps others from having the discussion. Some may say that line's been crossed. That's fine; that's a reasonable disagreement and grounds for a ban. But I do not think it's reasonable to ban based on "civility" or bad faith. It would be ironic if WP:AGF became a ban bludgeon. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Civility is perfectly suitable grounds for which to ban someone. We have a policy against it for a reason. We can't have people acting like that in a collaberative community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's more nuanced than that. Our policy says "Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." We block for the disruption or the attack, not for the incivility. In the same way we strive to have proper spelling and grammar in articles we strive to have civility in discussion. We don't block for misspellings (I'd be gone a long time ago if we did that). We do block if I go through and purposefully mispell.
  It's perfectly fine to say he's been disruptive, therefore needs to be banned/blocked. But taking administrative action due to his tone is unacceptable.
  I also am unconvinced that bans/blocks like this do anything to increase the level of civility. That's an issue of culture on Wikipedia; an issue not helped by extending battles onto ANI or bringing out the threat of ban. That's why I think it's critical that the touchstone of all administrative action needs to be around disruption, and I think longstanding policy backs me up on this point. It's my informal impression but I notice more calls for action based in incivility now than before. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support some action I took part in the discussion briefly and immediately encountered Hilo and find the characterization above to be quite accurate. It was quite obvious from the start that Hilo was not there to constructively discuss anything. They often ran around in circles, ducked direct repeated questions, and claimed evidence they never provided, all while hurling insults, misdirecting and making false characterizations. Having not encountered Hilo previously, that I can recall, it becomes a question of whether or not this behaviour was limited to Pregnancy or if this is a general editing style on the part of Hilo. The fact that Hilo sees this as positive behaviour in a community is fairly troubling, and gives me no hope that the behaviour won't continue. At the least I'd support a block until the community can be assured that the disruptive behaviour won't be repeated, and clarification can be given as to whether this is a localized issue or indicative of a greater problem with their editing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• I had actually intended to bring a proposal to block or ban of HiLo48 on the grounds of his abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground. My apologies if any of the following is redundant.:

HiLo48 has been abusing Wikipedia as a battleground, waging ideological warfare and attempting to "win" and "beat" the other side. The strident rhetoric is part and parcel of the partisan battle. Some examples from Talk:Pregnancy include

• • Yes, I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is it so important to hide nipples? Is it an instruction from God? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And there is a point where your argument goes right off the rails. If the picture is offensive, how can it possibly be OK for people to encounter it as they scroll through the article? Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • John Carter - you have failed to state the fundamental argument against the existing image. It is "I CAN SEE HER BREASTS!!!!!" This is often acompanied by comments to the effect that "It doesn't bother me but there are some people I believe it will bother." This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter. It is NOT an argument that says there is anything wrong with the image. Breasts have never hurt anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not here to cooperate with those who want to move Wikipedia towards Conservapedia. So shoot me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No That's NOT an acceptable step. It's a win to the conservatives and censors. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Sets the wrong tone" Eh? That'a almost laughable. What discussion are you looking at?It's such a culturally loaded, "I don't like it", pro-censorship statement. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is not sexual. It hurts nobody. This MUST be an issue concerning your conservative values. It can be nothing else. And that means you want censorship, which I will continue to aggressively oppose when it is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And this gem From a related dispute on WT:What Wikipedia is Not: Some very popular reliable sources, particularly from the Murdoch stable, feature Page Three girls. A link from that article takes me to The Sexiest 100 Page 3 girls. Breasts and nipples everywhere! I suspect these would be unacceptable in conservative parts of the USA, but are obviously OK in the UK and other countries where they exist. It's impossible to declare a clear, single community standard on this stuff. Do the conservatives really want to ban from Wikipedia material that is commonly published in the daily press? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also numerous and wild accusations of bad faith that I have not bothered to catalog here.

While not nearly the sole culprit, HiLo48 has been ratcheting up the rhetoric throughout this entire (and rather foolish in my opinion) dispute. The pervasive disrespect he's shown others has poisoned the editing environment and corroded the quality of the discussion and the Pregnancy article as a result.

It is my opinion that this behavior is grounds for an indefinite block for disruptive editing in his abuse of [WP:BATTLE|Wikpedia as a battleground]]. If I was not involved myself, I would do that now that now. In the alternative, I suggest something lengthy, around 2 weeks, or a six month topic ban from Talk:Pregnancy and "censorship" related policy discussions. --Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I make no comment as to the appropriateness of sanctioning any other user on any side of the discussion. It was widely ugly with a lot of bad behavior. HiLo48 in my opinion, stands out, but I am open to further action, including against myself if needed.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I looked briefly at Talk:Pregnancy a long time ago when the fuss started, but have not followed it, and have only quickly skimmed the long discussion above. However, this comment by HiLo48, which includes "I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have", may be a statement of intention to back away. Perhaps if HiLo48 were to clarify that, this discussion could be closed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm unusual here, but I when I post something I try to choose my words carefully so that what I say is EXACTLY what I mean. I am not backing away. I am accepting the umpire's decision. This is entirely consistent with a point I have repeatedly made throughout this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you routinely assumed bad faith on those with whom you disagreed. You routinely said that people who commented had low morals/ethics/and operated out of bad faith. Rather than discuss the issues, you chose to make it a battlefield and make blanket statements about everybody who had commented----if that isn't the epitome of trolling then I don't know what is? There was no way to discuss issues with you because you assumed bad faith and refused to recognize any position based upon a previous RfC which was closed as "No Consensus"---and if somebody pointed out that the previous RfC was "No Consensus" you accused them of not representing the truth and distorting the closing admins statement (which clearly said no consensus.) Like I said, in 5 years on WP, I have never opened an ANI case against anybody, but your behavior and desparaging remarks against everybody who posted does not epitomize somebody who was on the page to discuss the subject---but rather to disrupt.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a failure to communicate happening here. You are seemingly not understanding what I am saying. (And much of what I said on the page we're discussing.) You're certainly not responding to the actual words I say. (At least as I intend them to be read.) Maybe I don't understand all of your points either. As I said earlier, it's obvious that we come from different cultures. If you cannot for some reason respond to what I actually say here, there is not point in me continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever acrimony was on the original talk page, it's clearly spilled over here. This is not constructive, I don't think there's any consensus for any bans right now, and nobody is looking any better from this. This feels like a continuation of the arguing on Talk:Pregnancy under a different premise. It would be best for everyone if those at odds would disengage. Seems to me it's much better to treat this as water under the bridge than a chance to argue again. Shadowjams (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

^^Agree, there is absolutely no chance of something constructive coming out of any of this. This dispute wasn't productive to begin with and should have dissipated with the failed RfC and not escalated into AnI. Drop the conflict, it isn't worth fighting over, there's nothing actionable and continuing will just make everyone involved come out worse. AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love going out for a bit only to come back and find the discussion closed. These things are supposed to archive after 24 hours for a reason. The "multiple" requests to close were a grand total of 2 made by two people who've already stated their positions as opposing any sanction against the user, no wonder they'd request a close. There did see to be at least 4 users who disagreed with Hilos behaviour and supported sanctions, and others who disagreed, but didn't explicitly state they supported sanctions, and yet there is no chance to go from there to an actionable result?--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What Crossmr said. Two in favor of close, 4 in favor of action...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks where not nice and did not address the matter at hand, hopefully all will WP:AGF in the future. It is unfortunate that the matter came to this. Believing that images of the breast changes in pregnancy are important I went out of my way to acquire this image which actually shows the changes [11]. Hopefully we can now finally get back to improving the content of this top quality article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only sit back and sadly laugh. Do you guys understand irony? I was reported because of my alleged over-reaction to what I described as some editors failure to accept the umpire's decision. Now we have this topic reopened because some editors failed to accept the umpire's decision to close it, and went off to hassle and annoy the closing admin about it until he did what they wanted. I say no more. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

They're called administrators, not umpires. I have no idea where this umpire obsession of yours has come from. You were reported for the whole of your conduct for the duration of that discussion. Not just the reaction to the closing. Your repeatedly hurled insults at other users, assumed bad faith, made claims you refused to back up despite being repeatedly and directly asked to. All this added up equals a whole big pile of disruptive conduct, which is why it was brought here.--Crossmr (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

...twice. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling out a bad close is not bringing it here twice, nor does it change the way you conducted yourself over a long period of time, nor your apparent inability to see what was wrong with the way you acted. As I asked above, if this is indicative of your interaction with other editors on all subjects, you should probably be blocked. If it's limited to a hot button subject, then a topic ban is sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are showing no sign that you really understand the point I am making. I don't know how to achieve that. I spoke earlier of cultural and communication issues. We sure do have them here. I should probably give up. HiLo48 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that "umpires" are infallable and can't be overturned/reversed. You put too much weight into "no-consensus" closes... but that isn't why you are here... it is your continual assumptions of bad faith on the part of others. Drawing a line in the sand and refusing to discuss issues and to attack the anybody who posted a contrary opinion as somebody with low morals/ethics is classic trolling.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that "umpires" aren't infallible, but they must exist to maintain some order in structures such as this, and their rulings must generally be followed, or we will have chaos. You're part of a group that seems to challenge or ignore decisions you don't like much more than I would. Repeated challenging and/or ignoring administrative rulings, as was done most recently here in this very thread, can obviously be defined as disruptive behaviour. Can you see that perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of how it's done. People are free to challenge and debate all kinds of things. They aren't free to continually and repeatedly insult and assume bad faith of a varied group of editors.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You see insults. I see guesses at true motivations where those publicly stated were pretty weak, because it's important to understand the real goals of those one is discussing a matter with. I'm still not convinced that I guessed wrongly. Oh, and I still believe that starting a new RfC so soon after the closure of the earlier one was bad faith behaviour. We obviously see that matter differently, but hey, vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Which are irrelevant you're supposed to be commenting on the content, not the editors. Your "guesses" did nothing to benefit the discussion and only served to ramp up the vitriol and create a hostile editing environment.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• So this got reopened? Really, what do you expect to happen here? Your "scores" of quotes are a handful of quotes spliced into multiple parts, the parts then spread or duplicated in multiple categories, with many harmless(some not even remotely rude) beefing them up. Advertising emphatically that this is your first time ever starting an ANI isn't going to make your post seem more credible as ANI is littered with first time complaints that go nowhere and never should have been started because they will go nowhere. Civility blocks are hugely controversial, and testing the waters with an example so mild is not going to work out, it's going to drag on, make those involved look worse, waste time and lead nowhere. If to you the opinions of myself and another uninvolved editor just don't stack up to 4 editors with personal histories asking for actions from temp topic bans to indef civility blocks then feel free to continue, but if you want to take my advice then I would recommend moving on and not stewing on the past.AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  This is limited not just to uncivil behaviour, but generally disruptive behaviour of which civility was only a part. Balloonman has more than once described Hilo's behaviour as trolling, and I find it to be a rather apt description. Hilo spent a great deal of time doing anything but discussing the actual content, especially for someone who was so involved in the page. Especially for someone who was repeatedly pressed to actually discuss the content and provide genuine support for their position. Despite false claims that they'd provide mountains of evidence to support their position, they instead spent the time hurling insults, making "guesses", and generally stirring the pot than participating in the discussion in a useful manner. Individually, specific issues are not great concern, but added up into the package that Hilo delivered during that discussion it's a cause for concern.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  None of that seems at all different from what many users consider the opposition in long drawn out disputes to be doing. Just about everybody right now at the 740k discussion at WT:NOT would describe members of the opposition as dancing around the issue, repeatedly attacking other editors instead of focusing on content, not being at line with policy, wearing down the opposition, etc. Various points he has brought up are legitimate points, yet have been totally dismissed in bad faith. How is this comment:"If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling?" being used as an example of trying to "mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument." Why did you start an RfC so soon without any clear reason for expecting a different outcome? The only difference between HiLo's behavior and what is commonly is exhibited is that he has made a few off-color remarks about other editors starting an RfC and pushing a tiresome discussion in bad faith which, if communicated more diplomatically, would have been perfectly acceptable comments. You can disagree with the way he discusses things, and you can try to genuinely express moving towards civility with some sort of peace offering, but you can't engage in a prolonged dispute with opponents you repeatedly characterize as trolls with nothing to offer, and then bring them to AN/I the moment they appear to be crossing the line.AerobicFox (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I see plenty of evidence above of disruptive behaviour, as well as plenty evidence that the community tried to warn him against it. And again, it's the total package. Hilo seems to gone above and beyond everyone else in all aspects of the behaviour which is why it's here, and I didn't bring it here, I simply pointed out that I witnessed that behaviour and agree that it cannot happen here. Every discussion can sometimes get a little side tracked, everyone can sometimes make a little sniping comment here or there, everyone can try and dance around the issue when they can't defend their point. Sure, it happens in tons of discussions across wikipedia all the time. But the continued degree to which he did so and the way in which he did it are the problem. For a day and a half I had to repeatedly and directly ask him to explain himself and frankly he came up with one of the lamest reasons ever after promising the evidence to end all evidence, with a nice little insult tossed in on the side. At the time I did a quick search on the page and found him to basically be acting the same way in at least a half a dozen other parts of the page, and from the looks of it, his behaviour wasn't limited to the day and a half I spent there. If you think there are some other users who similarly acted up to this degree then feel free to bring them here with diffs to support it, regardless of the side. This kind of behaviour isn't needed or wanted and does nothing to benefit the encyclopedia. More trouble is Hilo's inability to get it despite the editors who have lined up on their talk page, here and I'm sure on the pregnancy talk page to tell them they've been acting inappropriately. That's why I suggested a block. Blocks are to prevent disruption, this is disruptive, and if they can't even acknowledge the problem with their behaviour then there is a very good chance it may happen again.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just about all editors(myself included) have problems with civility and with trusting other editors in heated disputes. Current talkpages across Wikipedia are littered with this mistrust. HiLo has made it clear on the talkpage he doesn't trust that your actions in creating a new RfC so soon are in good faith but an attempt to wear down opposition—a sentiment I can assure you is quite common—,but you do not trust him either, so I don't see how his distrust of your actions is different from yours of his. As far as behavior goes he stated right on the talkpage that he doesn't think you are acting in good faith, and you have stated the same thing here in an ANI, does a different forum make the same comments more appropriate, or is it that you can call him disruptive/trolling/acting in bad faith because you are right about him but that he cannot call you these things because he is wrong about you? What you have is a failure to communicate, and I would recommend better dispute resolution over seeking administrative action.AerobicFox (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with disruption in discussions about images lies elsewhere. A reasonable mutually agreed scholarly compromise on the use of historic images was worked out for the article Muhammad, involving careful exploration of secondary sources and current trends in academia. That is normal procedure in developing consensus. But now, after lying low for a period, a single user has reemerged, editing as if those lengthy discussions had never taken place. [12][13] Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start any RfC. So I have no idea how that is relevant to how Hilo addressed me, or any other user, except the one who started the new RfC. Whoever that was, I don't even think I was participating when that happened. Once again, there is a difference between a distrust of another person's actions and outright insults being hurled around during a discussion and repeatedly failing to answer a question despite it being the main crux of your argument. That is classic trolling 101. I only had about 10 contributions to the pregnancy talk, you're free to scrutinize them. I made a couple of good faith comments [14], [15], [16] and then Hilo showed up with his act. He become confrontational immediately, despite my just joining the conversation. [17], his first reply to my rather benign comment ended with Is that OK with you?. Despite my directly asking him to actually explain and back up what his point was (and a search of the page revealed that he had in fact NEVER explained what that meant, despite repeating it several times). When I again directly asked him to explain his argument, his response was to devolve into insults [18]. Despite his assertion that he could provide mountains of evidence, when further pressed all they would say was "it's the whole woman that's pregnant". No citations, no educational and pedagolical theory as they claimed they could provide, that's it. A day and a half spent trying to coax a coherent point out of him and that's all he could come up with. it was extremely obvious at that point that Hilo was nothing but a giant time sink, with a side of uncivil behaviour to cover up the shortcomings of the argument. The difference between Hilo and your standard person who gets involved in these debates is that Hilo appears to have repeated that behaviour excessively, with many editors and for a long period of time. That was the extent of my involvement in the debate, and I left with a sour taste in my mouth due to Hilo's actions. I've no idea why you keep addressing me as if I'm the person who started a new RfC, or did any of those other things.--Crossmr (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"a giant time sink, with a side of uncivil behavior to cover up the shortcomings of the argument."

Being an uncivl timesink(which I don't believe is the case here) is not a blockable offense. We have had plenty of this, and indeed I could bring forth a stronger case than this here against a few other editors. The fact of the matter is that ANI is no place for such a discussion to occur. I find starting RFC's quickly after a failed RFC to be more of a time waste then arguing against said RFC's(I'm not meaning to imply that you started that RFC), and I find starting an ANI without a clear blockable need to be a timesink. If people are having troubles with an editor then they need to act like an adult, bring forth a civil(but not patronizing) discussion to their talkpage and genuinely try to make peace with said editor, and not start an ANI discussion which will doubtlessly make conditions less civil on Wikipedia. If you think HiLo is beyond the point of being able to talk with about things sincerely and without being attacked then I recommend you exert some more good faith, he isn't being a troll this is just the way he is used to arguments being, and if you are having problems with that then you need to address him sincerely and try to work something out.AerobicFox (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is a blockable offense. It's disruptive and when done excessively enters into tenditious behaviour. "this is just the way he is used to arguments being" is a cop-out. it's not an appropriate way to conduct a debate in a group. It doesn't matter if that is what he's used to. Someone might be used to deleting the opposition and editing warring until the cows come home to get their position into an article, it doesn't mean its okay. The reason this was brought to AN/I was due to the breadth of the problem. This isn't a one on one situation. This is Hilo effecting many many editors, which is what ramps this up from the usual talk page crank to an issue that needs to be dealt with. Hilo is in control of his actions, and despite his disagreement with a new RfC, no one forced him to edit in the way he did, no one held a gun to his head and made him talk to all those other editors as he did.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being uncivil or acting not in an "appropriate way to conduct a debate in a group" is not disruptive—you can just ignore him—"deleting the opposition and editing warring" is disruptive because you cannot ignore it. If what he was doing was forcing others to take time to deal with then an ANI would be perfectly acceptable, the fact of the matter is that your constant responses to him either a)means he has a valid point or b)means you feel needlessly responsible to comment on others bad behavior. I see an RFC started with no discernible need as well as an ANI as being more disruptive. Nobody is pointing a gun at your head telling you to respond to a post that doesn't add anything to a discussion, and HiLo is not just posting to be a troll, but is arguing what he believes in and what many other editors agree with. We don't start banning people because they're being impolite, you and other editors are perfectly capable of either trying to work something out with HiLo or ignoring his occasionally pointy comments; unless he actually starts disrupting a conversation by deleting posts or edit warring then there is nothing administrative to be done.AerobicFox (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Following your logic, why? No one forced you to reply to this or any other discussion right? Plenty of AN/I topics get completely ignored from time to time and simply disappear off the page. How could they be more disruptive than someone who is attacking several users in a debate? Being repeatedly uncivil is disruptive. From Wikipedia:CIVIL: Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict....However, a studied pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, bolding mine, the community has already decided this kind of behaviour is disruptive, and given the length at which Hilo participated in it, and the amount of editors attacked and the size of the discussion disrupted with his behaviour it certainly seems to be a studied pattern in this case. The policy is clear, the situation is clear, as is Hilo's attitude. He was disruptive, it's against policy, and he doesn't seem to see any problem with that. The only clear answer in that case is a block until such a time as the community can be assured the behaviour isn't likely to occur again.--Crossmr (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

An ANI or RFC are disruptive because users are forced to respond to them. An admin must review pages after pages of text before making a decision, the user brought to ANI must make an appearance, etc. See WP:Incivility blocks for a failed attempt to make a pattern of incivility a blockable offense. Furthermore, to quote in its entirety the quote you provided above "However, a studied pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks"(bolded mine), neither of which are present here. If you have a serious ongoing problem with an editor then there is dispute resolution which should be attempted before sanctioning.AerobicFox (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly performing the same behaviour against several users in a discussion over a very long period of time, is harassment. As for Dispute resolution, several people already went by his talk page, this is beyond wikiquette as perspective has already been established by the several users going to him and telling him to stop, RfC is a non-binding waste of time which the user can choose to ignore, Hilo has already made their position clear that despite all the users who told them they shouldn't act like that, they see no problem with it. which leaves us with AN/I. Oh..look where we are. There was a clear on-going pattern, and several users spoke out against it. There is nothing imagined about his disruptive behaviour. The initial request was only for a ban, not a block. I only suggested a block if there was evidence that this behaviour spilled out beyond the pregnancy issue.--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential blocking of user repeatedly violating WP:COPYVIO

• Comment: This was removed without being addressed, so I'm re-posting it because he's still doing copyvios despite being warned multiple times that copyvio is against Wikipedia policy and that it could end in him getting blocked. He's just going to keep doing it until he is blocked.

I'm writing in to report a user for repeated copyright violations. It's User talk:Jerardmathew. As you can see from his talk page, he's repeatedly had pages deleted for copyright violations. He's been warned about this, but still continued to attempt to add pages that contained copyrighted information. I came to notice this while looking at an article that he'd had up for AfC. I noticed that he had a past of copyvios, so I decided to check into the matter and sure enough, this was copied off of a website. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kanjirapally_Pazhayapally_or_Akkarapally It looks like he isn't going to stop any time soon.

He's posted yet another attempt at creating a page (although this one is in his userspace) with yet another copyvio from the website Kajinrappally. User:Jerardmathew/Kanjirapally St. Mary's Church "Pazhayapally or Akkarapally".

I also want to note that there seems to be a large amount of people posting to the pages about Kanjirapally with copypaste information from the Kanjirappally site, so this is a pretty widespread issue and might be a couple of people trying to do the same thing or one person with many different logins. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• I've removed that draft and have given them a final warning with some commentary. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Escalating harassment by User:Night of the Big Wind

Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Early today I placed a notability tag [19] on an article created by User:Night of the Big Wind. I had found the article in new page patrolling and had never encountered this subject matter or this user before. He responded with an annoyed post to my talk page [20]. OK, no problem. But when I responded politely in disagreement, he latched on and his posts to my talk page got angrier and angrier, culminating in this personal attack[21]. He asked him to desist.[22]. He rejected my request, saying that I was "hammering an article that is clearly notable." [23]. (I had made one edit to the article, the notability tag.) In a post to another party he said [24], referring to me, "the stupidity of this guy really made me angry."

OK, so far, just routine personal attacks. Nothing serious. The reason I'm here is that he has started to follow my deletion nominations around. See this talk page post, this one, and this AfD cooment. I cautioned him to desist. He responded by telling me to "feck off" and then deleted my request as "bullshit." He also posted this [25] on one of the PROD'd article talk pages, and this [26] "warning" on my talk page.

This guy is escalating, and frankly is getting to be a little scary. I think that a short cool-off block might do the trick. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no such thing as a "cool off block" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps he should just be blocked for harassment, or at least warned to stop. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NPA warning given, at least - accusations of being a troll are absolutely personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The user also refactored a post of mine from an AfD at which I pointed out that he had been following around my edits, which he obviously has been doing.[27]. Note also the comment below. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You are escalating the case. This is a clear PA, written to damage my name and fame. It is ScottyBerg who deserves a block. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, and you refactored another editor's comments, which is not allowed. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a PA, this is allowed. You have just placed a second PA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I reinstated the talk page post that you removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the warning, but is remarkable that mr. Berg has seen several of my edits that I had already removed as being written while angry. But I repeat, it was mr. Berg who was escalating the case. I don't think it is a strange request to "review" a notability-tag placed on an article about a TWO starred restaurant with independent sources.

About the trolling. Please look at this and this edit about mr. Berg accusations of trolling. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you defending your comment "Go get a hamburger and stay away from real restaurants. You clearly have not a clue about the value of Michelin stars."? ScottyBerg (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have written it more politely, but I defend the meaning of it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about your personal attacks. I am concerned with your harassment. I asked you to stop following me around to AfDs and PRODs I have created, and you told me to "feck off" and removed my "bullshit" request. It is not a "bullshit" request. What you have been doing is clear harassment. That is why we are here. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to say "feck off" to the both of you. Is this type of behaviour from BOTH of you what we would normally expect, or is it just late on a Saturday? I don't see harassment or wikihounding... maybe some wikipoodling, but you're both looking at interaction bans perhaps being the best option. "Go eat a hamburger" is a PA? Crikey! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You see nothing wrong with his following me to an AFD and two PRODs within the span of a few minutes? I thought I made it pretty clear that I was here because of that, not because of his comments.ScottyBerg (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, mr. Berg, calm down. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: you'd be better off not getting baited by NotBW during your ANI post. Any time that an ANI looks like a tit-for-tat kerfuffle, uninvolved parties are apt to stay clear of it. NotBW: allegations that ScottyBerg is in the wrong here are pretty transparently disingenuous. Along with refraining from the petty retribution which brought this here, you'd do well to stop doing that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So while he is hounding me, I get all the blame? Nice way of problem solving. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I advised both of you how to de-escalate this trivial bit of drama. The next step is to observe whether you both take that advice. Should either party fail to do so, the required administrative action will be much clearer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would favor hatting this, but it is not resolved. See [28][29] (removing my AfD post subsequent to Chris' remarks above). He had previously done the same thing.[30], and was told to desist. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See also further baiting here, and here. This user was given a final warning for NPA by The Bushranger,[31] but it doesn't seem to have deterred him from further baiting and harassment, and he won't let go.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I had opened a new case, but was told to go back here. Okay, so here I am. <start copy> ScottyBerg (talk · contribs) keeps restoring a personal attack, although I told him that I would not tolerate other insults or accusations. PA's: [32], [33] and [34]. Warning to stop with that: [35]. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The removals of the PA were conform WP:RPA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: I did notify mr. Berg, but he did not like that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

<end copy>

• This user is edit warring at the AfD I mentioned earlier, removing a comment by me and falsely claiming it is a personal attack. It was previously reverted by another editor. I think this is his third revert in 24 hrs. He is being clearly disruptive for reasons that are beyond me. [36]. He's already been given a final warning for personal attacks, and cautioned by Thumperward to refrain from false accusations and petty retribution, but he just won't let go. I honestly don't understand what is motivating this user. He's been blocked twice in the past, so he surely knows that such things do happen. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you are getting historical to keep your insults and defamation into the page. You keep going on, and on and on. Now even throwing in a 3RR. Don't you have something usefull to do then hounding and whining, like writing articles? If it makes you happy, stick that insult up your ... I am not spending any more time on you because it is a bloody waste of time. You make me sick. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Night of the Big Wind for 24 hours for his last note here and for this one. Sorry to see it come to that, but there are bounds of acceptable behavior, and he's moved beyond them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Borderline-obsessive hounding; continued baiting by User:ThatPeskyCommoner

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.

---

• Badger Drink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThatPeskyCommoner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

After my opposition to the RfA of a friend of hers, Pesky has been increasingly living up to her name - calling for a civility block for statements she earlier "appreciated". When AN/I rightfully told her what to do with her concerns, she filed an RfC - the fact that it quickly attracted a bunch of "support" from a lot of participants in the aforementioned RfA (despite the opening statement being woefully malformed) certainly not reeking of off-wiki canvassing. Evidently unsatisfied with my sole contribution to that particular circus, she has taken up the habit of leaving pesky (or should I say "badgering"?) constant "friendly reminders" on my talk page, despite being told in no uncertain terms that her input was not welcome. Considering her seeming inability to get the hint, I was unfortunately backed into a corner, and felt the need to make my uncertain terms even less uncertain (trigger warning: Cussword). Pesky parrots the language of civility, but her actions are transparently baiting, and while "don't take the bait" may sound like sound advice, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that some of us are not in this for smug self-satisfaction at "being the better person", and would rather not feel demeaned by "playing along" with the game. I would appreciate it if a third party could step in and let Pesky know that she's certainly living up to her name. Surely she has better things to do than obsessively check my contribution history for terrible, inexcusable edits like this. Badger Drink (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• As I feel it would be somewhat hypocritical of myself to bitch about her talk page horse-poking, then turn around and mess around on her talk page, I would appreciate if a third party could make the AN/I notification - as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer a complete two-way interaction ban. Badger Drink (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Notification made [37]. Whether you do it yourself, or ask another to do it doesn't change anything, as its a mandatory notification instigated by your starting this discussion... Monty₈₄₅ 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Monty. Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is absolutely unacceptable.  Chzz  ►  18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I would block if Badger Drink were even remotely able to learn and get the point. — Joseph Fox 18:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It actually perfectly demonstrates the difference between "surface civility" and "actual civility", Badger having none of the former and Pesky having none of the latter. I agree with Badger Drink that a two-way interaction ban is the best way of solving the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way does telling someone to "fuck off" demonstrate "actual civility"? — Joseph Fox 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll point you to this excellent summary as it is said better than I could. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So... how exactly does this justify personal attacks? Because underneath Badger Drink is actually all warm and fuzzy and doesn't really mean what he's saying? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just hold on a minute here. Not once am I saying Badger was right to use that edit summary. What I am saying is the full circumstances need to be considered -- that Pesky's badgering of Badger is uncivil -- and that accordingly the proposal for a two-way interaction ban (as opposed to an asymmetrical block) is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky is only involved with Badger at all because of his civility problems, they definitely aren't stemming from the interaction with Pesky, so I don't see how that would solve the problem. In addition, I don't see that Pesky is being uncivil, if you can point me to where she was uncivil then fair enough, we do need to address both issues. However, I fail to see how Badger (or anyone else) can know what Pesky's "actual" feelings are. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky's incivility is obvious. She doesn't use cuss-words. But this kind of condescension, having run Badger through the wringer at ANI and an RfC, is rank incivility. It is actually creepy. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I do have a problem with condescension, but I think describing Pesky's comments as "creepy" is out of order. Someone who has teenage grandchildren, as she does, is entirely likely to respond to this sort of aggression in this sort of way. Now if she'd said "hey young man, when you grow up and get a job you will understand you can't act this way" then I'd find that condescending and unacceptable. (I've made my views on such comments from grandmother figures very clear in the past.) She didn't say anything even remotely like that, she just offered good faith advice in what was, as far as I can see, her first comment to Badger Drink on his talk page that wasn't a polite formal notification of a discussion or its relocation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Only goes to show how different our perceptions of "civility" can be. Because I would find your hypothetical "hey young man" a lot more palatable than what she actually said. That would have come across as frank and honest. What she did say, in comparison, came across as sugared-up passive-aggressive condescension. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

BD has suggested a 2-way interaction ban. The sooner Pesky comes along and agrees, which she will because she is an editor who believes in civility and therefore will respect BD's request, the sooner this issue can be closed without further drama. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Equally, Pesky has suggested that Badger Drink refrain from edit summaries that belittle or deman other editors. The sooner Badger Drink comes along and agrees, which he will because his main aim is building a better encyclopedia, the sooner this issue can be closed without further drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What a mess. I believe Pesky will already willingly leave Badger Drink well alone and his edit summary certainly put his point across. This is incredibly harshly worded, but I'm not surprised to see it either. I hate to say it, because I like Pesky a great deal, but she has come across as a little obsessive during this, and I can see Badger Drink's point there. It must have been incredibly annoying to continue to receive talk page messages from the person that took him to ANI and the RfC, even if they were mostly just notifications. However, I assume Pesky to be acting in good faith (in fact I'm certain she was, but for others they might need to remember to assume that part). I don't think a formal interaction ban is needed as I'm sure she'll agree to stay off his talk page, but if that's what Badger Drink wants I think she would agree to that too. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bunnies. Both you and Mkativerata pretty much said what I wish I was equipped to say myself. I would consider it only fair to keep out of Pesky's hair as well - I don't think it'd be right for any sort of asymmetric setup, since neither one of us has been perfect in this tiresome ordeal. Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that Scott MacDonald has blocked BD for 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this edit summary and considered it clear-cut unacceptable and blocked. I was, at the time, unaware of this thread. Having reviewed the above now, my blocking rationale stands. Regardless of the provocation, the edit crossed the line. A 24 hour block is clearly justified.--Scott Mac 20:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I support Scott's block given the edit summary. It appears the situation is solved with an agreement not to interact but that edit summary is clear personal attack and civility violation and subject to blocking. --WGFinley (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet another poor block. Have you people never read WP:Blocking Policy? Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I dislike that block. This thread was hopefully going to sort the problem that led to Badger writing that edit summary, and now he's been silenced. Seems like a punitive block. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this block too. If anybody deserved a block in this affair, it was Pesky. Talkpage badgering is blockable, and despite the sugery language (or rather because of it), hisher behaviour was in fact a good deal more "incivil" than Badger's response. Plus, Badger had done the reasonable thing in bringing the matter here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm here now. Firstly, I apologise to BD for upsetting him - no upset was intended. We're not all angry young men in WP, and, being a British granny, I tend to use the kinds of phrases that British grannies use. To be entirely fair, the allegations of "hounding" and "badgering" on the talk page are a little off. The first of BD's three examples (Nov 7th) was the mandatory AN/I notification. The second was a courtesy update, the following day, to let him know that the AN/I thread was closed and that (as advised in the AN/I thread) it was an RfC/U instead. That leaves two edits only - nearly a month later, which was a good-faith attempt at a gentle reminder about keeping edit summaries civil, and so on, exactly as per WP:CIVIL, which says ""If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement.". I thought it was less inflammatory to do a gentle reminder on the user's talk page than to mention it at the RfC/U. It wasn't intended to be condescending or patronising - it's just that I'm a granny, and I speak like a granny. It was intended to be a kind but clear reminder of the issues raised in the RfC/U, exactly as per policy, and not "provocation". And the last was a reply to KW. I'm quite happy to stay away from BD's talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@Pesky. I notice you have a four year and 9 month gap in your early edit history, from April 20 2006 to January 31, 2011. Have you edited Wikipedia under any other account names? Cardamon (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like an answer to this question. Jehochman ^Talk 11:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}

NB both Pesky and Ironholds have answered this question. If you want to take it further, WP:SPI is that way. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've knocked out the checkuser needed template. That' utterly inappropriate; a long absence, in and of itself, is not a reason for requesting a CU. To be blunt, I refuse to believe that the request was made in good faith, so don't even try to justify it to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:24, 5 December 2011

But it *was* condescending and patronising. So how about you partially make up for it by asking SM to undo this poor block? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block should be lifted to enable BD to confirm that he is content that Pesky will leave him alone and the action can be closed to prevent further inflammatory discussion on the matter of the block. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Really? Pesky has said nothing uncivil toward Badger Drink. He, on the other hand, has been uncivil to the extreme. The block by Scott MacDonald was quite appropriate. Just because Badger Drink doesn't like the fact that he is under scrutiny for his behavior, doesn't make Pesky's actions inappropriate. She raised a legitimate concern in a RfC/U because Badger Drink has been unwilling to discuss the issues. It will be a very dark day when we start placing interaction bans on users who raise legitimate concerns that are well within policy. Pesky has done nothing uncivil or problematic. There is absolutely no reason to interaction ban her. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus - Yes, it's gross incivility and subject to block to prevent further disruption.

There are some valid points about Pesky's behavior and Pesky needs a dose of WP:STICK here but that didn't merit the response. BD is free to request an unblock and explain and I'm sure Scott will listen to what he has to say. Pesky needs to just drop it and move along, editors on those pages can call attention to or request action about his edit summaries, you don't have to flow his edits doing so. --WGFinley (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Prevent further disruption"? He didn't need the block for that - he came here to get the issue solved. Him coming here, requesting an interaction ban, THAT was intended to prevent further issues. The block was unnecessary considering that. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott has a history of working with BD on issues and prior blocks (performed by others), I think you need to AGF that Scott felt it necessary to prevent further escalation and instead discuss it on his talk page to work through the issue. --WGFinley (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I agree, there is nothing more to do here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that just because I disagree with a block doesn't in any way mean I am assuming bad faith of the blocking admin? I certainly do not think it was a bad faith block. And to say there's nothing more to do here isn't quite fair. While Badger may be currently blocked, he still started this thread hoping for an outcome - an interaction ban, although I hope that Pesky's agreement to stay off his talk page might suffice. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 22:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So, WGFinley, you claim to have read the blocking policy, but you clearly don't understand it. AGF be damned. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, blatant incivility and personal attacks are valid block reason. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What the policy quite clearly says is that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". Not to punish incivility. Which part of that don't you understand? Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued incivility = disruption. Block for being uncivil = stopping potential disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Badger Drink requested an indef block and it seems he was indeed given one. This thread is pretty pointless now, perhaps it can be closed. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 23:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so. Indefblock totally unwarranted - especially with all the trimmings. People are allowed to chuck their tea at the fireback on their talkpage in such circs. And Pesky really did need to leave Badger alone - if a man keeps telling you to go away, eventually he's going to tell you to do something less polite. Lets leave this for 24hrs, then I'm proposing to lift the block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree but it seems that his indef was based on what he said during his "reblock request", judging by the blocking summary. I can see a lot of people opposing an unblock based on those comments. It seems he lost his temper, and it was quite the impressive rant. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

His last six edit summaries make it evidently clear he knew his edits were personal attacks. (Though the one he made against me was quite humorous) His attitude makes it quite clear that he is unwilling to respect the civility and no personal attacks policy. He even asked to be indeffed, then proceeded to make disruptive edits. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Complete lack of judgement by Pesky and Scott trumped by a total failure to see the complete picture by the indef. admin. Reactionary shambles. Leaky Caldron 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, BD didn't "keep telling" me to go away. I left one actual message on his talk page, plus the mandatory notification, and a simple notification of relocation. That is all. His allegations of hounding are mistaken. Leaky, I apologised for upsetting him, and said I had no problem in staying away from his talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, then the fools masquerading as Admins took over before he could acknowledge your agreement to leave him alone. Leaky Caldron 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) The behavior exhibited by BD is utterly unacceptable. They had a short block, NBD, and it was perfectly reasonable to debate whether a block for that one edit summary was warranted. But they proceeded to demand the block me made indefinite, and singled out several other editors as "sanctimonious and insufferable", "petty little juvenile shitheads", "the most insufferable, crawling toadie in a whole factory of crawling toadies", "superficial oafs", among other gross incivility. Frankly, I'm astonished there's even talk of an unblock. If we don't want to oblige their request for an indef (why that would be is beyond me), the only modification that should be made to that block is a reduction to a week, minimum, with email restored. Swarm ^X 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So blocking talkpage access would have been appropriate. Indefinitely blocking him isn't. And why is his email disabled? Does he email abuse at people? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, sure—if he didn't ask to be indefinitely blocked. But he did ask, and his campaign of gross personal attacks was specifically intended to make it happen. If a user is bent on being disruptive until they're indefinitely blocked, then indefinitely blocking without talk page access is a perfectly reasonable course of action. (I do agree that email shouldn't be blocked, though.) Swarm ^X 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cardamon, sorry, I missed your post earlier. (Real Life interfering again.) I changed my account name to my current one; I haven;t edited on any other account. I just got back to WP after a massive lifestyle-change when my father died, which left me tied pretty much to the house to look after my mother. I have a doppelganger account User:Pesky which redirects to me (just to avoid confusion with anyone else calling themselves Pesky, as that's how I always sign) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 01:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• There seem to be questions of socking or multiple account use here. Just to verify; I've met Pesky, and she's precisely who she said she is. I can verify the real life issues, I can verify her identity, and I can verify that she is one of the most conscientious and well-intentioned people I know, offline or online. If she says that no hounding was intended, you can take her at her word. Ironholds (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another good thing to point out is that this edit, the only one that could be considered evidence of Badger asking Pesky to leave him alone, was in fact 9 days after Pesky left those notifications. Considering Pesky is a very busy person, it makes perfect sense that she didn't actually see this, which explains her leaving Badger a message after his removal of her notifications. So what was considered hounding really is more of a misunderstanding than anything. There has been a lot of assuming bad faith of Pesky in this thread, which is disappointing considering she's got a track record of being polite and understanding. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Badger Drink has demonstrated scorn for Wikipedia policies and processes through refusal to engage with the RfC/U and his continued use of totally unacceptable language elsewhere. To even consider opening this AN/I at this stage is grossly inappropriate. If there are concerns about Peksy's participation in Wikipedia, they should have, and could have been raised by another editor in good standing. That said, although Pesky is extremely passionate about her work, does good work, and sometimes even very hard work on uninspiring clean up issues, she has been given gentle (and sometimes no so gentle) hints, including from me, about being overly enthusiastic with her comments and persistent involvement where she has already done and said what she can, and might best advised to leave further commenting for others. Pesky is a valued editor but needs to learn that many Wikipedians are over-sensitive and will often search to read negative inference in the written word, and even dig around for strawman arguments and red-herings that she may not immediately recognise.

I believe the block(s) to be perfectly justified what ever 'precipitated' them - Pesky is a far greater net benefit to the project than BdD ever was, and IMHO his forced retirement is no great loss. Raising suspicions of socking are totally out of place here, and it is clear bad faith for it to be assumed from breaks in editing. There have been messages for all during this episode, many of whom have not fully respected RfC/U guidleines, and I am sure that Pesky will take the comments here on board, and I now suggest we consider the matter closed and that no admin intervention is necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung,

Badger Drink did not demonstrate scorn for the community, but rather scorn for the stupid RfC and the sanctimonious and often hypocritical behavior of your club, the most bizarre of which has been exhibited by Pesky.

Rather, Badger Drink was editing productively, in proper English, until Pesky's latest trolling. Of course, you would like this matter closed as quietly and as quickly as possible.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, final words here from me. I appreciate that BD may have felt hounded, but to call anything I have done "trolling" is inaccurate. BD started this post by referring to the original RfA as being that of "a friend of hers". I know he probably felt that that was true, but to the best of my knowledge SZ and I live on opposite sides of the world, have never met, are in different generations (SZ is the same age as my youngest son), and is no more a "friend" than many other people on WP. I suspect BD may have been labouring under the impression that perhaps SZ and I had been schoolmates, or something, rather than merely WikiContacts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For BD to have called one message on his talk page, left nearly a month after two formal notifications (one of which was mandatory), is, regardless of his intentions, a gross misrepresentation of the facts. It saddens me that so many people seem to have taken his accusations at face value - but I know that it's human nature to believe the person who speaks first or loudest. I think that many people would classify BD's absolute refusal to participate in an RfC/U other than leaving his first response as "scorn for the community", so I don't think that was an unfair comment at all. I've taken on board Kudpung's comments above, and apologise to all and sundry if my good-faith contributions to and thoughts on policy have annoyed anyone. And now I really must get my 83-year-old mother, who has rapidly-progressing dementia, up, dressed and breakfasted. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that Badger Drink's previous removal was almost certainly regarding my post on his talk page 7 hours earlier, not Pesky's 9 day earlier. My comment was a gentle warning that the RfC was clearly showing that there was a problem (and in this state it did). Using that post as a suggestion that Pesky was hounding him is not appropriate. Pesky's comment was ill-advised, but it is not a pattern of harrassment - I see it as a good faith attempt to help. I do suggest that Pesky voluntarily steps back from the situation though, as there is little or nothing she can do to improve things.

  I wholly support Scott Mac's block, Badger Drink's edit summary was a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and he knew it. However, I don't see that an indefinite block, with no talk page access and no email access is appropriate. We understand that users are likely to sound off during a block, it's a stressful time and should be treated thus. I personally agree with Elen, that he should be unblocked (or at very least be able to request an unblock) at the end of the Scott Mac block. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to know from Pesky, Kudpung et al what was the problem with these 2 edit summaries which Pesky referred to in her final, fatal poke at BD. "removing ridiculously overwrought melodramatic language" and "Windswept plains and proud symbol belong in a crummy pulp detective novel". I can see nothing offensive in those edit summaries which inform the original editor and others precisely why non-encyclopaedic content has been removed. Far better, I think, than leaving an edit summary comprising "copy edit", or "rm non-encyclopaedic". Leaky Caldron 12:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL says:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
• (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
• (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. So I'll ask again, what exactly was not civil about those 2 edit summaries? They were not, as far as I can see, aimed at a particular contributor. Even if they were, why do you regard them as inappropriate? (just seen the bold) Leaky Caldron 12:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've rather blundered into this, but it seems to me that an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) is excessive. My preference would be to go back to the 24 hour block, or failing that reduce the block to allow email and editing of own talk page where any rudeness in edits or edit summaries can reasonably be ignored. If BD then reconsiders, there's room to restore an apparently constructive editor doing much needed work, as EdChem points out. . . dave souza, talk 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting... Badger Drink was correct

If you look at the complete first edit summary that Pesky has complained about, you will see that Badger Drink suggested that there was a possible copyright violation. Despite this, he was reverted in under half an hour. His second edit, again removed some of the same absurdly WP:PEACOCKy language that screams for its source to be investigated. Well, after one google search I can state that the section Bedlam Series#Douglas Cup as it currently stands remains a plaigiarism of the site http://www.okstate.com/trads/douglas-cup.html and that both versions which Badger Drink changed were blatant copy-and-paste copyright violations in addition to containing unencyclopaedic language. I realise all this debate about civility is great fun, but on the improving-the-encyclopedia front perhaps someone might like to look into and fix the copyright issue which Badger Drink identified and which Pesky ignored in order to focus on an allegation of violations of WP:CIVIL. Personally, I think the copyright violation and plaigiarism is actually more important. EdChem (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important, too. Which is why I've been responsible for removing more than 100 copyvio pages, and copyvio sections of several more, since the beginning of September. It's only ill-health and time constraints that's restricting my npp work. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility? For thee, but not for mee!

If only Badger Drink were an admin, he could revert two different people on this page, call one of those people (an administrator) a dick, and get away with it! Civility is a policy only for the chosen few. We should rewrite WP:CIVIL to make it clear it applies only to editors who are not admins, and who are not in good with the IRC crew. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes where have the civility police gone off to[38]? Very odd.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Administrator" Scott MacDonald removed his and Pesky's barnstar of decapitation with the edit summary "Don't be a dick", the second time he removed it. Maybe Scott can block himself for repeated censorship and sexist incivility? Or is the block-button's pushing less sweet when used on an administrator who has "crossed a line", and so deserves an "electric shock", to use his phrasing?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See m:dick. Read, consider, and inwardly digest.--Scott Mac 14:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Like the second line? "Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move: don't use this essay as a justification to do so."--Cube lurker (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is it worth noting that blocks are properly given for long-term patterns of abusive behavior by an editor, and not for singular events? Because a) Scott Mac should not have done what he did and b) it doesn't mean that he should be blocked for that one error in judgement even if another editor has been blocked for repeated, multiple, and eggregious personal attacks stretching over a long time? I know that this perspective is not congruous with the idea that some people support which is that no one should ever be blocked for abusive behavior towards other editors, which is why some people like to hyperbolicly overreact and demand that a singular act of incivility (which was unambiguously wrong) would get the same sanctions as a pattern of long-term disruption and abuse. To put it more simply: the thing that Scott Mac did was wrong (calling others a dick) but as a singular event is not of the same sort of thing as what Badger Drink appears to have been doing for a long time. Not every wrong action deserves a block, but that doesn't mean that no block is ever justified. --Jayron32 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  Jayron, if today was the first time that Scott MacDonald called somebody a "dick", then I am a Venusian sex-worker from Pittsburgh.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. For admins it never gets called a patern because they never get blocked for it so the next time they don't get blocked for it because there's no "patern".--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, maybe you did not catch Scotty MacDonald's suggestion that I "inwardly digest" a dick?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. That's quite the interpretation of what he meant... Resolute 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding cloture of the above section

This section has decended into nothing but people taking pot shots at one another. I don't care about who said what, this needs to stop now. No admin action will be taken here in this subsection. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This was initally contained in the |1= field of a collapse box, before it was undone first by Hipocrite and then by Kiefer.Wolfowitz.

I strongly disagree with non-admin Sven Manguard's decision that "no admin action will be taken here." There is a serious possibility that Scott Mac will be blocked, or at the very least warned. I suggest that this section be unarchived. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Surely even the most myopic of administrators can now begin see that the rubbish that's constantly being swept under the rug here is starting to cause a very unseemly bump. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Echo the above. There are serious issues concerning the consistency with issues are handled that reeks of a partisan approach. Leaky Caldron 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sven's wishing my removal from "the project" can be seen on his talk page, just a few days ago.

Somebody with less bias should make such a decision, rather than Sven.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you all made your arguments without resorting to taunting each other, my collapse wouldn't have been necessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that a block is required. His 24h block is reasonable, I don't see anyone suggesting that Badger Drink's edit summary at the time was acceptable. I've left a message at his page suggesting where I felt his behaviour had shortcomings. I'm not going to say this the be all and end all of the situation, because I am involved, but Sven is right that this section has degraded into potshots and should stop. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The serious discussion now concerns Scotty MacDonald's (apparently repeated) use of "dick", with frequently mentioned concerns about double standards.

I understand many finding this tedious, but these issues should be allowed discussion here. 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Regarding the indefinite, no talk page, no email, no way back block

Is there a reason why Badger Drink is blocked with no talk page, no email, no end date, and no suggested path back into the good graces of the community for using very foul language regarding gross violations of copyright (and opposing an IRC bud for adminship, but that's not why he's blocked)? Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Scale it back to 24/48 hours and immediately give him e-mail access.

Somebody, please write that others have raised concerns about one-sidedness of the administrative action (which cut short a productive ANI discussion), and that the community would like to resume the discussion at his page (rather than ANI). Assure him that others have suggested that Pesky's comment was provocative. Nonetheless, we all have to abide by civility, etc., etc. We also need him to continue to remove purple prose and to remove plagiarism, etc.

Worm could do it, but I suspect that an uninvolved or friendlier faced administrator might be better at restoring peace and productive editing.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I would wholly support either 24h (or 48h, based on his unblock request) with email allowed, but talk page not allowed for that period. I would also suggest that I shouldn't be the one to make that change, I am involved. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

He asked for the indef block [39] and basically reinforced his request it be indef [40]. I'll leave a note that he is free to contact me if he reconsiders. --WGFinley (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How is he supposed to contact you? Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Email. I will place the notice. --WGFinley (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I support re-enabling e-mail immediately, and talk page too (providing uninvolved admins keep watch to make sure it isn't abused). If he asks for the indef to be lifted, I've no objection to that happening (again with uninvolved monitoring). I've also no objections to the indef being lifted after the 24 hour expires (provisional on some monitoring again). If BD can be persuaded to return constructively, great. But we don't beg.--Scott Mac 16:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  Let us cooperate intelligently. Most of us could predict the events of the last 24 hours, and have watched our fears be realized. The goal should be to have BD edit again, and that he understand that we appreciate his contributions and that Pesky is going to stay away from him. Let him email me or Leaky Cauldron if he feels that jerks are hounding him, rather than him issue another Black Bolt whisper.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I will review and make sure the block is 'exactly what he asked for and I have reached out to him and advised him of methods he can use should he choose to. Please, let's conclude this and leave further questions about the logistics on my talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2011 (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:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has run its course. BLPs will remain a heated topic, that much is clear, and that Rob/You has made controversial edits is clear as well, as a zealous defender of the wiki who may have gone too far incidentally. General consensus appears to be that he is not a soapboxer and no administrative action is called for or warranted. Rob/You is urged to be more careful in his wording, to look before he leaps, and to be more diplomatic. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Off2riorob has, in the past, expressed rather strong views on who he considers to be a Jew, particularly if they are British nationals (see for example, this statement), and apparently believes "British" and "Jewish" are mutually exclusive (see, for example, this comment). I first ran into this at the Ed Miliband article, where Off2riorob was quite insistent that Miliband was not Jewish, despite Miliband's own explicit words to the contrary, and that no mention of his ethnicity should be made in his biography. He also removed Miliband from the infobox of the British Jews article.[41]

More recently this issue came up again at the British Jews article, where an editor added Daniel Radcliffe to the infobox. Off2riorob was quite insistent that Radcliffe could not be in the infobox,[42][43][44][45][46][47] despite the fact that Off2riorob was aware that Radcliffe himself had stated publicly "I'm very proud of being Jewish." Off2riorob also expressed very strange (and what many might consider offensive) views on various Talk: pages; he stated outright that Radcliffe was "not a British Jew" (indeed, that we were "falsely asserting he is a Jew"), that he was a "half Jew" at best, not a "full Jew", and insisted that we must "Get a better Jew for the infobox". As I pointed out on the Talk: page, I was rather surprised to see someone in the 21st century still applying the Mischling Test.

The issue arose again last week, when I copyedited the "Personal life" section of the Miliband article. My editing really was simply for readability and flow; I did not add any material at all, nor remove any significant material. Yet Rob reverted me, with no specific rationale other than it was a "stable version",[48] and that the WP:BRD essay gave him a "right" to do so.[49] In fact, he reverted the article six times in a span of four hours or so, continuing to revert even after being reported at AN/3RR. He claimed to "have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion" but notably refused to initiate such a discussion himself, despite being explicitly asked on his User talk: page to do so. He also reverted under the claim that the matter was "Under discussion - on the talk page", despite there obviously being no such discussion on the Talk: page. This seems to have become a persistent behavioral pattern when the issue of Jewish ethnicity of British nationals comes up; edit-war irrationally with multiple editors while accusing them of "tag-teaming" (see e.g. [50][51][52][53][54][55][56]).

After the 6RR at the Miliband article, Off2riorob was blocked for 48 hours and "retired", but then returned as User:Youreallycan. "Retiring" an account and starting a new one (publicly connecting the two) is apparently not in and of itself a WP:SOCK violation, and his initial edits were reasonably innocuous. Today, however, he started adding information to the Ed Miliband article based on his new argument that Miliband is Jewish, and that his ethnicity is significant and should be highlighted. This is, to my mind, a clear example of WP:POINT.

I think that at this point it is no longer tenable to claim that Off2riorob is using a new account because he wants a WP:CLEANSTART. Furthermore, it appears to me that he is unable to comply with policy when it comes to the topic of Jewish ethnicity. I suggest he needs to take a break from editing regarding it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support the proposal that this editor be instructed to stay far away from issues that have a Jewish angle. His contributions in this area risk discrediting the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DIVA much? He's been around for years, he knows how things work. Whilst he's at liberty to swap accounts like this (I'm sure he knows the policy far better than I will ever care to), this is self-centred flouncing of the worst sort. It certainly doesn't reflect well on him, the POV pushing over Jewishness doesn't either. I'm sure that any admin will see right through it in terms of neutrally applying policy to User:Youreallycan, should the issue of blocking arise again, and note that the same editor already has one block for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg and others from the I-P topic area have warred over this stuff for years, basically Who is a Jew? in terms of our usually Wikipedia-wars. No one comes here with clean hands when dealing with this topic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is both completely unsourced, and your usual dig at me - and frankly, it's a bit tiresome. Since you're one of the "others from the I-P topic area", are you stating that you have "warred over this stuff for years" and don't "come here with clean hands"? Please try to make constructive contributions; just because I open an AN/I thread, that doesn't mean you have to come and diss me with vague accusations based on ancient disputes you've had with me. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is neither socking nor a clean start because Rob has made no secret that the accounts are linked. At a guess, he changed the old account's password to a random string when he retired and then came back because, like many here, he is a Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. He was correctly blocked for edit-warring with several editors over JayJG's copyedit, but I am not convinced that his contributions today were in bad faith.

On the content issues, the Milibands are definitely both Jewish and British. I think that Miliband is rather more than just the Labour Party's chief spokesman but rather the person who does most to set its policy and his speech to conference immediate after election did much to set that policy. The JC is a fairly reliable source on this. On the other hand, I had not really heard of Radcliffe as being Jewish.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, comparing your opponents to Nazis invoking the Nuremburg Laws is not an effective way to de-escalate the situation. causa sui (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob was the guy who started dividing people into "half Jews" and "full Jews", not me. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob has done a lot of great work in enforcing the policies about biographies of living people but is occasionally overly passionate about their views. It doesn't last long and I'm sure this issue will be resolved shortly. There are, however, a couple of subject areas that seem to provoke stronger then necessary reactions from them. This is one, LGBT issues are the other. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute: take it to the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
- It's not easy to be a neutral in the Jew and Homosexual topic areas. Miliband describes himself as a secular Jew. - one - two - the word secular is never mentioned in either citation - if anyone can find support for this recent unattributed alteration I will appreciate it. - Acording to wikipedia, Ed Miliband sees himself as a secular Jew - or attribution required. - Youreallycan (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) "Secular" doesn't appear in the first one but he does say 'Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing'. Really, it seems like it's a good idea for us to say "secular" here since it's a faithful representation of the source that doesn't tread into copyright/close paraphrase waters. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) "Secular" does not appear in either citation and Miliband has never stated at all that he sees himself as a secular Jew. I am not seeing anything that fairly supports us suggesting Miliband sees himself as a secular Jew - its false representation and undue weight to a single comment from a subject. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) The sentence presently reads: "Miliband describes himself as a secular Jew." Perhaps it should be changed to read: "Miliband is a Jew" or: "Miliband is Jewish." Would that represent an improvement? I see nothing wrong with the word "secular" as it is consistent with everything that sources say on the topic, but I offer my versions as alternatives. My alternate versions omit the term "secular". Bus stop (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Bus stop, this is AN/I - discussions regarding article content belong on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) AndyTheGrump—you, and User:Causa sui, and User:Youreallycan, are discussing the wording involving "secular Jew" in the Miliband article—are you not? Am I permitted to weigh in with an opinion and a suggestion? Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC) I'd have to agree with Rob/Youreallycan over this one - to state that "Miliband describes himself as a secular Jew" one would really need a direct use of those words - though of course we don't know for sure if this isn't a quote, lacking a citation. Back on topic though, it seems that Rob is either out to stir things up, or, as he admitted to me after a previous bit of shenanigans, not entirely sober. I'd not realised it was Rob when I responded on the article talk page, and had I done, I'd have probably just told him to go to bed, sleep it off, and enjoy his hangover tomorrow. That might still be the best course for now - after all, as Miliband/Jewishness-related dramas go, this is hardly of any great significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) I think the biggest problem with using the term is that Secular Jew is a redirect to Jewish culture. Miliband identifies as Jewish, was brought up by other Jews in a non-religious background and sees no need for religion himself. This makes him a secular Jew. However some of his discussion in the ES puts in doubt if he had a Jewish upbringing in a sense that justifies the link through to Jewish culture. A second problem is that the words "describes himself as" are not referenced. We have evidence that he dscribes himself as Jewish but not in a religious sense, but not that he describes himself as a "secular Jew". --Peter cohen (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Non-practising Jew? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Given the material available in sources we would not be far off-base in writing in our article: "Miliband is Jewish but not religious." or: "Miliband is a nonobservant Jew." I think these are standard English locutions for the idea of being Jewish but not ritually observant. Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, standard English locutions seems relevant. As the recent IP address's uncited alteration, I have replaced the in the previous cited content, that said, Miliband is Jewish though not religious. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC) "secular Jew" was probably the wrong term anyway, as it refers to someone who follows aspects of Jewish culture without belief in the Jewish faith. Miliband, according to the sources, does not habitually follow Jewish culture, in addition to not having a religious belief.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Elen—I have seen no source saying that Miliband "does not habitually follow Jewish culture" nor do I recall ever seeing a definition of "secular Jew" as indicating "someone who follows aspects of Jewish culture".[57] I think the term secular Jew simply refers to someone's being Jewish but not observant of ritual as it pertains to Judaism. Sorry to be a stickler over terms but terms are what all of these arguments seem to be 100% about. I think the term "secular" was fine in the sentence that Bbb23 put into the article in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Ah now, I say this because I read something at the weekend which led me to say that. Let me see if I can find the reference. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - if there are strong objections to my editing as User:Youreallycan then I will return back to my previous account - right now I am still undecided as to moving forward my what or not contribution position may be. I might decide to rename or to totally stop contributing or to do something else - clearly I have recently been questioning or confused as to if or not or where I want to be contributing to the project but Off2riorob is an account in good standing and I would object to any unwarranted restriction of that account. Youreallycan (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On moderate inspection...

I do not personally see any violation of the sockpuppetry policy. No attempt to disguise, no good hand bad hand, no skating away from sanctions on one, etc.

I see why people are concerned about your behavior (independent of account status or use) but I think that any discussion of that should be removed from any account-related stuff. As long as you continue to operate within the established account use policy that's not an issue. It may confuse people a bit, but you aren't evidently doing that on purpose. I think the question was raised in good faith, but I'd support putting that part to bed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my experience with Off2riorob on Boris Berezovsky is very similar. It appears that bbb23 and Off2riorob may act in tandem, and their actions on that and other articles relating that BLP were absolutely disruptive. Editors (me) wishing to insert information from scholarly sources relating to the BLP were reverted without question, and I was hounded by Off2riorob[58][59], which ultimately led to him being warned about trolling and harrassment by an admin[60][61]. I can't remember if he was warned about following of my edits, and acting in an overtly battled way. For example, referring to a request to a WikiProject as disruptive, as well as claimed that my report of bbb23 for edit warring was disruptive, and tried to portray my posting to the Russia and Biography WikiProjects, as well as to BLPN, and starting an RFC, as being disruptive, when in fact it is what is suggested editors do when there is a dispute. He obviously also tried to poison the well, by bringing up a 3 year old block of myself as evidence that I was acting in a most disruptive way. Of course, this was occurring after an editor was banned for actually being disruptive on the Berezovsky article, and whilst User:Kolokol1 (with an admitted WP:COI) was whitewashing the Berezovsky article in the lead-up to the court case which saw Berezovsky sue Roman Abramovich. His editing on this BLP showed a complete lack of good faith, and now that I refer back to this discussion, bbb23 was basically insinuating that other editors were adding anti-Semitic information to the article, when that was not so much the case at all, it appears that the 25% expansion on the article done by the now-banned editor was justified by off2riorob and bbb23 based entirely on the "Jewish" angle, and tried to pull the "anti-semitic" card in doing so. Given other information in this thread, some things now make sense to me, but whether it is a wider problem, well that is for others to determine. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You again and your unfounded accusations. Despite peppering your comments with links, you can't back up just about anything you say, particularly your comment that I "insinuat[ed] that other editors were adding anti-Semitic information to the article". What a crock, and it's offensive. See WP:NPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read the thread in question, and it MAY appear that you were talking about the allegedly anti-semitic remarks of Klebnikov. If that IS the case, I will retract that part and apologise. But the rest stands. You and Off2riorob acted in a most disruptive way in that article, tried to assert COMPLETE AND TOTAL ownership over the article, whereby every single edit had to pass your pre-approval, as if you were both some self-appointed article vetters. If this occurs on other articles within this topic area, then I would suggest that Off2riorob either learn to act collaboratively, and don't troll and harrass other editors like he was doing. If this was a one off-case, then it may be excused, (not by me however), but if this occurs time and time again, then perhaps that is something that needs to be looked at. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you even commenting here? You're using a topic as a launching board to resurrect the Berezovsky debacle and to spew your unfounded vitriol that isn't even related to the topic except your mention Off2riorob, but the anti-semitic crap is supposedly related to me, not to Rob, so the only way you get to topic relevance is to accuse us of being alter egos. At the risk of repeating myself, it's all a crock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is a crock, is that your and Off2riorob's extreme ownership of the Berezovsky article, whereby a 25% expansion by another editor (now banned) was continually wholesale reverted on site over the ridiculous assertions by you guys that Berezovsky isn't Jewish. I am knowledgeable on the subject, and it is a well-known fact that most of the Russian oligarchs are Jewish. There is no anti-semitic notions in stating fact; hell some of these oligarchs have used their Jewish heritage to exile themselves in Israel to escape prosecution in Russia for their shady dealings during the Yeltsin years. But what made it worse, is that your extreme ownership of the article allowed User:Kolokol1, who admitted they have a conflict of interest with the subject, to completely whitewash the article in the lead up to a major court case in the United Kingdom, seeing Berezovsky suing Abramovich for billions of dollars. It was an obvious PR job, and you guys were complicit in allowing this COI editor to completely whitewash the article of almost anything negative of the article, and was done so under the ridiculous guise of BLP; so much so that the article may as well be re-written from scratch in order to get rid of the overt PR hackjob which was done. Not to mention your own continual edit warring on BLP articles, bbb23. Please, leave subjects in which you know NOTHING about to editors who either are familiar with the subject, or are able to use basic research skills to find information on the subject.

Again - all this colloquy shows is that labelling anyone as a particular religion or ethnicity is a major and ongoing problem in the area of biography on Wikipedia in general. All of the rest of the discussion above simply strengthens this particular opinion. And seeking to go against any editor for holding such an opinion is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, except that in this case, both Miliband and Radcliffe label themselves as Jews. But that's all beside the point. It's not Rob's opinions that are the issue, it is the fact that he acts on them in violation of policy. The issue here is his behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect—I fail to understand. Are you saying that when reliable sources say that Miliband is Jewish, that does not become information that we can pass along to the reader? Why wouldn't that become includable information in a biography on Miliband? Mind you I am not talking about a biography in which reliable sources are in conflict with one another about this. Obviously it is more complex if one good good quality source says that he is Jewish and another good quality source says that he is not Jewish. But what if all sources (that address that point) are in agreement that Miliband is Jewish? Would you still maintain that such material is not proper for inclusion in a biography of Miliband? If that is what you are saying I quite frankly don't understand it. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, where is the major problem here? The sources say it, Miliband confirms it, and we include it. End of story. What part is confusing you? Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To all: See the discussions about WP:BLP and categorization. This is not just 'my position, but the position of many others. And the it is clear that the issue of categorization is one of the regular issues at WP:BLP/N as you each are quite aware, and the general result is that consensus there opposes categorization. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, are you ignoring the sources?

"Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense."[62]
"My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am"[63]
"And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country."[64]

Aren't we as Wikipedia editors supposed to go from the sources? What serious objection to calling Miliband a "British Jew" could there possibly be? Well, as an uninvolved editor who saw this thread on ANI, I decided to have a look. I was surprised to find that there isn't any objection except in the mind of Off2riorob. Unless we have sources that explicitly describe a dispute or objection to this categorization—a categorization that the BLP subject personally declares—I cannot imagine a reasonable justification for removing this information from the article. From where I sit, this appears to be clear case of disruptive editing. Of course, I expect no action from any administrator, since their job is to do nothing. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget something else in the mind of Off2riorob: "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself". This attitude has informed a fair amount of mischief at various articles (Miliband most of all). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The way I see the world is like this: Off2riorob is free to say and think these things. He is not, however, free to continue disrupting encyclopedia articles, and as a result of the evidence offered here, I support a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What's this issue doing at ANI? Anyway in none of the sources you've provided does Milliband appear to categorise himself as a British Jew. He mentions how he has a Jewish identity but not religious and also mentions how he admires the contributions of British Jews to the country. Whether he considers himself a British Jew is therefore unclear from the sources you've provided. If you have sources where he does categorise himself as a British Jew, you're welcome to bring them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) BTW AFAIK, last time this was discussed the consensus was to add him to the generic British people of Jewish descent cat instead of the specific subcat British Jews (he doesn't need be in both as one is a subcat of the other). It looks like this is the status quo. Again if you have sources where he describes himself as a British Jew, you're welcome to discuss it in the article talk page, but it would be helpful to read the previous discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne—what kind of rationale leads to placing someone who is unquestionably Jewish into a WP:CATEGORY for people "of Jewish descent"? Wouldn't it be more precise to place such a person in a WP:CATEGORY for people who are Jewish? Do you have any source suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish? Every source that I am aware of that addresses the topic says that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Furthermore—if someone is British and Jewish—can they be anything other than a British Jew? I can't understand how you can raise a question as to whether or not Ed Miliband is a British Jew. How can he possibly not be a British Jew if he is British and Jewish? Ed Miliband says numerous times in sources that he is Jewish. Do you doubt that he is British? Can you please explain the origin of your doubt that Ed Miliband is a British Jew? Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't question he is Jewish in some sense nor do I question he is British. However this doesn't mean he is a British Jew since as many articles on and off wiki atest to it's a complicated term. Even EM's comments themselves attest to this, since in most cases he says his identity is Jewish but not in a religious sense (or something of that sort). The category is British Jews, not Jewish British people. I personally suspect EM does categorise himself as a British Jew, but without clearcut evidence for this, we shouldn't be doing it for him, since it should be his choice particularly with something as complicated with as many possible meanings as Who is a Jew? (Incidentally, while not relevant here you can't draw the conclusion it's best to categorise someone who is A and B as A B. I am Pākehā and a Chinese Malaysian. While technically it may be accurate Chinese New Zealander and European or white Malaysian, and I may use these on occasion, I prefer to stick with my categorisation as Pākehā and a Chinese Malaysian rather then adding the other two.) Anyway I won't discuss this here anymore since it's OT and I don't really care that much. I solely wanted to point out it isn't as clear as Viritidas is saying, as previous discussions on the subject have attested to. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne—you have not brought a source saying that Miliband is only Jewish in a sense. You are saying that you "don't question he is Jewish in some sense". In fact sources in no uncertain way support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. You are expressing your reservations about well-sourced material pertaining to Ed Miliband being Jewish when you say that he is Jewish "in some sense". Sources do not express any of the reservations that you are expressing. Sources are clear on this point: Ed Miliband is Jewish. No source makes any reference to Ed Miliband only being Jewish in a limited sense. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nearly every single source I've seen which quotes Ed has him saying something like I'm Jewish, it's part of who I am but not in religous sense, or have him referring to his Jewish identity and similar stuff. There are few if any which have him simply saying he is Jewish. In other words, it's EM himself who wishes to be careful with his words, something which I as an editor prefer to respect. You don't even have to leave his article to check, since Viritidas has helpful included them here and it's what I was replying to originally. Although sometimes it's helpful to read the original source rather then just the quotes. Self identification of course is what matters on when it comes to categories, not what other random sources say. Also it ultimately doesn't really matter whether he is Jewish in some sense, or all senses, the question is whether he is a British Jew not whether he is Jewish. As I said, it's not impossible someone could be Jewish, but not regard themselves as a Jew and as it stands, we don't have a source where he self identifies as a British Jew. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne—this is slightly besides the point, because we should be adhering to what sources say, and all sources say that Miliband is Jewish, but you should understand that a Jew is a person who was either born a Jew or who has converted to Judaism, and that "belief" has nothing to do with whether a person is a Jew or not—atheism is a fairly common "belief" among Jews. Furthermore ritual observance is irrelevant to whether a person is Jewish or not—a sizable portion of world Jewry may be nonobservant. Miliband is clarifying, in the quotes you cite, that he is nonobservant. That does not obviate him being a Jew. Furthermore it is axiomatic that a Jew who is the Leader of the Labour Party (UK) is a British Jew. Yes, we require "self-identification" for Categorization purposes as concerns religion according to WP:BLPCAT. But to add to the already established identity of "Jew" that the individual is "British" should not require "self-identification" as a "British Jew". These two identities, or qualities, simply go together in accordance with logic. One quality can be added to the other because no other possible outcome can be arrived at but the considering of them as one combined quality. No source is required that Miliband is a "British Jew". There would for instance be no wp:synthesis involved and this would not be for instance wp:original research. Can somebody be British and Jewish and not a British Jew? If not then Miliband is a British Jew by virtue of those two qualities separately being established. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at hand: the point of this section is not to discuss exactly how any individual should be labelled, or even Rob's use of two accounts, but rather to address the rather obvious behavioral issue - when it comes to the issue of Jewish ethnicity, Off2riorob does not appear to be able to abide by policy, whether it is WP:3RR or WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any examples of him breaking WP:3RR aside from the time that he got blocked for doing it on Miliband? WP:POINT is only ever blocked for when it becomes disruptive, is he doing something that is impeding others from building Wikipedia apart from his having honest content disagreements on talk pages with arguments you believe are not in line with policy?AerobicFox (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, I'm not following you. When source X says Y and Off2riorob ignores the source and says Z, that's disruptive. Based on the above evidence, why is Off2riorob still allowed to edit? Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think Rob should be more careful, especially with 3RR, but don't see the need for a topic ban at this time. He has had to resist POV pushes from the opposite side which can drive anyone with an interest in BLP – where Rob has excelled – to distraction. I still remember the mammoth wars last year, both about adding a "Jewish atheist" category [65][66] and stating "Religion=Jewish" in Milliband's infobox [67][68], when Milliband had never self-identified as an atheist, and made it quite clear that he was not a follower of Judaism. Also, let's remember that Off2riorob took Miliband's BLP to GA status. --JN466 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I definitely remember the "POV pushes" and "mammoth wars" regarding Miliband last year.[69][70][71] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• You really can troll on Wikipedia for a long time with no consequences, but this seems over the top POV pushing. I support a topic ban of User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan from Jewish-related topics. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: - I hope those who were previously unaware of the scope and intensity of this issue have had their eyes opened a little bit. I think Off2riorob/Youreallycan made some pointy edits and deliberately provocative comments on the talk page, but the fact that the comments here range from dismissal to a topic ban suggestion shows the extent of the polarization in this particular area. This is one of the reasons that I proposed the removal of religion from infoboxes where religion is not one of the reasons for the person's notability (actually, the issue which prompted it was the use of "atheist" as the "religion" parameter, but this is related). These types of debates are ideologically driven and unlikely to be resolved by any amount of reasonable discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

JN466—it sounds to me that you are implying that there are editors disregarding reliable sources and the weight accorded material by reliable sources when you refer to "…POV pushes from the opposite side". I am not aware of the phenomenon to which you refer, but if you are not providing substantiation in the form of links or "diffs" should you be making such assertions? Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

JN466 has already provided a diff demonstrating where someone (you as it turns out) tried to add Jewish to religion in the infobox despite the fact that wasn't really supported by RS at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't too often find myself in agreement with Delicious carbuncle, but I agree with the polarization comments, which I also think dovetail nicely with Collect's comments way above about this being a contentious area and an "ongoing problem". I have many times in the past wished that these fights over religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation, whether it be categories, infoboxes, or the bodies of articles, would go away. Why Wikipedia has such a mindset about categorizing subjects (and I mean categorizing in the broadest sense, not just in categories) is mystifying to me. My mystification aside, the fights are interminable and eat up editor resources over and over again. And, frankly, at the end of each fight, we accomplish very little.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• You've missed the point by a mile. This has nothing to do with information and everything to do with User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan's inability to perform research, consult reliable secondary sources, and verify relevant information as fact or fiction. The user is simply incapable of editing Wikipedia in an appropriate and accurate matter. WP:COMPETENCY appears to be playing a role as well. At this very moment, the user is continuing to disrupt multiple Wikipedia articles, such as Demi Moore. The ongoing discussion at Talk:Demi_Moore#Birth_Name:_Demetria_-_Credible_Sources_and_References demonstrates incontrovertible evidence that User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan lacks the competency necessary to edit Wikipedia and should be immediately indefinitely blocked. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, your comments are really over the top. Even those editors who occasionally disagree with Rob, believe he has made major, pervasive, and positive contributions to this project. I certainly do. To call for an indefinite block based on incompetence is way out there.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with my comments. To call for an indefinite block based on incompetence is standard and acceptable practice, especially after 12 separate blocks for the same behavior. Enough is enough, and the ongoing disruption and edit warring on Demi Moore and Talk:Demi Moore shows that he is incapable of changing his behavior or recognizing his mistakes. He was supposed to retire and didn't. After seeing him return with the new account, and seeing him engage in the same bullshit in real time, I think he needs a forced retirement. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Viriditas . In his posts at my page, Youreallycan has demonstrated a stubborn and repeated incivility; uninformed opinion in which he claims that an established Time Inc. publication is not a reliable source; and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS — which leads him to believe that such print sources as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are unusable because they're not immediately available online. In his editing, he has demonstrated bias and POV, edit-warring and a degree of WP:OWN. Cumulatively, it makes this editor extremely difficult with whom to work in any productive fashion whatsoever.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Demi Moore discussion belongs on Talk:Demi Moore. 28bytes (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also agree that User:Youreallycan should be sanctioned. User:Youreallycan has harassed me in several ways today: 1. Removed my sourced and factual edits from the Demi Moore page; 2. then added a template that threatened me with blocking if I edited the article; 3. repeatedly changed the title of my new section on the TALK page of the Demi Moore article; 4. Deleted my request on his own talk page not to harass me, instead of replying to it; and finally 5. Removed sourced, good faith edits by another user from the Demi Moore page. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC) You insisted on posting an alleged "real" birth name without providing a valid source. That qualifies as a BLP violation and is subject to removal, no matter if it's in the article or the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that's 100% bullshit. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of reliable secondary sources listing Demi Moore's real name as "Demetria Guynes". Recently, several Wikipedia editors misinterpreted a twitter post from Moore which they imagined disputed this reliably sourced claim. This is another classic Off2riorob dispute manufactured from nothing, amounting to nothing. There is no source that disputes Moore's real name. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, you are still insisting that Demi Moore isn't a reliable source for her own name? Quote: "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!" - from Demi's verified Twitter account [72]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Again, misinterpretation by Wikipedia editors. To me, that means that during her life, she never used the name and was never called the name. It does not mean that it was not her given name. Please stop trying to interpret Twitter posts. We have multiple reliable sources that have verified her birth name. If they are all wrong, then why isn't there a single retraction, a single correction, and a single source saying "no"? Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I don't give a rat's arse what it means to you. We have Demi herself stating unequivocally that her name was never Demitria, and whether she said it on Twitter, or wrote it in blood on the back of the original version of the US Constitution, she is still a perfectly reasonable source, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 'Reliable sources' get things wrong all the time. They copy each other without fact-checking. Heck, they copy Wikipedia often enough. This ludicrous idea that a 'reliable source' is always reliable is one of the most pernicious misunderstandings (or worse) that cripples common-sense editing on Wikipedia. Why would she lie about it? Come to that, why are so many supposedly-rational people suggesting that it actually matters? This place gets nuttier by the minute... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC) She does not state that unequivocally in the context of the Twitter post, so your interpretation belongs to you. She has never said "I was not born Demetria Moore". Are you saying that we should interpret ambiguous Twitter posts rather than, let's say, the Almanac of Famous People (2011) published by Gale? There are dozens of publications that list her birth name as Demetria. If they are all wrong, why hasn't Demi Moore ever issued a correction? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) And, another one: "Demi Moore born Demetria Guynes" from Hutchinson's Biography Database (2011). Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC) "Born: Demetria Guynes in Roswell, New Mexico, 11 November 1962." International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers (2000). However, here is a reliable source that is finally at odds with the rest: "Born Demi Guynes in Roswell, New Mexico..." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture (2000). Strangely, both are published by St. James Press. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) What the heck? People are attacking Rob for supporting the position that Demi Moore is a reliable source for a statement that her name is Demi Moore, are they? Unbelievable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC) No, he replaced valid information that had been published in many reliable sources over he past 20 years on the basis of one "tweet" Demi recently made from her Twitter account. Please think about this... if we replace valid information from credible sources on the basis of celebrities claims, they would all claim to be years younger than their actual age, date of births would be off.. for some unknown reason, Demi has decided to try to change history and now claims her birth name was not Demetria Guynes, despite her statements in prior interviews, one of which I linked to on the talk page - a People interview from 1996 which directly quoted her as saying her birth name is Demetria and how her mother came to name her that. So then, if she "tweets" again in a year that her birth name was really "Demitasse" should we take that as fact too...? and change the article to reflect that? Or if she decides she was actually born in 1980 and is only 32 years old...? Think about this. Seriously. The issue is that one editor steam-rollered his view over everyone elses, deleted sourced information, and refused to allow good faith compromise edits. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) She didn't even say what AndyTheGrump and Off2riorob are saying she said. She just denied that she goes by the name, which of course is true. However, every reliable biographical source and index on the subject lists her original name as "Demetria Gene Guynes". This includes the most current Almanac of Famous People (2011) published by Gale. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry? You are claiming the link I provided to the quote I gave was false, are you? Or are you just basing this on what you think she meant, rather than what she actually wrote? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Demi Moore has never issued a correction nor has she ever said, "my birth name is not Demtria". Your interpretation of an ambiguous Twitter post is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Do you have a reading comprehension problem? What part of "it was never Demitria" isn't a correction? And 'Twitter' isn't the source - Demi Moore is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC) You're engaging in out of context misinterpertation of a primary Twitter post. That's hardly reliable. On Twitter, Demi is asked "What's your name? Demetria Gene Guynes??" However, her response is "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!" That doesn't necessarily mean it was never her birth name, but it could mean she was never called Demitria. As a rule, we don't go with out of context, ambiguous editorial interpretations. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC) "As a rule, we don't go with out of context, ambiguous editorial interpretations". Good - stop doing it then. Your guesswork about what it does or doesn't "necessarily" mean is exactly that, whereas Ms Moore's statement is unequivocal. She says her name was never Demtria. She doesn't say she was never called Demtria. Spin it how you like, she is making a factual assertion. She might be mistaken, she might be lying (though I can't think of one reason why...), but she stated it outright. There is no ambiguity, except in your imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) The quotes you're ascribing to her make it clear that her name is Demi, not Demetria. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC) There are dozens of interviews with Demi Moore dating back decades. Are you telling me you can't find one that disputes the birth name dozens of reliable sources have given her? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Where are these allegedly "reliable" sources getting their info? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Demi Moore's birth name, this looks like a pretty bog-standard and good-faith editor dispute provoked by contradictory sources. From what I can see in the article history, the long-time stable article version gave her birth name as Demi Gene Guynes. If it's been wrong for years, I don't see what the hurry is in changing it, without a proper examination of whether the change actually is an improvement or not. You could also call that due diligence. --JN466 04:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Just for reference, there are equally reputable sources stating her birth name as "Demi": [73] (H. W. Wilson Company), [74] (Hachette), [75] (New York Times biographical service), [76] (Macmillan + Time Almanac + Gale + Who's Who). --JN466 05:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC) "Most references say Moore’s name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes. [...] Recently Moore told her fans through Twitter that Demi, not Demetria, is her full name. It’s not clear whether she’s claiming she was born as Demi or has now legally changed her name." Omaha World-Herald, August 25, 2009 --JN466 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC) That is absolutely correct. "Most references say Moore’s name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes" and that can be verified in this 2006 book by show business author James Robert Parish who writes that Moore changed her name sometime after she moved to California and began attending high school. Therefore, her response on Twitter, is as I said above, absolutely true. Her name is no longer Demetria. However, that still does not change the fact that she was born with that name. When I read the Twitter message, I see a woman rightly denying that her name is currently Demetria. If she changed her name, as James Robert Parish, maintains, then we have yet another example of Wikipedia editors misinterpreting primary sources to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• - It's over three days now including Jayjg's "unnamed" report. Its getting boring and generally attacking in nature - a feeling of being bullied and open to public attack over a lengthy period of time and are breaking out as venting for opponents from content disputes resulting in a feeling - the comments here requesting my indefinite ban from the project seem extreme indeed, I am not seeing anything worthy of immediate administrative action - how long shall we keep a thread open here in my name? Youreallycan (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Nothing here looks like particularly substantial. You've been involved in content disputes - so what? Personally, I'd recommend that you maybe leave this madhouse to its own devices for a bit, just for your own benefit, but that is your choice. Hopefully, an admin will come along and close this bit of insubstantial fluff for what it is, so we can all get back to arguing about how many angels can balance on the head of an en-dash... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OBJECTION! That would be an em-dash. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How astonishing - Off2riorob thinks there's nothing wrong with his misbehavior on Jewish ethnicity optics (including the rather obvious recent WP:POINT at Ed Miliband), and his comrade-in-arms Andy agrees there's nothing here and this should be closed. Next you'll be telling me the sun rises in the east. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Demi Moore discussion belongs on Talk:Demi Moore. 28bytes (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Viriditas, how can we misinterpret this? Let me quote: "Demi is the name I was born with!". I don't think that can be interpreted in any other way. Put your ill feelings aside, and you stop trying to read into what she is saying. Nymf hideliho! 08:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Could you explain why virtually every reliable biography source, including James Robert Parish,[77] says otherwise? Parish goes so far as to go into detail, saying that her mother, Virginia King, named her after a beauty product in a magazine. According to a quote attributed to Moore that was supposedly published in Harper's Bazaar, she confirms this, saying that her mother named her Demetria because she saw the name on a cosmetics product and fancied it: "I had a very young mother and she was a little wacky. My name came from a make-up - that's where she saw it."[78] I'm going to try and follow this up. We're not talking about one or two or three sources that have made this claim over the years. We're talking about dozens, perhaps fifty or more, many of which are considered highly trusted and reliable, like Biography Magazine (Nov. 2000) 4 (11), p. 26. Now, if this is all made up and a complete fabrication, is there a reason we have contemporaneous interviews with Moore published in the last several years with the name "Demetria" still appearing in the publication? And why is there not a single correction to set the record straight? Instead, all we have are Wikipedia editors misinterpreting Twitter posts. Something is wrong here. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Now I think you are misinterpreting that source. She does say that she was named after the cosmetics line, but nowhere does she say that her name is Demetria. I could be named after "Calvin Klein", but still only be named Cal. It is impossible to misinterpret this post (by the obviously annoyed Demi Moore), however. So what do you propose? Is this all some kind of scheme by by Moore? Nymf hideliho! 09:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) No, you're already confused. That source in particular says, "The actress insists she was born for just a venture as her "wacky" mother christened her Demetria because she liked the name on an early 1960s cosmetics line."[79] But, that is irrelevant, because we already have a reliable source, James Robert Parish, who has published that statement. This source, Bailey, S. (Sept, 2005). "Demi's Next Act". Harper's Bazaar. 3526, 340-347, only says the following: Aside from getting her comedy mojo on, Demi has other plans, which include launching a holistic beauty company with two friends, makeup artist Jo Strettell and skincare specialist Terri Lawton. "It comes from a much more organic place, really addressing your whole well-being and encouraging women to find alternatives so we do not become these immovable masks." There must be myriad opportunities for Demi to slap her name on a commercial product range, but she's determined that the project have integrity. "I really want it to be more about us, as women, coming together. I had a very young mother and she was a little wacky. My name came from a makeup--that's where she saw it," she says, shaking her head in fond disbelief. "She was always a little wild, but she never went a day without washing her face and using a little moisturizer." All this shows is that there is general agreement that Demi Moore was named after a 1960s beauty product called "Demetria". The question at hand is whether it was on the birth certificate. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Like I said, I could be named after Calvin Klein, but still only be named Cal. Moore herself disputes the name "Demetria" (not the story!), and according to Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, we are allowed to use her posts as a source for this. Nymf hideliho! 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) No, that's your interpretation of a primary source, namely a Twitter post. There isn't a single secondary source that directly challenges or casts doubt on her birth name, and she admits above that her name is based on the beauty product known as "Demetria". Secondary sources like the Omaha World-Herald have said that Moore's Twitter pronouncements on this subject are ambiguous and unclear.[80] Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) The Twitter post that you and they are reading, is not the post in question that I am referring to. Moore explicitly says "Demi is the name I was born with!" (click it!). It is not ambigious or unclear. Nymf hideliho! 09:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC) We've already been over this. We don't interpret any primary sources. "Demi is the name I was born with!" does not directly address the question. That statement can be taken in at least several different ways. Again, I've already addressed this. What I would like to see is somebody question the veracity of James Robert Parish as a source or poke holes in basic biographical summaries like the kind found here. This information is widely available and unchallenged. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Humor me then, how could that be interpreted differently? How could "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!" be interpreted in a way that might imply that her name may have been Demetria once? When she says that it has never been Demetria? There is zero room for interpretation in these two posts. Nymf hideliho! 10:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) It can be interpreted in many different ways. It's completely ambiguous and unclear in terms of what her name was on her birth certificate or what full name she was given at birth. The number of different sources claiming her name is Demetria is staggering. For example, in a 2007 interview with journalist Chrissy Iley of The Guardian, Iley writes about Moore: Her mother was only 19 when she had her. She didn't grow up with her biological father. He left her mother before she was born. Until she was 15, Demi, named Demetria after a shampoo that her mother saw in a magazine, believed Danny Guynes was her father when in fact it was Charles Harman, a cocaine-addicted vending-machine salesman from Texas. Was she hurt not to have been told? Confused that the man she thought was her father for 15 years turned out not to be? 'Yes and no. It was the norm of a certain kind. It was what I knew. Certainly not what I would want for my children, but if I didn't step out of how hurtful that was, it would have been mind-twisting for me. There were many insecurities and doubts, but I know they made the best choices they could. They thought they were doing the right thing.'[81] This is not the only interview where this kind of claim is made in the article, and this information is uncontested in print. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC) But if it was on her birth certificate, why does she say that she has never been named Demetria? Why does she say that she was born Demi? Why does she say that she was born "Demi Gene" (there's your full surname right there)? These are odd claims for someone supposedly born "Demetria". Either way, the content dispuse has been settled by giving both versions. Nymf hideliho! 10:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC) (EC with above) It sounds to me like Demetria was probably her birth name although there is some dispute. I think the bigger issue is whether we should include this in her article, since it appears she has hardly ever been called by the name and doesn't consider it was ever her name. As with the other case, this should be resolved on the article talk page not here. It may be Youreallycan's behaviour is making discussion difficult, or there are problems with his behaviour. However his insistence that the name be excluded (or whatever) isn't in itself a problem. And it should be obvious these discussions are going no where if the only problems are these cases where he supports a view, that this talk page itselfs attest to a number of people support. In other words, these discussion needs to return to his behaviour, not the content dispute that lead up to the behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) It appears that the author Parish may well have made the same jump-to-conclusion that some are making here, namely that because she was named in reference to something, that that something was exactly the same as her first name. Unless Parish gives a source for his statement, then it can only be taken as his personal conjecture, and cannot be considered "reliable". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC) A Twitter post is never a reliable source for information. Regardless of the subject. In regards to Moore there are even scholarly sources which state it is Demetria Gene Guynes. Since when do we disregard even scholarly sources when some celeb decides to post something to Twitter. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Read Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves - this explicitly includes Twitter as a valid "self-published" source for personal information. And can someone please explain why they think that Demi doesn't know what her name is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC) That's a guideline, and we all know that celebrities make self-serving comments about themselves. Does the Twitter post state explicitly "My birth certificate was issued in the name of Demi Gene". Or does it say something else leaves ambiguity as to what they are talking about? Because unless it is the former, it has no place in WP. Russavia Let's dialogue 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC) What 'we all know' is utterly irrelevant here. Do you have any source that explicitly refers to a birth certificate? No. Do you have any source that suggests Ms Moore has a reason to want to change her name? No. Basically, this whole argument seems to be about whether the opinions of some Wikepedia contributors over what they think Ms Moore meant are of more significance than what she actually said. This has no place in WP. Frankly, some people seem to have a twisted set of priorities here in any case. This isn't a court of law. We aren't here to arrive at 'facts', or to draw 'conclusions'. Demi Moore is known by that name. If some sources insist that it isn't her name, it can be referred to in a footnote, along with a link to her assertion that this is incorrect. To attach any more significance to this bit of trivia is totally undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can some kind admin please put this thread out of its misery...

Given that it is evident that no action is going to be taken regarding Off2riorob/Youreallycan's behaviour, and given that this thread has degenerated into multiple disputes about matters that should be discussed elsewhere (if they actually merit discussion at all, which is questionable), can some kind admin please put this thread out of its misery, and close it as "nothing for AN/I here, argue elsewhere"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really evident no action will be taken? Clearly you and Jayen466 will oppose any action, as is to be expected. But many other editors, particularly uninvolved ones, support action. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I think it's disgraceful how those two editors clearly have Rob's back. How anyone can possibly miss the behaviour of this terrible editor who has been sanctioned by arbcom regarding this topic area is.... oh wait.101.118.38.7 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Which editor has been "sanctioned by arbcom regarding this topic area"? Certainly not me, despite your snide insinuations - and I appreciate the "courage" you've shown by logging in, so we know who actually made the comments. But thanks for showing up with your "helpful", "on topic", "courageous", and "accurate" comments.... oh wait. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy, it's a bit rich to argue that this thread is being derailed and so should be closed when you're one of the ones hard at work derailing it. Serious concerns are raised above about this editor's activities in relation to Jewish topics. Since those topics are as sensitive as you have noted they are, there is no place for trolling or POV-pushing about them, and the arguments for a topic ban should get proper consideration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then can some kind admin please hat the off-topic portions of this thread, so we can discuss what, if anything, needs to be done about Rob. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any indications that these "serious concerns" will result in a clear reason for any administrative action anytime soon? As this thread progresses it appears to get more fractured, off-topic, and less likely to produce a clear reason for any action. Once the argument starts becoming about how "there is general agreement that Demi Moore was named after a 1960s beauty product called "Demetria"", and which several editors including myself all believe "this looks like a pretty bog-standard and good-faith editor dispute provoked by contradictory sources", there becomes less and less reason for this to be taking place here instead of an talkpage except for that critiques of rob are given the appearance of relevance and justification where as they wouldn't on a talkpage.AerobicFox (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Demetria" stuff has nothing to do with the issue, and there is no "content dispute". The issue here is 100% behavioral, and is not about any one specific article or edit, or even Rob's 6RR, but rather, a series of edits (including the 6RR) on multiple articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Rob's behavior isn't exemplary, none of ours is, but he clearly has not acted in a blockable manner. Two paragraphs of the OP deal with the 6rr issue that he was blocked for previously, other arguments have been insinuating that arguments over what qualifies as a Jewish heritage are anti-Semetic(by insinuating I refer to posts like this "I was rather surprised to see someone in the 21st century still applying the Mischling Test"). This topic appears to be devolving into nothing more than a coatrack of bad examples of Rob which has gone on to the point of fishing into content disputes to find something to criticize. Several editors have already stated to the effect that Rob's actions neither warrant administrative action nor singling out, and I would like a better reason for a discussion centered around criticizing an editor to go on other than that something might eventually just pop up if the discussion continues.AerobicFox (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, you made it clear above you don't think there's anything wrong (while ignoring that actual issues raised). Now you've done the same here. A significant number (possibly a majority) of editors, however, disagree, and they've also been clear about that, stating that in fact he should be topic-banned. Do you need me to quote them? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Diffs should be sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you review the comments of Nomoskedasticity, Andy Dingley, Delicious carbuncle, Georgewilliamherbert, Russavia, Viriditas, ASCIIn2Bme, Tenebrae, and Prioryman. While they do not all call for a topic ban, they all (unlike you and Aerobic Fox) recognize that Off2riorob demonstrates behavioral issues on this topic, and apparently on others. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I stopped responding to Russavia because my criticisms only inflamed him to greater depths of unfounded, twisted accusations. I wouldn't include him in your list.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this discussion has run its course. I've encountered Off2riorob on several occasions, sometimes agreeing with him, sometimes not. I don't happen to agree with his approach to the Millibrand article. But my problem with this AN/I is that it has turned into a wide-ranging examination of his conduct that really belongs in a RfC/U. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral, not topic-based, problem

I don't think a topic ban is the solution here. Stepping back a bit, I think this controversy demonstrates that there are some serious problems with the way that Off2riorob approaches Wikipedia. It's not confined to Jewish-related articles, as his editing of the Demi Moore article illustrates. The following observations are all from my experience and are offered as constructive criticism - I hope he will take it in that light.

• Absolutism. He is often absolutist in his views and appears to see things in black and white. This is problematic as things are not always binary, and an absolutist approach ("my way or the highway") is not conducive to collaborative editing. He needs to accept a degree of give and take in discussions.

• Faulty judgment. His judgement at various times has been questionable. He needs to consider that he might not be in possession of all of the facts. An absolutist approach combined with a faulty grasp of facts is not a good combination.

• Excessive personalisation. He seems to take disputes very personally. If someone disagrees with his views or objects to something he has done, he needs to take it less personally and not take it as a personal insult.

• Excessive willingness to escalate. As we've seen with the disputes over the Ed Milliband and Demi Moore articles, and plenty of other articles previously, he seems to escalate things far too rapidly. He needs to slow down and calm down. His aggressive approach has got him into trouble before and it will again if he doesn't change it.

• Insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions. His comments on British Jews perfectly illustrates this. His choice of words in discussing Ed Milliband and other British Jews was crass and insensitive. I think this due to a lack of awareness of how he comes across, coupled with poor writing skills, as his comments are sometimes barely comprehensible. He needs to pay more attention to how others will read his words and be clearer in his meaning.

These issues won't be resolved with a topic ban and I wouldn't advocate an RfC/U, as such things are pretty useless. Off2riorob needs in general to be more aware of his own impact and he might find it useful to be paired up with a mentor who can offer him advice on how to approach things. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi I will happily take your comments on board as you offered them, in good faith and from a helpful perspective and although I don't expect moving forward to be as regular a contributor as I have been in the past, I will focus on improving the points you have raised. I agree with most although not quite all of them. I have been in a lot of content disputes in my work attempting to keep content about BLP subjects as high a standard and policy compliant as possible, hundreds and hundreds of them, the vast majority about people and topics I could not care about at all. My POV is WP:BLP. I don't see from all those contributions that the diffs being presented here are worthy of any form of topic ban or forced mentoring. I got a two day block - my first block in over a year and accepted it. This project is a hateful and spiteful place sometimes and some of the comments in the discussions above reflect that. I have been punished enough imo and I am not seeing anything worthy of protecting the project from, if similar issues arise I am sure an admin would or could take this report into consideration. Many thanks. Youreallycan (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your positive response. As I said, I don't think a topic ban is likely to be of any use, but I do think you need to take a more measured and reflective approach to editing. I'm not suggesting "forced mentoring"; I think however that you would find it useful to voluntarily ask someone to mentor, or at least advise, you for a period, if only so that you can get some feedback on how you're doing. Prioryman (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would not object to such an arrangement if anyone wants to offer, perhaps via email. Although I am disillusioned with the project and do not expect to be contributing more than occasionally and with a degree of irregularity . Thanks again for your input Prioryman.Youreallycan (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan—you have been using Wikipedia as a soapbox. This pertains to Jews. You say on the Talk page of the "British Jews" article:

"Perhaps we should have a detail that explains the Jewish status of the people in the infobox - as in , mother Jewish, father catholic, subject is atheist and that such is the scope of the definition British Jew at wikipedia. I am British and as I understand it, (not how a Jew understands it, or how the many different branches of Jewish groups understand it) A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage. People of mixed heritage are just that and do not belong in the infobox of this article unless you explain why they are there in the lede. Is there a shortage of British people with two Jewish parents to add their picture to the infobox, you only need nine ? - Radcliffe is not a British Jew, in Britain he's a British person with a Jewish mother and an Irish father and nothing (including wikipedia) will change that reality."

If you are expressing opinions that are not supported by sources, then you may be using Wikipedia as a soapbox. I don't think it matters if this takes place in article space or Talk page space. You say in the above:

"I am British and as I understand it, (not how a Jew understands it, or how the many different branches of Jewish groups understand it) A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage."

There is no source that says that "A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage."

You are using Wikipedia as a soapbox when you state something that has no basis in sources such as the following: "A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage." Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The above shows an appalling misunderstanding of what is meant by soapboxing. Off2riorob has been arguing that Wikipedia should not be used by enthusiasts to promote their favorite religion by the indiscriminate labeling of every possible person as a member of that religion. I understand that some may not like Off2riorob's view, but it is the opposite of soapboxing. Attempts at Ed Miliband to add things like "Religion = Atheist (Jewish heritage)" to the infobox (by an IP today) should be opposed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it should -- but not by someone who believes it is "racist" to identify oneself as a British Jew. When we then get "As Miliband is a Jew his comments about Israel seem to be quite important" what we have is a troll, not an editor trying to improve the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's a troll, and I do think he is genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia. The problem, as I've said above, is his approach rather than his intentions. Prioryman (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is misleading to editors: "A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage." It is also not out of the question that readers (and not editors) could be glancing at Talk pages. It doesn't matter if it is called trolling or soapboxing or something else. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Rob is one of the few editors in Wikipedia trying to enforce WP's BLP policy with the zeal it deserves. The fact that editors who have blatently violated the policy, such as Prioryman, would try to hound Rob out of the project is not surprising. Trying to label living people by their supposed religion is a minefield and WP should stay out of it. All of us anonymous yahoos have no business messing with peoples' lives like this. Rob is right to treat the entire effort to do so with extreme prejudice. Instead of arguing about what to do to Rob, we should be discussing what to do about the editors who insist on giving religious labels to living people. Now, who was it insisting on adding the religious category to the BLP in question? Please list their names below and let's discuss what sanction may be necessary to impose on them: Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cla68—you say "Trying to label living people by their supposed religion is a minefield and WP should stay out of it." Why should religion be treated differently than other types of information, assuming it is reliably sourced? Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it is rarely 'information'? Because it is almost always ambiguous? And because it is usually nobody's business but the person concerned. Please get off the soapbox - we've heard it all before, and it doesn't become less ridiculous with repetition... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—when a person gives an interview and displays no reluctance to discuss a topic, I don't think that we conclude that the topic is "nobody's business but the person concerned." Bus stop (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, which interview was it that you used to label Ed Miliband as Jewish by religion? And on what basis did you invent an entirely arbitrary 'religious identity' category (yes, you really did...) to try to justify labelling people as 'religiously Jewish' even when they stated they had no religion. Yes, Rob has written some ill-judged things on this topic, but compared to your endless soapboxing, vacuous repetition of the same old waffle, and general running around with your fingers in your ears refusing to listen to anything that doesn't accord with your dubious binary reality, it is nothing. Even those who support your objectives are telling you to shut the **** up [82] - I suggest you take their advice.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The only person who merits a topic ban re Jewish issues more than Off2riorob is Bus-stop. (And it's untrue to say that I support his objectives.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for that - evidently I'd misunderstood your position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone here who supports Bus stop's objectives or views on this matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cla68: Finally the problem has been identified! What does "Religion = Jewish" actually mean in an infobox? The person regularly worships according to the Jewish faith? The person was brought up in that faith but abandoned it after leaving home? The person ticked a box next to "Jewish" on a form ten years ago? The person's mother was Jewish? When asked in an interview, the person affirmed being Jewish? What would the latter mean? Is there any reason to believe the affirmation was more than an expression of solidarity with forebears? What would an infobox show if a person said "I was brought up in the Jewish faith, but have no religious belief"?

The body of an article can explore the religious affiliations of a subject in a sentence, a paragraph, a section, or even a subarticle. However, it is pointless and misleading to summarize a poorly defined term in one word in an infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with "Religion = Jewish" in the infobox, and none of the diffs I provided were related to that, so it's hard to see how "finally the problem has been identified". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, if you had bothered to read my comments above you would have seen that I've opposed a topic ban on Off2riorob and have suggested constructive things he can do to avoid such problems in future. He's responded positively and he and I have been in touch off-wiki to discuss the issue in a friendly fashion. Get your facts right in future - he doesn't need you to defend him, particularly given your own peculiar approach to Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I don't happen to agree with Prioryman but your personal comments directed at him really have no place here. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I think it would be helpful if you actually read this section, rather than the distortions and prevarications posted on off-wiki bulletin boards run by people banned from Wikipedia. That way you'll become more familiar with the actual issues raised here, and be able to respond in a more constructive manner. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, would you consent to this AN/I being hatted? I really think this has run its course. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, much of this section has been hijacked by editors with unrelated agendas, so I don't think much more can be done here for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to have gone on long enough and tangent-ed off unavoidably as there is a lot of dispute in this area. I do appreciate that I was a bit crass with some of my comments and I have read the thread and appreciate the helpful advice and will state, that moving forward I intend to steer clear from other similar issues. I also notice that we still have at Ed Miliband the uncited recent addition - "He is of Jewish heritage but is an atheist" - as yet unremoved. Miliband as a wikipedia good article and a british political leader requires a degree of protection - the content and personal statements were long and painfully discussed to reach an agreed consensus. Six months semi protection as per the standard for all the other british political leaders would assist stability of the article. Youreallycan (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm sorry this seems to have got hijacked - a few days ago on Jimbo's talk page, I criticised Cla68 for his involvement in a banned user's campaign against Wikimedia UK and since then he has been on a hate streak against me on and off-wiki, apparently out of revenge. It is all rather petty and pathetic.

Off2riorob, I know this must all be a bit discouraging but I would advise you to stick around. You do good work in the BLP area, as I think everyone recognises, so it would be a shame to lose you. If you focus more on your own personal impact I'm sure you'll be able to avoid these kinds of problems in the future. Good luck. Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Prioryman, I am grateful for your very well meant and accepted advice in this issue and as someone who I have previously been in dispute with, your NPOV and good faith comments have been an inspiration to me and your letting go of historic personal disputes and moving forward with good will is an fine example for us all to rise up to. Many thanks. Youreallycan (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Prioryman and was distressed to hear about Off2/Youreallycan leaving. It seems to me that this issue, to the extent there was one, has been resolved. Am I mistaken? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. I suggest closing this long thread as I don't think there's anything more that can usefully be said here. Prioryman (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2011 (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.

"Idiotic crap"

In response to my having explained to a third user that a section title was the same since 2007, User:Jean-Jacques Georges arrived on the talkpage for the first time, and chose to call contributions by other users "idiotic crap", among other things. Here's the full quote [83]

If some idiotic crap remains on wikipedia for years and years - as unfortunately, it often happens - that does not make it less ridiculous. I support any attempt to correct the repugnant piece of POV-pushing that has been inflicted on wikipedia for far too long.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem? --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And what do you want done about it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

20 lashes? Keelhaul 'em? Wait... we're allowed to refer to each-other's work as "repugnant crap"? Good to know. I feel so liberated right now :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The NPA rule applies to people, not their work. If an article is shit, it's not a personal attack to say so. Now, there are possible civility issues if this is maintained or unjustified, but as it is this is not an admin issue. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. One must point out that "idiotic" unambiguously implies the person who wrote is an idiot. It is a personal attack. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got a wart that has been the same since at least 2007 - does that make it good? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but that's hardly the issue (the title is sourced by three sources).

If I were to say your post above is "moronic", or that only a moron could write such crap as your above post, you would not consider that a personal attack? (not that I am saying anything of the sort of course, heheh :D). P.S. I'd recommend cryotherapy for that thing, apparently it works like a magic wand, and HPV isn't a joke :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't - you might have a point ;-) But seriously, applying such an epithet to a recent comment might well be seen as a personal attack, but I think it's very unlikely that a comment about some content that has been there for 4 years would be seen as an attack on its author - I think it's unlikely the commentator even has any idea who wrote it. Whether it's a personal attack or not largely depends on the motives behind it, and I think it is unlikely that comments on very old content are intended as attacks on past writers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case the piece of the puzzle that's missing here is the fact that that guy hates my guts with a passion and refuses to even talk to me :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I guess there's more here than just the actual comment - sounds like a long-running personal thing that I'm afraid I don't really have the time to help with, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor: Disagree with you on that. The adjective is applied to the content, not the editor. You're seeking offense where none was intended. Ascribing an ulterior motive to another editor, on the other hand, may be considered a personal attack and a violation of WP:AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's understandable if someone marches into an article talkpage and calls the article crap or similar, that the editors that have worked on said article would feel insulted and take it personally...in light of that, I see no reason an administrator can't ask the offending editor to tone it down and offer evidence they have references that might make the article better in their eyes...otherwise, it's just talkpage trolling.--MONGO 18:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. The comment comes just after no less than three separate sources have been provided in support of the old title (which was only recently removed). The user has not provided any reason to even remotely justify such an offensive tone, and in light of our history, it seems the motive is to insult my position with the most obscene language that is borderline permissible by WP:NPA (i.e. WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM: "you're not a moron, but everything you do is moronic" etc.). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins have no extra powers in that arena - any editor can make such a request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, but something tells me I might get laughed at if I were to do so. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the user described said request on my part as an idiotic piece of bullshit.. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• If I am allowed to say, we are talking about a content which was contested and which DIREKTOR edit-warred 80 times (I actually counted his reverts, a round number is a coincidence, it is actually 80!!!) to keep in place. Now, with regard to the comment, the user who did it is all but a "newcomer" to the discussion, as he was actually a mediation participant on this issue. If we notece, he made a general comment explaining how the time an edit stays in place is not evidence of quality, however, DIREKTOR, perhaps aware of his own weaknesses, understood the comment as directed to him and to his editing... FkpCascais (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a quote from Floquenbeam: "Calling someone's work 'idiotic crap' is uncool, but fairly minor in the grand scheme of the universe, and probably best handled by letting it go." Unless someone wants to propose we reduce Jean-Jacques Georges's pay to admin's wages, I really don't see what you want us to do. As Boing points out above, any uninvolved user can step in here, which is precisely why we have innumerable dispute resolution forums. There is no administrator intervention warranted here. Swarm ^X 18:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is in fact, idiotic crap, repugnant POV pushing, and whatever the third thing was on WP. Pointing that out does not violate policy, though it certainly could be phrased more constructively. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the Chetniks article is completely devoid of any kind of merit whatsoever. I have the same opinion about other yugoslavia-oriented articles, whoever may have written them, and my opinion is not likely to change until they are decidedly improved as was done with Draža Mihailović. I don't know about other users, but I am utterly indifferent to personal issues. In June 2010, I already expressed exasperation about a number of Yugoslavia-oriented articles : Direktor promptly took offense (apparently considering himself to be the ONLY author of ALL those pages) and accused me of personal attacks and "meatpuppetting" because I had been talking about those issues with another editor (an experienced editor, I might add, who was quite unlikely to become my "meatpuppet"). If Direktor hates my guts, that's his problem. I do find him to be agressive and uncivil (and I'm not the only one : please take note that he was banned for one month from Yugoslav-themed articles because of his agressive attitude : not towards me but towards everybody who disagreed with him). But, as I said, I couldn't care less about him and am only concerned about the state of the articles, which I happen to find deplorable. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Direktor's background is irrelevant to the point he's trying to make. Whether or not referring to other people's work as "idiotic crap" is a blockable offense, it certainly doesn't help create a positive environment. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If someone's work sucks people should be able to criticize it without the person who did said work running screaming and crying and waving their fists to WP/ANI to demand that said criticizer be blocked. Being able to evaluate the content of an article is a pretty basic step in being able to improve said article and if we can't meaningfully do so then there might as well not be quality standards. Jtrainor (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said. Being critical of people's work is necessary; calling it "idiotic crap" is not helpful. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. “Idiotic crap” best translates on Wikipedia to “I find your suggestion to be a metric ton of Iranian‑centrifuged, weapons‑grade bullonium that leaves me exceedingly unimpressed.” It was not an attack on User:DIREKTOR’s character but was instead a critical review of the idea he proffered. If editors are still in primary or secondary school (and I am not implying that DIREKTOR is) and are accustomed to teachers giving them an “A for effort” even when they turn in a real stinker for homework, welcome to the real world. On Wikipedia, people aren’t paid to inflate Dick’s or Jane’s self-esteem and there is no politically correct requirement for others to admire your suggestions and ideas as much as you do. As for the bluntness of the critique, at the top of the list of the principles comprising my worldview is this one: “The proper response to bad speech is better speech.” Greg L (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on Marquis de la Eirron

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.

---

Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a prolific sockpuppeteer (confirmed socks, suspected socks, SPI page and archive) and violator of copyright, and I beliee it is time for him to be community banned.

Although the Marquis de la Eirron account was only created in 2010, his use of the semi-static 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) dates way back to 2008, and in September 2008 he received a clear and umabiguous warning about not copying and pasting from other websites. Marquis de la Eirron also had problems with copyrighted images, see for example his image upload logs where every single upload has been deleted. This trend continued with his sock Comte de Mountstuart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With his next sock Political Observation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the problems with copyrighted text continued, articles he created The Essex Rebellion (1601) (moved to Essex's Rebellion before being deleted) and Sir John Davis (Conspirator) both being copyvios, and multiple warnings about copyright were given, and removed by Political Observation. The copyright problems continued with new sock Jack Wills It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see for example the history of Sir William Luce which he created, and removed the copyvio template (another warning, and removal of copyright notice from his talk page).

So he's clearly had problems with copyright, and received multiple warnings which he's obviously seen as he's removed them from his talk page. So now we'll look at the problems caused by the articles created by his most recently blocked sock, Daily Blue91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Julie James is a copyvio from here, and Daily Blue91 even restored the copyvio after it was removed by another editor. Mark Drakeford is a copyvio from here. Thomas Megahy is a copyvio from here and here. Ken Skates is a copyvio from here.

I am sure there are more problems with copyright in this editor's length history of disruption from multiple socks, and will be creating a contributor copyright investigation shortly. That said, the evidence above shows a clear sign of not getting it with regards to copyright despite many, warnings. Add this to the persistent sockpuppetry, and I believe it's ban time? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban, per above and repeated warnings. This guy knows that what he's doing is wrong, but just this morning I confirmed another sock. My support is without prejudice to an unban if somebody can talk him into sticking to the one account. AGK [•] 10:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support its gone beyond warnings, It was I who first took a request to SPI back in August 2010, the type of edits that user:Marquis de la Eirron makes are very hard to spot unless they are spotted quickly because they often involved subtle changes to a person's title (eg adding a "Sir" when reliable sources do not use the title) without any supporting cite. If not spotted quickly then the history of an article has to checked thoroughly and it is very time consuming to find such errors. Marquis de la Eirron has spent a year and a half of using socks to continue to edit despite a block that is more than enough rope. I support a ban. -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. Editors of this sort are a menace to what we are doing here. He is clearly beyond warnings or attempts at reform. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. Unfortunately, Marquis just doesn't seem to get it. We cannot allow him to contribute to this site so long as he doesn't take copyright laws seriously. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - there is no room for mercy in my heart for prolific sockers, and there is no room for mercy in my heart for prolific copyright violators. To have both in one package makes supporting this especially easy. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - what Sven said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I've just blocked 81.110.223.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which resolves to the same location as the IP above, after they asked at WP:REFUND for restoration of articles by the Daily Blue91 and Rocking the Boat socks, actually claiming to work for the subject of one.[84]. I'd support a formal ban.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. As per Sven Manguard, prolific socking and copyvios is just unacceptable and won't be tolerated. -- œ^™ 08:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Constant sockpuppetry and copyright violations should get you shown the door. Mo ainm~Talk 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I have undone Ryulong's closure of this and reclosed as ban enacted. A "de facto" ban (that is, an indefinite block) can be overturned by administrators and is not the same as a ban, which requires community discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If the ban is indeed "de facto", then why the hell does the community need to affirm its status as a community ban? No one is going to unblock someone after they sockpuppet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange rotation of images

Apologies if this has already been raised but I have just noticed that few images which were previously appearing in the correct orientation are now showing at a 90 degree rotation, despite there having been apparently no changes to either the articles or images which would do this. A couple of examples are File:Marunouchi Park Building.jpg as it appears in Mitsubishi Corporation, Nippon Steel and Tokyo; and File:Tokyo Building.JPG as it appears in Mitsubishi, Mitsubishi Electric and Tokyo Building. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a template on the relevant images, such as File:Marunouchi Park Building.jpg, explaining the issue (which is to do with accurate handling of EXIF rotation information) and discussing the bot which will address the matter. If an affected image doesn't have the template, um, well it should :) -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate templates have already been added to the image pages requesting a bot to do the rotation. If you encounter this problem again, and rotation has not yet been requested, follow the directions at Template:HD/rotate, helpfully created by Gadget850 (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies missed the template. So essentially if the image has a template about rotation it can be left and a bot will fix the problem in due course?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Although File:Tokyo Building.JPG didn't, so I fixed it myself.  Chzz  ►  00:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused--what is this bot and template supposed to do? The high-res version of the photo has the correct orientation so it looks like a server bug rendering the smaller versions the wrong way. Why isn't the solution to fix the server code? 66.127.55.52 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that we either decide to honour the EXIF data, in which case some images need the data overriding, or we decide not to, in which case some images need rotating. In either case the server code does not cover all eventualities, unless we "grandfathered" the rotations. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

For clarification in case people are still confused. It's possible for the EXIF information to specify a rotation for the image. Viewers which understand this parameter, for example Irfanview, will automatically rotate the image during display which is usually called soft rotation. I believe few browsers perform soft rotation, partially because of concern of websites which produce thumbnails and similar but then don't properly reset the EXIF rotation (see [85]). (Fortunately we aren't one site contributing to that.) As Commons:Commons:Rotation makes clear the latest software likewise rotates images according to the EXIF data when rendering smaller versions and this isn't bug but a feature. The problem with File:Marunouchi Park Building.jpg is that it specifies an EXIF rotation but doesn't need it. The best solution is to reset the EXIF rotation parameter to 0 degrees and the commons page specifies ways you can to this semi automatically. I think it's clear we should fix cases when the EXIF rotation is wrong, since it's a mistake/error in our content. Anyone who downloads the image and views it in a compatible viewer is going to be confused or annoyed by the rotation. Of course because of the way things were handled in the past, it does mean in the mean time content which used to look fine is now wrong. (Also vice versa but there are probably fewer cases of these since it's much more noticable an error.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If the commons image has bad metadata (EXIF) the obvious thing to do is fix the EXIF on the commons image, preferably in a way that doesn't involve lossy re-rendering, which should be doable. I still don't see why we're talking about bots and templates. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is far less of a technical challenge for an editor to stick a tag on a page to flag an image for automatic correction than to have to download the image himself, fix the metadata using some command-line utility and then re-upload it. That's exactly what the bot does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused. I never saw rotated images before the server-side change that Neill mentioned. That suggests any nonzero rotation setting in an existing image is wrong, so again, why not detect and flag this at the server? 66.127.55.52 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no way you can know that it's wrong. As I've explained, it's likely many EXIF rotations now are wrong simply because it's far easier to see an image is in the wrong rotation then it is to see the EXIF is wrong unless your browser follows the EXIF rotation or you download the original (or thumbnail?) and view it in a browser which does follow EXIF rotation, which is unlikely. So most of the former are fixed but the later may not be. However any user can right now upload an image with a correct and necessary EXIF rotation specified, and as many cameras do rely solely on EXIF rotation this isn't uncommon (cameras can of course be wrong about what rotation is needed). In case there is still confusion, with the current server code, this image will display right except at full size. At full size and with the old server code it will generally display wrong unless the browser supports EXIF rotation which as I said is rare. In fact I'm not sure if the old server code preserved the EXIF rotation information when generating thumbnails anyway, if it didn't that means thumbnails would have always been wrong.

More importantly, as I've said, if the EXIF specifies a rotation when this isn't needed, then we should fix this because there is effectively an error in the image. There's also no reason why we shouldn't autorotate images on the server when generating thumbnails and lower res versions, many other servers do it and it leaves open the option of relying on that if the community prefers it to hard rotating the original images. (Obviously it doesn't help with full size images displayed in browsers but that isn't such a big problem.) As the pages explain, while you can usually losslessly rotate JPEGs by any factor of 90 degrees, in certain cases (when either dimensions are not multiples of 8 or 16) you can't. So there are good reasons why it may be better to rely on the server rotating images for thumbnails but preserving the original image (with EXIF rotation specified rather then hard-rotated) in a few cases. Nevertheless, if the community decides to hardrotate all images, the current software change doesn't preclude that. It does mean it's more likely it'll be done properly (i.e. the EXIF rotation info is reset to zero) since people will see if it's wrong.

Note that the need for rotation is obviously not a new thing. Rotatebot has existed since late 2007.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(For those interested The Gimp gives you the choice to rotate or not to rotate on loading an image.) Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

RfC bot malfunction

RFC bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The bot keeps removing the RfCs from the request boards. The operator claimed that the problem was solved, but the bot has been engaging in a mini-editwar with me since. [86]. The bot should be blocked until the operator is 120% sure that the problem is fixed.. PaoloNapolitano 17:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot. Feel free to reverse my block when the problem is solved. Malinaccier (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking at the block log, it seems like the bot has quite a long history of malfunctions. If the problem persists, the bot should be retired/replaced. PaoloNapolitano 18:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note, everything before September 25th, was before I was running the bot. --Chris 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot could be doing a lot worse: see what it did at Talk:White-bellied Parrot and Talk:Nanday Parakeet in 2009. Both pages are rightly linked from WP:LAME :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yog(h)urt

Nothing to be done here, still ultra-lame. Trouts all around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At Talk:Yoghurt there is a very long running discussion about what the title of the article should be. Having failed to achieve anything a few weeks ago when invited to the discussion by RFCbot, I went away again (as I really don't care one way or the other). I looked back to see if any progress has been made, only to see some gross incivility from several parties following on from an anon comment (that may or may not have been trolling). I've hatted the entire section [87], but having been previously involved (and having been accused of bias towards one side on the basis of my nationality) I don't want to get into it any further. Completely uninvolved admins would do well to at least keep an eye on the page if nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Having read through that discussion... It's entirely unfunny how a single letter can generate such lengthy and acrimonious discussion. Do they really not have anything better to do :S --Errant (chat!) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC) WP:ENGVAR and leave it the heck alone :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) It isn't as simple as that! About the only thing they agree on is that there are no national ties, so the relevant provision of ENGVAR is what title the article was established at. What they can't agree on is which title that is - it was started at "Yogurt" but has been at "Yoghurt" far longer, they do not agree on the relative importance of these facts, whether it is now "established" at "Yoghurt", whether it is (or has been) "stable" at the present title (whether move protection, reverted moves, and/or move discussions have any relevance to whether it is "stable"), or just about anything else. Except possibly that it vitally important for it to be at the right title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)That would in fact be why I walked away quite some time ago, almost entirely due to Born2Cycle's atrocious behaviour. The page remained on my watchlist, I saw the trolling, I removed it. And was promptly attacked by Born2Cycle for my troubles. His behaviour really has gone overboard. → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC) True, B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Has any of the editors discussing Born2Cycle notified that editor that they are being discussed here? If not, please do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC) The subject of the discussion is not an editor; if you wish to discuss an editor, please open a section with an appropriate title. Uniplex (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC) They hadn't, I have now done so [88]. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC) fwiw, this is a very long-running argument that has long been enshrined among the lamest edit wars ever. Not that that excuses anybody's current behavior, but I thought I'd add some historical perspective. Carry on... Zeng8r (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Indeed, and this pathetically long history is summarized here: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Good grief. The talk page and subpage look like a huge wall-of-text that I'm not wading into but the clear proof of common name should stand on its own merit. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Born2cycle statement I deny engaging in any behavior coming close to being "atrocious", or attacking anyone, and submit no evidence to the contrary has been submitted, or exists. I admit to reverting and criticizing the removal of one user's harmless comment by a second user in a situation where the harmless comment is evidence that happens to support a view opposite of the position taken by the second user. I also find Bwilkin's comment above -- "B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist." -- to be a personal attack on me, and completely unfounded. I request that Bwilkins refrain from commenting on what he believes others do or do not believe. I also note the observation that editors who are genuinely not interested in an issue tend to stop paying attention to it. In general, if someone really doesn't care if an article is at X or Y, he normally does not participate in an RM discussion about whether the article should be at X or Y. In particular, if someone really didn't care if this article is at Yogurt or Yoghurt, he wouldn't participate in RM discussions about whether the article should be at Yogurt or Yoghurt. To participate in such a discussion, and then deride others for participating because "it shouldn't matter" is disingenuous at best. For the record, I do care about resolving the very long conflict over this article's title. This issue has been debated for eight years now. The article was originally at Yogurt, but then it was surreptitiously moved to Yoghurt about a year later, on Christmas Day. There was an obscure notice about it hidden inside a comment, but no discussion. Within a few months the objections started, and there has never been consensus support for Yoghurt, despite eight years, eight formal RM discussions, and countless informal discussions. I'm sure it seems like a silly issue to many, but the fact is that dozens and dozens of editors have cared and have participated in these discussions over the years, and there has never been a resolution. I sincerely believe that once an admin moves the article back to Yogurt, per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN (which is designed specifically for a situation such as this - when all else fails return to the variety of English of the first non-stub version), the issue will finally be resolved. I find it ironic that the only obvious solution is the only one that has not been tried, and ferociously opposed by those who claim this is a silly unimportant issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) As the admin who closed the last RM discussion, and got nothing but endless grief from you, I can confirm your behaviour about this matter is very much churlish, childish and uncollegiate. fish&karate 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) B2C; over time I have come to the realisation that it really does not matter one jot whether article such as these are at one spelling or another (assuming redirects are in place). If there has been 8 years argument over a single letter I have to ask the honest question; who the hell wastes their time arguing about it? (Also; FWIW the point of RETAIN is meant to be to stop protracted arguments without a clear "right answer" - obviously it failed in this task.. so perhaps a relevant policy might be LEAVEASIS :)) --Errant (chat!) 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Errant, like I said, dozens have participated (BTW, I didn't start even one of the eight yoghurt->yogurt RM proposals - all of which have been decided as "no consensus", and I don't believe there is any person who started any two of them), so it is obviously important to very many, on both sides. We can't say RESTORE_ORIGINAL_TITLE has failed since it has not even been tried. We can say LEAVEASIS has failed because that has been tried, for eight years, and has clearly failed. I suggest LEAVEASIS fails in cases like this - where the article was moved from its original title for no good reason because those who favor the original title have reasonable objections that will only disappear when the original title is restored. As a comparison, I should note that the similar Iodised salt (though the history of its title is not as long or as contentious) has stabilized now that is back to its original title, and that title was moved from it's original title through a legitimate/formal RM discussion that achieved unanimous consensus in favor of moving among those participating. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC) f&k, I apologize for seeming to have been churlish, but I was quite frustrated with your closing and reluctance to explain it. It took you a week before you finally began to provide an explanation, and that only after several editors, including at least one other admin, made requests for you to do so, and you never did respond to my follow-up comment [89]. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC) B2c, a pattern of persistent complaining and berating of administrators who closed move discussions in a way you didn't like seems to be a recurrent thing with you. This is something that should stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Complaining? Sure, once in a while. But berating? A persistent pattern? Seriously? Any evidence of that? I suggest you review WP:ADMINACCT. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. If you believe I've been uncivil, have been making personal attacks, or not acting in good faith, please cite those incidents and let's deal with it. But these veiled threats about vaguely described behavior with negative connotation that seem to have no purpose but to discourage this editor from engaging in questioning or criticizing administrator actions are highly inappropriate. To characterize civil and good faith questioning and criticizing of administrators as "persistent complaining and berating of administrators" does not improve the encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, please. The only reason I'm not chiming in with diffs here is that I really have better things to do with my time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC) According to WP:NPA#WHATIS, that's a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 90% of Talk:Yoghurt is nothing but your endless rehashing of the same arguments because Something Is Wrong On The Internet, that's pretty solid evidence. The RFC, which cointains much the same contact, would be more. My talk page could be another. It's certainly not a personal attack. The point is that at some point you need to stop trying again and again and again to get the result you want just because you disagree with the outcome. The ceaseless campaigning until you get your own way is, while almost admirable for its ruthless intensity, very tiring for everyone to read, let alone deal with. fish&karate 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Would a topic ban from yoghurt and/or page moves/article titles be of value here? Note this is a genuine question, I don't know the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC) F&K, so now merely discussing in high volume is uncivil or a personal attack? I questioned and criticized your actions as an administrator on your talk page because I found your close explanation to be worthy of questioning and criticism. You based your decision on the assertion that were "strong arguments" in favor of both positions, but you failed and refused, despite repeated inquires from others as well as me, to identify what the "strong arguments" opposing the move were. Someone else did it again just today. You want to blame your unexplained decision on the "whining" of others? Suit yourself. I'm sorry you resenting having to explain and discuss your decisions, but that's part of the job, per Wikipedia:ADMINACCT. No need to take that personally. As to the volume I've been producing lately, especially since your unexplained close, my efforts regarding this issue have been to help resolve a conflict that has been going on for seven years that no one else has been able to resolve. I'm convinced what the solution to this conflict is. Yes, the solution happens to be the same as what I believe should occur at the article, but that doesn't mean it's not going to solve the conflict. It just means I'm more determined to see it happen. I have pursued this by clarifying and focusing the issues in order to reduce how much reading others have to do. I did this by creating and being the main contributor to both the history of this issue, at Talk:Yoghurt/spellinghistory, and a summary of the arguments at Talk:Yoghurt#Arguments_regarding_article_title. I did my best to represent both sides, and to invite others to contribute to make sure it's fair and NPOV. Thryduulf, yes, hurry, hurry! B2C might actually persuade enough people so that the position others hold on the issue that "doesn't matter" might lose! Let's topic ban him before that happens, because it doesn't matter! Hurry, hurry!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Given that all the discussion on the page to date (most of which is your verbiage) hasn't managed to "persuade enough people" and has resulted in personal attacks and incivility (from all sides), it seems clear that carrying on in the same vein will not result in any significant progress. Also given the statements here indicating others are unhappy with your conduct, it's worth asking the question what can be done to improve the situation. If a situation is characterised by one very vocal person screaming that there is only one way forward, and most other people saying "it's not worth the fuss, let it go" then one thing that might help is to remove the screamer from the area so that other voices don't get drowned out and may be able to quietly work out a way forward acceptable to all of them. However good your intentions are, and whether you are right or wrong, your methods have not worked - it's probably time to walk away from the dispute, before you get banned from it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC) B2C has done nothing wrong here. He's not being incivil just because he's talking about stuff people disagree with. F&K's close of the RM was wrong, as he didn't really explain himself (in fact his whole closing statement is a joke, literally). An admin really ought to look at the underlying issue instead of just bashing someone for having strong beliefs. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Thryduulf, you have not identified attacks or incivility in which I've engaged (unless you're thinking of the bias fiasco - but I thought that misunderstanding was resolved... no?). Yet you imply I'm somehow responsible for the "personal attacks and incivility (from all sides)" that you believe has resulted from my verbiage. Are you seriously suggesting I be punished for the attacks and incivility targeted at me? Wow. That's creative. Anyway, my efforts to persuade others have only been concerted (compiling the history and argument summaries) since the last RM discussion; barely a month. Given the seven years this conflict has been raging, I suggest it's still way too early to judge whether my efforts have been effective or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Comment I know that there is probably very little support for what I'm about to say, and I have only really mentioned this one other time, but this has been on my mind for a while. Even though Wikipedia, and we as Wikipedians, do relatively fine, most of the time, using two variations of English spelling, What would be the internal harm in actually splitting Wikipedia.en into two separate entities? A Wikipedia.en/British, and a Wikipedia.en/American. Of course we are doing fine now, despite the occasional edit war and heated discussion over spelling, but there's no real harm in discussing this. I'm not even really sure that it can be accomplished, even if we agree to do so. I have an informal plan in my head, but planning is only half the battle. Implementing something like this may be more difficult than it sounds.--JOJ Hutton 17:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Fascinating idea, but where would you draw the line? What about Wikipedia.en/Canadian, in which Victoria is a city on Vancouver Island; it is the capital of British Columbia, eh? is perfectly acceptable? And then, if perchance our antipodean friends should decide that the definite and indefinite article are optional, Wikipedia.en/ANZAC ~ which might read Victoria is city on southern part of Vancouver Island; it is capital of Canadian province of British Columbia. Interesting concept, splitting the community, but truly the best part of Wikipedia is that it is a community, a group of disparate people working (though not actually, in most cases, living) together, for a common purpose. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Request for reminder about NPA/CIVIL Here is some evidence that contradicts Thryduulf's claim above that all the discussion (largely my verbiage) at Talk:Yoghurt has not managed to persuade others [90]. This is important because Thryduulf is the one who opened this AN/I and suggested a topic ban, apparently trying to muzzle me from continuing to advocate a position with which he disagrees. It's ironic and fortuitous that this effort on his part has backfired by bringing attention to the issue and all the persuasive information and verbiage I've produced and organized, so that I can present evidence of its effectivity. What happens when such tactics are used to go after prolific opponents who aren't as fortunate as I am in this case? If someone tries to be persuasive, but the efforts are not yet fruitful, he can be blocked for failing to persuade others? Why is this blatant discouragement of genuine attempts to build consensus through discussion tolerated? I should add that while several editors appear to agree with Thryduulf that my behavior is problematic, no evidence has been presented of any wrongdoing on my part, and all of the accusers, I believe without exception, just happen to have a history of disagreeing with me on substantive matters. Coincidence? Retaliation? Or am I missing something? You, uninvolved administrator, please let me know. The allegations/criticisms about me, without evidence, alluded to just above, are: "... Born2Cycle's atrocious behaviour" -Roux "B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist." - Bwilkins "got nothing but endless grief from you, I can confirm your behaviour about this matter is very much churlish, childish and uncollegiate." - Fish and karate "B2c, a pattern of persistent complaining and berating of administrators who closed move discussions in a way you didn't like... This is something that should stop" -Future Perfect at Sunrise "Oh, please. The only reason I'm not chiming in with diffs here is that I really have better things to do with my time." (clearly agreeing with unsubstantiated allegations) -SarekOfVulcan "Given that all the discussion on the page to date (most of which is your verbiage) hasn't managed to "persuade enough people" and has resulted in personal attacks and incivility (from all sides), ..." -Thryduulf I should add that I don't necessarily deny engaging in all of the behavior referenced in these statements. I deny that what I did was wrong or inappropriate, but this cannot be verified by anyone because the accusers have only flung accusations at me, without the evidence so others can review. My questioning and criticism of F&K on his talk page for example, is perfectly in line with what is endorsed at WP:ADMINACCT, but he chastises me for it here in this AN/I, as if I did something wrong. How is that okay, especially coming from an admin? I thought admins are encouraged to demonstrate exemplary behavior, not the opposite of it. These allegations and criticisms (implied if not explicit), because none of them are based on any evidence, are all personal attacks, by definition, per WP:NPA#WHATIS, apparently motivated by a mere difference of opinion, or retaliation for legitimate and appropriate questioning or criticism of them by me. Therefore, I hereby request that Thryduulf (talk · contribs), Roux (talk · contribs), Bwilkins (talk · contribs), Fish and karate (talk · contribs), Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) be reminded that making critical remarks about others, in any forum, without evidence, is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS and WP:CIVIL. This kind of flippant disregard for the policies that encourage civility needs to stop. These tactics will continue to be used to try to muzzle other editors in disagreements if they are tolerated and those who employ them continue along with no consequences, and Wikipedia will suffer for it. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Revised. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC) These allegations and criticisms (implied if not explicit), because none of them are based on any evidence, are all personal attacks, by definition, per WP:NPA#WHATIS, apparently motivated by a mere difference of opinion, or retaliation for legitimate and appropriate questioning or criticism of them by me. Quite - which is why you do little to help your case with silly jabs against other users on the basis of their nationality (for little apparent reason other than a mere difference of opinion). Believe me, I have no intention of getting bogged down in this ridiculous saga (let's just say that I don't consider endless weeks and months of back-and-forth about the existence of a single letter "h" in an article title to be a truly constructive use of the Wikipedia community's time), but it's clear to me as an observer that the responsibility for the "flippant disregard for the policies that encourage civility" can hardly be pinned on just one side in this dispute. SuperMarioMan 13:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Your user page indicates you're from England and you use British English. That's an indisputable fact backed up with evidence. You really think bringing attention to that compares to the unsubstantiated insults and attacks leveled at me at this discussion? But all this is nothing compared to the extreme measures taken to squelch discussion by another Brit today (see below). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Unless you have proof that a person's nationality is the reason they are making certain statements or taking certain actions, insinuating that their nationality is relevant is often seen as a personal attack and can leave you open to accusations to racism. Personal attacks are never justified, and being on the receiving end of attacks yourself does not give you the right to make such comments about others (two wrongs do not make a right). Please refrain in future from bringing nationality into the discussion and assume good faith of your fellow editors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Do you honestly think, Born2cycle, that desperately trying to draw attention to the nationalities of people who disagree with you is a clever tactic? I hope not - you can do better than that. In fact, I'd be inclined to support a move to "Yogurt" based on the masses of evidence that it is the more common spelling, but after a quick glance at some of the obnoxious behaviour exhibited by certain editors from both sides in that interminable talk-page war, I don't think that I can be bothered to cast an actual !vote at the discussion itself. Keeping a sense of proportion here would be no bad thing, as would resisting the urge to trivialise the whole debate by indulging in tit-for-tat, nationalistic slurs. SuperMarioMan 12:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC) The history of this article indicates there is a very high correlation between nationality and which side one takes in the great yogurt/yoghurt debate. The single best predictor (doesn't mean there aren't exceptions) about which side one will take is nationality - I'm no exception, but I know of several. I also know two things about humans and bias: a) we are all biased, and b) it's usually difficult to be aware of, much less take into account, our own biases. This has nothing to do with AGF. One can be acting in perfectly good faith while being influenced by bias - that's why we ask people with a mere potential bias to recuse themselves from making decisions where such a bias might be an influence. In this case we can't do that because everyone has an English variety preference, and is biased accordingly. So while we can't recuse ourselves due to our biases, we can try to be more aware of how we're influenced by them. That's all I'm trying to do. But it has lead to a lot of confusion and misinterpretation, so, except for this explanation, I'll try to remember to refrain from bringing it up again. That said, the attacks made on me, listed above, are really attacks and uncivil, and should not be excused by my nationality-related comments or anything else I did, as far as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 8 freakin' years??? According to EO, it's "yogurt".[91] They don't mention "yoghurt", and they don't have an entry for it.[92] I would guess that "yoghurt" was someone's attempt to suggest the proper original pronunciation, which the EO article discusses. And it's pretty clear, from the wikipedia article itself, that "yogurt" is the most common spelling. Putting it at "yoghurt" is almost as stupid as what was done to Edelweiss. It's also harmful to wikipedia, as it makes wikipedia look stupid. But speaking of stupid... eight years wasted on this subject? OY!! GEVALT!!! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure if I'm more stupid than the 8 year argument for getting involved now, but I wanted to point out that the "yoghurt" spelling may be far more popular in other parts of the world. I've spent a lot of time in India and the H spelling is more common there as far I remember. Noformation Talk 07:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The pro-"yoghurt" crowd seem to see systemic bias in the insistence on the US spelling. And what's wrong with "yogourt" anyway? --NellieBly (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Funnily enough, I'm eating yoghurt right now. And yes I spelled it according to what is printed on the container. I have another brand in my fridge which is spelled yogurt. Clearly both are right and both are wrong and people who try to argue otherwise are one of the reasons we've been arguing for 8 years. The other big problem is that while we have general consensus to 'retain' the original spelling when both are right/wrong, we don't really have consensus on what to do if the article was moved a long time ago which evidentally happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Isn't the Oxford English Dictionary pretty much the authoritative source? What does it give as the primary spelling? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Webster's agrees with OED,[93] with the root being the Turkish yoğurt. How'd that h get in there, anyway? Doc talk 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Yogurt is now the most common spelling of the word in English and experts agree with dropping the "h".[94] (Doc, that link explains how the "h" got there) Could someone please move the article to the correct title and block anyone who continues this nonsense? Any argument for retaining the "h" is a minority argument at best. We don't name articles based on uncommon spelling. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) We do if the title is uncommon in one part of the world and common in another (e.g. aluminium, Sulfur, Color, Offence (law), Offense (sports), etc). Both spellings of Yogurt/Yoghurt are the most common in different parts of the world. While "yogurt" is more common "yoghurt" isn't uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Yoghurt is still a very common (possibly the more common?) spelling in the UK, I think. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC) In the United Kingdom it does not appear to be clear-cut. Using the top four UK supermarkets by market share from our article List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom and searching for "Yoghurt" in each supermarket we find Tesco (Yoghurt), Asda (Yogurt), Sainsbury's (Yogurt) and Morrisons (Yogurt). In all cases, I tried the two spellings in all supermarket searches and the yoghurts/yogurts and I recorded the spelling of the items returned in each case. All those four accept either spelling in their search engines --Senra (Talk) 11:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) But the industry, companies that produce and distribute the product around the world, overwhelmingly use the spelling, yogurt. That's a good indicator of how we should name our article. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Not in the UK. Hence this dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) "Most British dictionaries use the American version as the preferred spelling."[95] Can we end this now? Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC) This is not an incident, surely the article talk page is the best place for this futile discussion about something that essentially doesn't matter. pablo 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC) "Yoghurt" is an archaic spelling according to the industry, language experts, and reliable secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Please, everybody, do not continue the content dispute on this board. Viriditas, this mostly goes to you; I see three postings from you on this board that do nothing but argue your side in the content dispute. This is disruptive; please stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not continuing any dispute because I've never been involved in one. I'm merely observing, as a completely neutral, uninvolved party, that the sources show there is currently no support for yoghurt as a primary title, and the people who have been engaged in this dispute for eight years are pushing a POV. That's not a content dispute, that's a dispute involving a type of behavior, and it needs to be disciplined. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC) It doesn't matter if you were previously involved in the content dispute. You are arguing the content dispute now, and you are doing it in the wrong place. Please don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC) No, that is not correct. I personally don't care about this topic, nor do I care about the name of the article. You seem to be confusing the map with the territory. I can, as an uninvolved editor, make the observation that this so-called "content dispute" has been ongoing for eight years because of POV pushing that ignores the sources on the subject. That has nothing to do with me or any argument I might make. It's a neutral observation. I can also observe, that the culture of do-nothing administrators has allowed this disruption to fester across the encyclopedia for years on end. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Move request I have closed the requested move on the technical grounds that it is too soon after the last WP:RM request. We can not have one request after another without a suitable time out between requests, as it is a form of gaming the system and is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I've undone the close. No where in any policy or guideline does it say it's disruptive to post move requests within any arbitrarily set time period. Further, each was started by two different users the archived one by Peregine Fisher and the current by Smokey Joe/Berean Hunter]], neither of whom even commented on the last requested move, so it's not exactly gaming the system as you said. And it probably doesn't help that you aren't exactly unbiased on the topic given your closing summary [96] Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I agree. If the last RM was closed as a keep, based on the arguments, then it would be too soon.But the last discussion was closed as No Consensus. Very proper to continue discussing, and of course there are no arbitrary time limits in the guidelines.--JOJ Hutton 14:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC) And this endless repetition of the same arguments helps the community in what way? There may be no strict time limits, but where there is a trivial issue that is soaking so much time and getting nowhere, surely the best thing to do is for everybody to move on? Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Maybe if the debate had been headed off at the start, sure closing it could've been the way to go. But now that it's almost halfway through, I think closing prematurely just makes the situation worse. If someone wants to say that we should take a break after this one, then that's fine. but not while the discussion is still on going (and there's a slight majority in favor of moving at this point, which makes the close look like a super vote). Plus, other admins had voted on the proposal, so I assume they weren't exactly bothered by the timing of it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC) "No where in any policy or guideline does it say it's disruptive to post move requests within any arbitrarily set time period." Some things we don't need a guideline to tell us are disruptive. In fact we have too many guidelines. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC). Yeah at 17-6 for this reasonable move, it would make since to shut down the discussion with so many fresh new eyes on it, on "technical grounds." R. Baley (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I have reverted the reopening of this. The project is not being damaged under either alternative name. The project is being damaged with the amount of effort put into deciding on what name to use. All of you (and me) have more constructive things we can be doing. There is a long tradition at Wikipedia, of pausing between this sort of debate, for RfMs, AfDs and RMs. Also look with disapproval at forum shopping. We do this for the very good reason that otherwise too much effort goes into debates that are stalemated. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC) There is no consensus here for your unilateral action, which has quite properly been reverted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I agree, and actually we should be now discussing PBS's behavior in this matter. First the two closings of the discussion, with this edit summery, then the full talk page protection, which was also reverted by another admin. I will ask that PBS's admin tools be relinquished until this matter can be resolved. Three abuses in one day is three too many.--JOJ Hutton 20:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC) PBS also protected Talk:Yoghurt against non-admin editing with the reason "Page move dispute under discussion at WP:RM", which was an abuse of admin privileges, and I have unprotected the article - the page move discussion takes place on the article Talk page and WP:RM merely links to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I have something to do in the real world for half an hour. But in the mean time I have reverted the change and placed a short block on editing the page until this is sorted out. -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC) And as I say, I have reverted your block, because you don't get to be a dictator here - when both the wider community and the admin corps are actively discussing this issue, you have no right to cut everyone off and impose your own solution -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Reopen the talk page discussion The discussion on the talk page needs to either be reopened immediately, or the article should be moved per WP:SNOW.--JOJ Hutton 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC) This is unbelievable. Most bizarre and self-contradictory close I've ever seen by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) [97] I note that PBS has been involved here before and should contribute to the discussion, not close it. Revert of that close by Hot Stop (talk · contribs) Another !vote [98] And another [99] PBS restores his previous close, wiping out intervening !votes and comments [100] That close is reverted by Kai445 (talk · contribs) as "outrageous" More !votes [101] [102] Now PBS protects the talk page! The talk page! [103] Unprotected [104] PBS tries his close again [105] Reverted [106] Now PMA restores the close [107] Reverted [108] Discussion about discussion closing edit war started [109] Wow. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, this is what we get when we start trying to avenge eight-year-old cases of "somebody did something wrong on the Internet": revert wars between admins. I tried (once) to get them both to stop, but Boing! said Zebedee has blocked PBS in addition to revert-warring with him. I trust this will be reconsidered shortly. I found PBS's action odd, but can understand it. After all, this argument has been on WP:LAME about as long as the Gdanzig stupidity, and is even more unreasonable. We can get back to discussing it when he is able to explain itself; in the meantime, we have guidance that move discussions like this are disruptive and pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC) You found his actions "odd"? They were egregious. -Kai445 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Indeed they were; they were out of the flock of ordinary actions. Whether for blame or praise (for egregious can mean either; see theorema egregium), would be better discussed when he is free to answer. Then again, so is the eight-year lameness of which this is the latest installment; so is opening one move request after another after another until one gets the result one wants. Unfortunately, the practice of enthusiastic editors turning content disputes into conduct disputes (and declaring themselves judges in their own cause) is not extraordinary at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Well, as I write this the talk page and move discussion are both open. Whether the move discussion should be closed is debatable, but a snow-close as "move" is not appropriate. For starters, although there are more "move" !voters than "don't move" !voters (however expressed) the latter have sufficient number and strength of argument that it's not snowing. Given also the controversy surrounding this and accusations of gaming the system (whether there has been (attempts at) gaming or not, the accusations have been made and were not "laughed out of court" (for want of a better phrase)) it's better to be seen to be playing by the letter of the rules so that there is no impression of any underhandedness. Regardless of all that, edit warring is never appropriate, and edit warring over the closure of a discussion intended to stop edit warring is truly WP:LAME-worthy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I agree that this discussion needs to run its course. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure, but I think one or two !votes (I listed above) might have gotten lost in the storm. Gotta go. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I checked, all comments are accounted for. -Kai445 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC) B2C you no better than to call opinions votes. The person who opened the latest RM presumably did not know about the last one less than two months ago, if they had then they would presumably have informed the participants in the last one that it was reopened. The reason given for reopening looks like an innocent not realising this had been discussed to death. Shame on the regulars on that talk page whatever their views for not requesting an immediate closure. Any way one looks at it this RM should not have been opened and my decision to close it is not out of order. -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) It is certainly out of order. After the last close which resulted in NOCONSENSUS (therefore, this current proposal isn't a 'change of consensus' which takes time, because there was previously not one to begin with). a RFC was sought, which has now run for over a month, regarding the previous Admin's lack of correctly applying WP:RETAIN for NOCONSENSUS. Both 'sides' of the argument have been able to summarize their viewpoints, and now previously uninvolved editors have started a new RM, which actually appears to be building towards a consensus. -Kai445 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC) OK let us suppose that this RM runs until its end. Then, as this RM was allowed to run so soon after the last, if another is bought almost immediately, what is the justification for stopping that one? There is a good reason not to hold RMs etc too soon after the last one, unless there is a clear reason to do so (and in this case it was not opened with such a reason given). So I stand by my technical close, otherwise the loosing party to this debate will have every right to reopen the issue within two months and any natural justice will mean that we have to let it run again. -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) There is a big difference in an RM being closed as Keep/'Move and No Consensus. If a definite decision had been made, then there is justification for waiting, but when the last and presumably most of the RM requests tend to end in No Consensus, then it is proper to try again, until consensus can be established.--JOJ Hutton 22:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC) If your argument were valid why is any RM, RfD, etc closed after 7 days if there was no consensus? -- PBS (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Actually per the previous NOCONSENSUS, the Admin should have followed WP:RETAIN to move the article back to the first non-stub spelling (which is where this current RM is/was seeking to also move it to). -Kai445 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC) (ec) To spell this out: It depends on why the previous move was closed as no consensus. If the discussion is one editor against another, and the two arguments are balanced, it is as reasonable to reopen the discussion as it is to {{relist}} it (which extends the time); there may be a consensus we have not observed. If, however, there have been a large number of opinions and they are divided, then we have no consensus in the discussion because there is no consensus on Wikipedia. Further RMs are disruptive unless they either supply new arguments or else have let enough time pass that it is plausible that a new consensus may have formed. Anything else is WP:ASKINGTHEOTHERPARENT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC) This is not any askingoftheotherparent, because previously uninvolved editors were the originator of the request. Try again. -Kai445 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) (ec)(Reply to PBS) Usually per WP:RETAIN, which retains the current title or article if there is no consensus. This, by the way, is the proper use of WP:RETAIN, and not the way its being argued on the other talk page.--JOJ Hutton 22:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC) WP:RETAIN does not say retain the current title, but something significantly different. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC) When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change. Neither exception applies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC) That paragraph doesn't apply because its first clause is false. The next paragraph applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC) You are ignoring seven years of talk page archives to say that there is established usage. Go look at them and then come back here and say the same thing. -Kai445 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC) My intention on opening the thread was not to start a fresh RM, but to review the action concluded in the close of the RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC) It should be noted that the closing admin from the most recent RM drew a distinction between "no consensus" and "consensus favoring oppose" [110] Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Above, PBS writes, "OK let us suppose that this RM runs until its end. Then, as this RM was allowed to run so soon after the last, if another is bought almost immediately, what is the justification for stopping that one?" In addition to what others have said, I think it's worth pointing out that if there is consensus support for the move, the likelihood of anyone ever bringing up another RM is nil because once the article is at Yogurt, there will be no reasonable argument for moving it to Yoghurt. With consensus support establishing the title as Yogurt, and Yogurt being its original title, no interpretation of ENGVAR could be used to support a move to Yoghurt. None of the answers to the criteria questions favor "yoghurt" over "yogurt" - no way a COMMONNAME argument could be made - there will simply be no basis for anyone to ever bring up the topic again. And if someone does, they will surely be immediately overwhelmed with opposition for all these reasons - there will be no need for admin intervention. Now, if we end up with "no consensus" again, and the article remains at "Yoghurt", then history indicates that within a few months, if not within a few weeks, some previously uninvolved editor will start a new RM again based on COMMONNAME or ENGVAR or WP:CRITERIA. This is why I keep saying, as I have for years, that anyone who genuinely wants to see this conflict resolved must support the renaming of this article to Yogurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I don't suspect you mean to do it, but your last sentence here comes across a lot like you're holding peace ransom to getting your way. There are two ways to see this resolved: We can allow everything to slide to COMMONNAME, which is the eventual result of arguing about regional spellings, and watch Wikipedia become USA-pedia. Alternatively, we can get serious about leaving regional spellings alone, and start enforcing a community standard of not tolerating arguments about them. I think you know that I support the latter, wherever the 'h's fall. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Born2cycle, this is not the first time in these discussions that independent editors have gained similar impressions to GTBacchus about your statements. Indeed it is one of the reasons I wondered whether a topic ban would help (the consensus seemed to be that it wont). So I think it would do you well to reflect upon this and consider your words in future such that they don't convey this impression. If you continue giving impressions of "holding peace to ransom", particularly if the current move discussion ends in something other than a consensus to move, people's patience will start to wear thin. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I agree that Born2cycle needs to be more articulate, I think some editors are misunderstanding him. He didn't start this move, nor the last RFC, nor the move prior... and he's correct to point out that judging by the history, who can honestly say they believe the future will be any different if nothing changes? But people are taking that to mean that he will be an instigator, when there's no evidence to support that such a thing will occur (to me, anyway). -Kai445 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly. Why would anyone understand my words any differently? The fact is that the spelling seems wrong to many editors, and coupled with the facts that it was originally at Yogurt and then surreptitiously moved, and that it's arguably the preferred spelling in the UK as well as in the US, is going to motivate people to argue for it to be restored forever. The FAQ idea is interesting, but it didn't seem to help on other articles. GTB seems to want to resolve this by squelching discussion, but that's not possible without making Wikipedia authoritarian (free speech is a critical liberty - and one of the first that authoritarians want to limit in order to "gain control"). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC) GTB, you write, "There are two ways to see this resolved: We can allow everything to slide to COMMONNAME, which is the eventual result of arguing about regional spellings, and watch Wikipedia become USA-pedia. Alternatively, we can get serious about leaving regional spellings alone, and start enforcing a community standard of not tolerating arguments about them." That's a false dichotomy, my friend. First, in general, there is a third choice in cases like this where consensus cannot be reached... restore the spelling used by the original non-stub version of the article. If that happens to also be the most common spelling and the U.S. spelling, and that's why some are motivated to push for that solution, so be it. Same thing if it's not, as in Aluminium. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC) We can give Born2cycle what he demands, or else we can enforce what WP:RETAIN actually says, which is to leave spellings alone, except in a handful of exceptional cases, none of which apply here. Unless this is a threat that B2C intends to bring this up forever unless he gets his way, in due course of time, nobody will remember that this article was briefly yogurt in 2003; why anybody cares about that now is a mystery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Heads-up Just a heads-up, but I've found at least two potentially problematic votes. Both Jcask (talk · contribs) and TamaDrumz76 (talk · contribs) first edits have been to the discussion in favor of support. Someone might want to check for other similar votes. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC) TamaDrumz76 appears to have been around since 2009, though Jcask not. (Looking at edit logs). I'm not so sure the former is suspect, but perhaps the latter (Who also claims to be a girl?!?! Those certainly don't exist on the internet, least of all white-straight-young-to-middle-aged-male-from-the-first-world-probably-America-dominated Wikipedia! Heheh.) . -Kai445 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Both are a little odd. Jcask's first edit was an opining on a long-running discussion, made in a technichally competent manner (including bolding and signing). They then immediately made three edits to their userpage, the last two adding userboxes reflecting loving Macs, being female and being a Pisces - all within the first 5 minutes of their first comment). Could be legit or a puppet, worth keeping an eye out. TamaDrumz76 has characteristics in common with SPA socks - they made a comment over 2 edits to a previous RM discussion at Yoghurt back in 2009, then nothing for over 2 years until they make a comment in the current RM at yoghurt. If a user were using a second account to influence a vote such as this one, then it could esily appear just like this (note this is NOT an accusation or suggestion that it is). Again worth watching out for anything suspicious. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Socks or otherwise, but are clearly inappropriate and should simply be removed and ignored. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC) This edit by Pete5680 (talk · contribs) was also odd (There was also this subsequent comment by B2C. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC) It's making me wonder if there is any canvassing going on for all these new/inactive users to suddenly contribute to this discussion. Meat puppetry feels more likely here than socking, particularly given Pete5680's comment. A quick glance doesn't suggest previous on-wiki interaction between them and B2c (although the latter's extensive contribution history doesn't make that easy to see). Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC) ps:All three users have now been notified of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I dont usually sign into my wikipedia account (for the longest time, i forgot what my username had been) but i am a dedicated reader of articles and even the discussion pages. Why idea of light reading is to go on wikipedia so i feel like i represent the readership base at large. I've been particularly interested in this yog(h)urt discussion for maybe 2 years and i feel the need to vote. I dont know born 2 cycle but his arguments in favour to change the articles name makes sence to me. I am neither american nor british so i have no nationalistic ties to any spelling style, i am just a daily reader of wikipedia and one that wishes for common sense to prevail. Pete5680 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I thought Pete5680s' comment was odd on my talk page, but I responded per AGF. Pete5680's comment here does not help his case. "I am neither american nor british so i have no nationalistic ties to any spelling style" Really? So whatever nation you live in, which you curiously neglect to mention, has no spelling style? No preference with respect to yoghurt or yogurt? I'm incredulous. I just looked into the contribution records of Jcask (talk · contribs), TamaDrumz76 (talk · contribs) and Pete5680 (talk · contribs). I have to agree that all three are suspiciously sparse. I will note that one of the few articles Pete5680 edited (back in January) was Black Canadians, indicating he might be Canadian. TamaDrumz76 is even more suspicious. His/her edits are exclusively to Talk:Yoghurt. Jcask has 4 edits, the first to Talk:Yoghurt, the other three to his/her user page. Not sure what to do about this. Does this warrant a sock check? I, for one, don't want a consensus decision tainted by suspicious voting. That's not going to help end the conflict; it might prolong it. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I'd rather throw out all three than have even the inkling of impropriety. As for Pete5680, you are again looking too much into someone's nationality, lol. I don't care if the guy lives in Mali, lets move past what his nationality is. He gave a reasonable explanation as far as I'm concerned. -Kai445 (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I am Canadian and what I meant was that as a Canadian, im used to seeing and using both spelling styles and ive only seen yogurt spelled without the h. To make things easier, I just wont vote. Id rather not vote than potentially taint the decision. Sorry for your time. Pete5680 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Don't you dare go anywhere! So we've got editors resorting to running off other editors now? THIS is unacceptable. -Kai445 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC) This is all about yogurt I think the wiki would be best served by an absolute ban on discussing how to spell "yogurt". I don't care about the 'h'; I care about the megabytes of discussion over the 'h'. The argument "just let me have my way, and then I'll stop arguing" is not one to which we should give in. The point of adopting ENGVAR all those years ago was to discourage people from caring about such things. It's not working. Two options present themselves: (1) Get draconian. If anyone tries to change spellings of English words from one acceptable variant to another, come down on them like a ton of bricks. Pretty soon, people will get the point, and we will probably only have to expend a few short blocks to get it done. (2) Give up, and say that everyone is free to use this wiki to argue about "-ise" versus "-ize", and "-or" versus "-our", and "-tre" versus "-ter" and "yogurt" versus "yoghurt". I think that option (2) is a very bad idea. First of all, these arguments (lacking an emergency brake in the form of ENGVAR) tend to be dragged eventually to COMMONNAME, because that seems to be the most neutral standard we can agree on in most cases. That means that Wikipedia will become USA-pedia. I'm an American, and I like American spellings, but I don't think that's best for our project here. Secondly, it allows megabytes and megabytes of server space and time to be devoted to truly trivial and lame arguments that don't serve our readers. The 'h's and 'u's and 'z's aren't doing any harm; they're letting some people know about the variety of manifestations of the English language. Let's let them be. What do others think about this? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I should note, to head off a particular objection, that I don't get the impression anyone is acting in anything less than perfectly good faith here. I think there's an understanding gap, but nobody is trying to do anything other than what they think is best for the project. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC) One problem here is that it's not completely clear whether the letter of ENGVAR applies, although the spirit clearly does. More importantly, the ENGVAR criterion of first substantial author isn't particularly clear and it's unclear what to do if a move from one variant to another becomes really contentious only many years later. (Move back because ENGVAR entitles the first substantial author to make the choice, or don't move back because ENGVAR is about not changing orthography without good reason?) I have adressed what I think is the real problem underlying this dispute in my long comment to #My block of admin PBS - review please. Hans Adler 12:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) If the spirit clearly applies, then whether or not the letter applies is only a problem if you're a rules-lawyer. Last I checked, rules-lawyering was strongly discouraged here. The "first substantial author" criterion may not be 100% clear, but I'm not suggesting we bother about it. I'm suggesting we follow the spirit, which is: "Stop caring about the spelling. Stop now, and never start again." If a move becomes contentious years later, then those making it contentious are in the wrong, full stop. What's so hard about that? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC) We don't ban discussion on Wikipedia, we ban habitually disruptive users. I've been watching the situation, and the problem does not seem to be caused by any particular user. Perhaps we should ban users who run to ANI whining about a normal discussion and polling process. Yworo (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, perhaps. If blocked, I won't fight. Try it. I haven't suggested "banning" anyone, but you're welcome to up the ante. (Please note the difference between a block and a ban.) I'm not sure you're familiar with the history of ENGVAR, and similar agreements. If we don't ban discussion of certain topics, then why don't we let people argue about "BC/AD" versus "BCE/CE" anymore? Why don't we let people argue about "honor" versus "honour" anymore? Why don't we let people use discussion pages as forums to talk about whatever they feel like talking about, for that matter? We have always banned discussion that's not related to improving the project, and we decided a long time ago that arguing over regional spelling differences does not improve the project. That's why we set up ENGVAR in the first place. Do you think we should scrap it, and re-open every dispute at WP:LAME while we're at it? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC) And one test for disruptive users is whether they engage in disruptive discussions. GTB understates his case: Leave it alone is both the spirit and the letter of RETAIN: When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change. "First contributor" is a fallback when there has never been an established style. (The unidiomatic possessive appears to be new; but the rest of this has stood for years.) Yoghurt is in British English; it should be left alone, as an example that British English is perfectly acceptable to us. Beyond that, it doesn't matter; and I write American myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC) The fact that the OED uses "Yogurt", that the Oxford Style Manual says to use "Yogurt" and specifies to not use "Yoghurt", the fact that the British Dairy Council uses "Yogurt", that the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses "Yogurt", that all major manufacturers in the UK use "Yogurt" (good luck even finding a cup that doesn't), all leads you to think that Yoghurt is The British Spelling? Truly strange. -Kai445 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) The OED does not always describe contemporary British usage, for example it prescribes "-ize" spellings when the majority of contemporary British English users prefer "-ise". Similarly, while manufacturers may sell "yogurt" the public write "yoghurt" on their shopping lists (this might be similar to an official name/common name divide). Both spellings are accepted in British English (e.g. a google.co.uk scholar search of post-2005 articles is 19,000 to 16,000 or just under 1.2:1 in favour of no "h", which is hardly evidence of the "h" being unacceptable), so yes "yoghurt" is British English. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC) So are you conceding that Yogurt is the "Official" spelling, or that they're both used equally and that neither is "more" British than the other. Either way I'm fine with it. I meant to only point out that Yogurt wasn't "THE" British spelling, as if there were no other. -Kai445 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I'm with Yworo. "We don't ban discussion on Wikipedia, we ban habitually disruptive users". I'm deeply bothered by the predilection of GTB and PBS (see below) to disrupt and contemplate even banning this particular discussion, when it seems to be moving, finally (after eight years), for the first time, towards a consensus decision. Wikipedia is working the way it's supposed to, and you want to disrupt that? What else is this section and PBS's actions yesterday about, if not that? Regardless of how it goes, I'd like to be given some credit for the process that is occurring now, given my contributions to assembling the history of the issue, which was extremely time consuming, and the summary of the arguments. Several editors have mentioned arguments based on this information as being persuasive. So these efforts to derail this process, especially from administrators, I find to be very problematic. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) My block of admin PBS - review please (This started as a separate section but is closely connected to the general Yog(h)urt section. So I have boldly made it a subsection. Hope that's OK. Hans Adler 12:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)) (Yep, that's fine by me, thanks - it makes more sense for it to be here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)) As everyone will be aware, there has been a lengthy debate about the naming of Yoghurt. It has been discussed on this page, above, and there is also an RM going at Talk:Yoghurt. There is clearly no consensus here at ANI to stop the RM, and there does appear to be a consensus on a rename emerging (which I have !voted in favour of, from a pragmatic perspective). User:Philip Baird Shearer (hereinafter referred to as PBS) closed the RM discussion, here. User:Kai445 reverted the closure here. I remonstrated with PBS here, with my opinion that there was no consensus, either community or admin, to close the current RM. He then protected Talk:Yoghurt against non-admin editing, here, which I thought was a misuse of admin tools - non-admins should not be forced to shut up on the issue. I informed PBS of my opinion here PBS then closed the RM again, here, which I saw as effectively wheel-warring - I hadn't actually done the revert myself, but I had endorsed it (though I now understand that PBS didn't realise I'm an admin, so any wheel-warring was unintended) I felt at the time that I needed to stop what I saw as abuse of admin tools, so I blocked PBS, initially for 24 hours, and added an explanatory comment, purely to try to stop things escalating - I thought, and do still think, that an admin shutting people up would probably be the worst way to solve this problem - here I then had to rush out, and as soon as I returned, I shortened the block to 3 hours, here PBS asked for unblock, here I was happy to oblige, here I hold my hand up to a degree of WP:INVOLVED here, as I had offered a !vote on the current RM and I had taken a side over whether the RM should be closed or not, but I really though that an admin closing it at this stage and throwing away so much discussion would only make things worse. On the Yoghurt/Yogurt issue, I really don't care if it's spelled "Raymond Luxury-yacht", but I do think that trying to stop it now and shut everyone up was at best just closing the lid on a pressure cooker that would be sure to explode at a later date. It's surely better to get an RM consensus now (whichever way it goes) so we at least have one to refer back to rather than a previous "no consensus" one. Anyway, I'm sure I could have dealt with this better, but I saw an urgency to try to avert what I suspected would be an "editors vs admins" spat if an admin was seen to be allowed to close it off when so many people clearly had something to say. I'm also sure, after post-hoc discussion, that PBS's motives were entirely honourable - but I do think his actions were mistaken. All feedback welcome, please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC) PS: Just about to inform people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC) What further light can be shed on the discussion which has not already been said? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Well, I for one strongly oppose moving Yoghurt to Raymond Luxury-yacht. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC) The talk page should never have been full protected by an extreamly involved admin --Guerillero | My Talk 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I am not involved other than as an administrator. So to say extremely involved is misleading. Have you looked at the reasons I gave for the close that I made? Did you look at the length of the block? It was for 3 hours so that the merits of the close could be discussed on the ANI. -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Two for one: (1) For there to be "further light", there must first be light. (2) That should be spelled Raymond Luxhury-yacht.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Frankly, I think shutting people up may be the only way to resolve the situation ;-> That aside, Boing! has not addressed PBS's reason for closing; that this was almost immediately after another RM, without any novel arguments. But as for Boing's action: I do not agree with the block, and said so; but if it has given PBS time to look around (for example, to see that Boing is an admin), it has not done much harm - except to damage him in the eyes of those who give too much weight to block logs. Boing's conduct afterward is an admirable example of a block being preventative, not punitive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Both of them should be trout slapped. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I've no objection to a portion of oily fish, but I'd much prefer to hear your actual opinion of what I did wrong and how you think I could have dealt with it better -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't have blocked him, though an uninvolved admin probably should've. On the other hand, I don't buy that "apology" he gave in his unblock request. He threatened to "take administrative action" against me if I reverted him again [111]. He also made a similar threat on the yoghurt talk page, both of which are in clear violation of WP:INVOLVED (as was your block). Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC) OK, thoughts appreciated, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Comment I was a bit surprised by the initial block. I thought that a discussion on PBS's behavior should have occurred. But I was no less surprised by PBS's three closures and the unbelievably bad full talk page protection. I mean, who does he think he is? Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship, where one single person, with tools or not, can systematically control the destiny of talk page discussions, because he feels that it was too soon to have another discussion. Where is that written down? In my opinion, admin tools have been misused, and as such, these tools should be revoked or freely given up by PBS.--JOJ Hutton 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I don't know PBS or PBS's history (see comment below "classic PBS"), but why is it that editors are so quick to want to take admin's tools away from them, and, even more to the point, why in this most ridiculous instance?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Years of history. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Chris.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Glad to see Boing taking action-- this is classic PBS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I your case, am invoking the Mandy Rice-Davies defence. -- PBS (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Good block PBS exhibited poor judgment with the tools and poor judgment in assuming bad faith that the RM is disruptive. His reasons to close were invalid and he was involved. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I had assumed good faith and that you had not started another RM knowing that one had ended less than 2 months ago. It is not bad faith to state that an RM held less than 2 months after the last is disruptive, as it has nothing to do with the motives of the person who starts the RM. If on the other hand you started this RM knowing that there was another one less than two months ago then yes I would call that disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I also believe that it was a good block. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC) If B&Z had not expressed an opinion in the the survey before getting involved with an uninvolved administrators action, then perhaps there would have been some justification for what B&Z did. But from this edit on B&Z was an involved editor who made a statement after another involved editor without waiting for a consensus to emerge at WP:ANI reverted my close (which was disruptive). From that point on in my opinion any administrative action that B&Z took was compromised. Instead of making any changes at talk:yoghurt (s)he should have taking it to ANI and requested that another uninvolved administrator to revert my changes, or at least waited until there was a clear consensus expressed by people not involved in the current RM that my closure was out of order. If such a consensus had been expressed then I would have reverted my close, if I had not done so then there might have been some justification in reverting my close, but the 3 hour block on the talk page while the issue was discussed at ANI would have been enough for a clear consensus to emerge. Making a unilateral revert and then blocking my account as B&Z did, has not allowed a consensus of the uninvolved to emerge one way or another. I was in a hurry, as I had to go off and do something in the real world, so I did not look too carefully B&Z's home page. If I had I would have noticed his/her administrator credentials (my excuse is that the page is quite cluttered). I had looked at the edit history of Talk:Yoghurt and had mistakenly as assumed that an editor who placed a comment in a survey and then revered my actions, would not be an administrator, as in the same position I would have ruled out taking direct action myself. So I think that mistakes were made on both sides, but hopefully we have all learned something from it and the issue can now be closed. -- PBS (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC) We've "all learned something from it"? You've learned not to abuse your access to tools whenever you feel that it gives you an edge in disputes? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC) (ec) First you threaten other editors to not revert you, lest you "take administrative action". If you are so worried about someone reverting you that you need to threaten them in that fashion, I can't see how you knew you were doing the right thing to begin with. You then try and wheel war with another editor because you were "in a hurry"? (So we are to believe that you ham-fistedly use the tools at your discretion without consideration of your actions, and everyone is expected to take that as a reasonable excuse?) And you then try and basically say "well, two wrongs don't make a right", but there is no indication that he did anything wrong by blocking you. -Kai445 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Given the RFC Thumperward linked to, is arbitration the next logical step? Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC) If transparency is valued by the powers that be, doesn't it make more sense to first inquire here that you would like to close and then ask for a review of that? The converse, which is to close and then go ask someone, seems disruptive to those who are on the talk page. Why stop discussion and then go see if it is alright? That seems disruptive. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Hi PBS, thanks for your thoughts. You suggest I should have sought a review of your repeated closure of the RM rather than a block, and I would have been far more inclined to do that had you not fully protected Talk:Yoghurt to stop non-admins making any further comment. I saw that as an abuse of your admin rights, and I still think it was - we are supposed to be servants to the editing community, not their masters, and the approach of "I'm an admin and I get my say, but the rest of you have to shut up" is never appropriate except in the worst cases of vandalism. Given that, and your subsequent re-closure after another editor and I had made our thoughts clear (and my userboxes are clearly presented - I really can't see how you could miss the two admin ones, so prominently displayed), I felt that you were not going to listen to the opinions of others and were wheel-warring to force everyone else into silence. I do accept that action by a third party would have been better, but I really did feel that I had to stop what you were doing as quickly as possible - there is already enough bad blood between admins and non-admins without any further dictatorial admin actions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC) It shouldn't even matter if the person reverting him is an admin or not. Being a sysop doesn't make someone a super editor. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Indeed - it's just that there are apparently harder prohibitions against wheel-warring than edit-warring -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I am not an admin. But I’ve been around on Wikipedia to know full well what sort of behavior is acceptable. PBS’s locking down a talk page of all things so only admins could edit there, where there was civil and productive discussion by the community, is shocking. Some 30+ editors were discussing how best to serve the readership of Wikipedia. It was not within the purview of PBS to even think something like We all have better things we can contribute to the project than have our time consumed on this type of debate much less act on those sentiments and presume to dictate to others what they may think and whether they may share thoughts on a purely Wikipedia-related matter. That he might *permit* the community to discuss the matter at some later date (he wrote So come back in a MINIMUM of six months and argue the point then and not before) shocks the conscience. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC) The actions taken by PBS were clearly intended to have a chilling effect, and not only were not in the interests of the community, but downright scary for anyone to invoke. I think that 'Greg L' summarized it best, above. And this is not the first time this Admin has had problems. I think the next step should be actions to remove PBS as an Administrator. -Kai445 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC) For RMs, I think there should be considerable leeway in undoing early closures, non-admin closures, etc. The edit warring that PBS engaged in about this matter was bad enough, but when combined with the vague and harsh threats it was pretty disturbing and using page protection to win a dispute is just awful. I think the shorter block was reasonable to stop that kind of disruption. With that said, I would have rather seen a non-involved administrator implement the block. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Quoting ErikHaugen: I would have rather seen a non-involved administrator implement the block. One doesn’t have to get permission from *authority* for someone to do the way-right thing when faced with way-wrong. I have nothing but respect for user/Admin ‘Boing! said Zebedee’. Suppose some Chicago cop waded into the lodge of some fraternal order and announced that there was going to be some head-banging if anyone tried to discuss city policy again, and kicked everyone out of the lodge, and pronounced that they could *consider* coming back in—maybe—six months to discuss such matters. Some other cop shouldn’t have to pee his pants and call into HQ to get permission before saying “DUDE, you are way out of line here!” ‘Boing! said Zebedee’ knew what was way wrong and unquestionably did the right thing. Wikipedia is quite the training ground because all can try their hand at debate and exercise decision-making skills in a venue where no real harm can come to anyone for fouling up. So, in the Wikipedia context anyway, what ‘Boing! said Zebedee’ did was ballsy but totally correct. What PBS did was shockingly indefensible and I agree with Kai445 that he should be de-sysoped—though I seriously doubt that will happen. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Just off to bed now, folks, and will catch up with further comment on the morrow - appreciate all input so far -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Not a fan of any of the admin actions that were taken here. I think this reversion was "outrageous", and I'm surprised it is being ignored so simply. There is procedure that can and should be followed in situations like these, namely referral to WP:AN. Boing!, had I been in your shoes (an involved administrator who opposed the action), I would have reverted back to PBS' closure, opened a discussion on PBS' talk or AN and linked to it from Talk:Yogurt, and then waited for consensus to develop there. NW (Talk) 02:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, that reversion was outrageousless than ideal, in that it removed an intelligent on-point statement by PBS. I agree with the reversion of closure and boxing, but the substantive text added by PBS should have been preserved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC) “Outrageous”? On the part of ‘Boing! said Zebedee’? There seems to be hyperbole-in-search-of-superlatives here. While PBS was busying himself improperly closing the RfC, he also managed to delete the last two “support” !votes, and added a truly outrageous statement about how he will unilaterally decide what types of discussion by 30+ editors are verboten and at what future date it might be permissible—in his judgement—for others to once again discuss certain Wikipedia-related matters. Who does that??? It’s clear that sort of mindset is the last thing anyone needs in a Wikipedia admin. Indeed, it would have been better, rather than treat PBS’s post as if it was utterly meaningless (something PBS did to 30 other editors with his little stunt) by deleting it, if ‘Boing! said Zebedee’ had changed the *closing* staement’s form so it could still be read but not misinterpreted as valid. Far from *outrageous*, such an oversight (since corrected) amounts to a failure by ‘Boing! said Zebedee’ to keep his little-pinkie tea-finger out while he was busy shoveling a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged, weapons-grade bullonium off a talk page (speaking of hyperbole, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander). What PBS did was indefensible. Great shows of wiki-grief over a failure to revert him with squeaky-clean perfection on the first try do not impress. Greg L (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Didn't PBS' closure also accidentally remove two support !votes? That is unfortunate. bobrayner (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, bobrayner. See the third sentence in my post just above yours. And he deleted a non-voting comment while he was at it. Apparently that was well and good since everyone on that page discussing Wikipedia matters were just *cruising for a bruising*; two fewer editors PBS wasn’t gonna have to take over his knee and give a good lickin’. Greg L (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not an admin, but I've been on Wikipedia since 2005, and have been involved in my share of conflicts, but have never been blocked. What I saw PBS do today was the most outrageous behavior I've ever seen any admin engage in. The initial close was ridiculous. The threats made in the summary commentary are scandalous. The first reversal of the revert of his close was shocking. The second reversal of his close was unbelievable. The sloppiness which wiped out input from others is derisive of those who disagree with him. I think that alone is enough to prove he doesn't have what it takes to be a Wikipedia admin. But on top of that there is the locking of the talk page. If that action does not contradict "the Wikipedia way" at its very core, I can't imagine what does. I agree it would have been ideal for a non-involved admin to block PBS, but what's relevant here is whether the block would have been justified from the perspective of an objective admin. The only way to answer that is in the affirmative as far as I can tell, and I would commend Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for his bold actions. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Isn't the best option going to be that PBS voluntarily relinquish the admin tools? To close a discussion in which he has opined is in itself inexcusable. To revert his closure is not good, given that it was done for a totally valid reason. But to lock the talk page and threaten editors with administrative action is disgusting behaviour from an admin -- admins are supposed to be neutrally minded and not get involved in disputes in matters which they are acting -- and here is an admin locking out other editors from a talk page. Even more incredulous is that this is over yoghurt for crying out loud. Boing!'s actions aren't much better, but whilst he should not get any medals for what he did, given that he was involved to the eyeballs as well, his actions are somewhat understandable. PBS give up the bit, before this goes to Arbcom, which is where it is likely to head given history. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I echo the opinion that PBS should voluntarily recall. The talk page lock was completely uncalled for, highly counterproductive, and not the mark of a good administrator. m.o.p 07:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I agree with the previous comment, and that of SandyGeorgia above. The WP:INVOLVED policy is quite clear: admins should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It is easy enough to seek an uninvolved admin's opinion. Admin action should be taken if that third party judges it necessary, free of CoI. PBS has patently breached the community's expectations in this respect. Tony (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC) "As everyone will be aware, there has been a lengthy debate about the naming of Yoghurt." Leading to a series of events culminating in the blocking of an administrator. This is waaaay beyond WP:LAME; we need a completely new category for something like this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee's block was technically inappropriate and he should have gotten an uninvolved admin to perform it. But "ignore all rules" applies to administrative action too. PBS's activity was so far outside of acceptable behavior that it needed to be stopped immediately. For that reason I endorse the block, which hopefully served it purpose of stopping a serious disruption. Now the community can calmly decide how to deal with PBS's use of the tools.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC) The oddest thing about this situation, and I think not even unusual, is that most editors involved in that discussion are feeling strongly not about the spelling of the word but about how to apply our policies and guidelines. The recipe in this case is as follows: Sometimes an encyclopedia must make an essentially arbitrary decision such as spelling a word one way or the other. Some people think very strongly about orthographical choices. To prevent them from disrupting Wikipedia, we have rules against edit warring and move warring and various dispute resolution processes including WP:RM. Without further guidance, even RM discussions can easily be disrupted due to a number of editors with genuine strong feelings on the orthography combining with others jumping on the dispute for various reasons. To get rid of these completely unnecessary disputes, we have WP:ENGVAR. Like all our policies and guidelines, ENGVAR is not completely clear and unambiguous. Sometimes what to do depends on how to interpret ENGVAR; in particular on whether it applies to the situation at hand. Even when nobody feels strongly about the spelling of a word, a lot of editors may feel very strongly about the interpretation of ENGVAR. Strongly enough to cause precisely the kind of disruption that ENGVAR prevents where its application is clear. Maybe we should take this as an occasion to patch ENGVAR, but that's not going to solve the problem completely. The grey zone of ENGVAR applicability will only be shifted by this maneuver, which will give us peace only as long as not everybody is familiar with the new wording. (This works as follows: Shift the grey zone from A to B so that A and B overlap, but not much. Now most conflicts will fall only into A or into B. Any conflict in B will be resolved without anybody looking up the new policy, or even if someone mentions it most editors will be reluctant to apply the new version. Any conflict in A will be resolved by someone pointing out that according to the most recent version of ENGVAR the outcome is clear.) After a few years, the effect of the maneuver will disappear and we can change the wording again, maybe even back to the previous one. What we really need is something that encourages editors to see the big picture and discourages them from trying to enforce their own interpretations of ambiguous rules merely for the sake of 'proving' they are right, or of pushing the grey zone between the generally accepted interpretations a little bit in one direction. This is related to WP:POINT, but more general. Hans Adler 09:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Bad block because User:Boing! said Zebedee was clearly WP:INVOLVED. As the admin corps seems unable to conduct itself properly in this case, it should be referred to WP:ARBCOM. Warden (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Endorse Block There is documented evidence that PBS used Administrative tools to gain an unfair advantage over other editors, threatened to continue disruption in opposition of the consensus, and has satisfied conditions necessary for their unblocking. WP:IAR allows anybody to do an action if a rule would typically prevent them if the action improves or maintains Wikipedia. Boing obviously invoked IAR due to a persistent threat to the editing at the page in question. The question we, as the community, need to answer is Does PBS still retain the community's confidence in their use of Administrative Toolset? Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Seeing as no one has even remotely defended PBS, and given his past RFC, someone ought to file a request for arbitration. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Meh. Arbcom is a time sink. Since it is early December, I am doubtful that they would even take the case as it will spill over into next year. I inquired about recall. It would be best for the whole community to minimize the amount of drama kicked up by this event. If the less dramatic routes do not work, then maybe arbcom would be the place to go. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I'm willing to give the situation some time to settle, but considering he was asked to voluntarily resign in the wake of his RFC, I doubt he will do it now. (He hasn't even admitted he was at fault at this point, to my knowledge). Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) PBS's position seems quite defensible. The editors who reverted his action (Kai445 and Boing) were both involved right? PBS was not so involved and was acting in an administrative capacity to close a discussion which seemed disruptive. This matter has been a WP:LAME dispute for years now and yet we still have editors threatening to filibuster endlessly until they get their way. Closing such a running sore so the editors might move on to other matters, seems to have been a reasonable course of action and appears to have been taken in good faith. Warden (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Filibuster-breaking on Wikipedia is a dangerous and generally thankless activity. It might even be a path to martyrdom. If you try it with the slightest chink in your armor (armour?), you're liable to end up as well-burned toast. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC) In my view, closing the RM with the comment "Personally I think that "Yoghurt" looks like the "Correct" spelling" made him involved at that exact moment - you can't neutrally close a discussion while simultaneously voicing your own preference -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC) This seems hypercritical; it is in no sense the basis for his decision; it's an acknowledgement that he is British - which he does not conceal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Well, I'm British too and I don't conceal it, but what's that got to do with anything? ;-) Anyway, I'm not suggesting it was the basis for the close, and I'm not holding that comment up as in any way the reason I acted as I did. I mention it merely to counter suggestions that PBS was entirely uninvolved - even if it was coincidental to the reason for the close, once you voice your opinion in a debate, the "uninvolved" argument no longer stands up. (And before *that* is misunderstood too, I'm not suggesting that PBS made any such claim, but other people have) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Where does he say he's British? I see no mention of that on his userpage. You're making assumptions. -Kai445 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Anybody who wants a diff should feel free to search for one; I've interacted with PBS, in various ways, for some years now, and am convinced. If I am wrong, I expect he will rell me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Comment: It seems to me that both PBS as well as Boing! said Zebedee have acted a tad improperly hastily here. PBS is entitled to close a move discussion but should have taken the dispute to another venue - for example here - after the move discussion was reverted a couple of times rather than protecting the talk page. Though, it is in his favor that he did say "unless there is agreement at ANI". Similarly, Boing!, since he/she is apparently an involved user, should have brought the matter up here if he/she felt that the talk page protection was excessive. Though, it is in his/her favor that protecting a talk page to forestall discussion is excessive. Still, a block is as much of an over reaction, if not more so, than a brief talk page protection. Three hours without comment on an issue that appears to have been festering for 8 years doesn't sound all that onerous. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I appreciate your comments, thanks. Just for the record, it was my opinion that leaving the Talk page locked for 3 hours (or for any time, in fact) actually would do harm - to the often fragile relationship between admins and non-admins. And though I realised my actions might bring censure upon myself, I thought it was preferable to take that risk rather than leave the editing community unjustly gagged even for a minute. You could say my decision was a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Endorse Block For the reasons below: PBS made his position clear (he stated that he preferred the spelling that was suddenly losing in the RM). There were 30+ editors calmly doing their best to apply the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia on how best to serve the interests of its readership PBS closed the RM at a moment when a consensus seemed to be forming against his personal preferences. In his sloppy haste, his closure erased the !votes of two other editors on that RM. He admonished the entire community there that We all have better things we can contribute to the project than have our time consumed on this type of debate. Really? Perhaps we should add the following to WP:FIVEPILLARS: Well meaning editors acting in good faith on Wikipedia-related matters should first approach User:PBS for guidance as to what sort of activities are worthwhile before trying to help on the project. No one but a king or dictator would dare presume to tell 30 other editors that they have better things to do with a hobby as they endeavor to improve the project. There weren’t even any flamewars worth mentioning upon which PBS could use as a soap box upon which to wave his sword to attract the attention of the minions below. He made a clear and unambiguous threat to the 30+ other editors in good standing and who were constructively deciding the RM by writing …having another RM over this issue when the ink is not dry on the last one is disruptive. He then presumed to dictate to the masses when he might permit the issue to be again discussed when he wrote So come back in a MINIMUM of six months and argue the point then and not before. He failed to indicate whether the community should appoint a representative—hat in hand—to first approach PBS on his talk page to seek permission before discussing the matter again (at risk of an apparent caning if his mood was foul six months from now). After being taken to task for the above, he then locked a talk page down (on the mistaken assumption that B&Z was a regular editor) so only kings and other royalty could discuss how best for Those In Power to *dictate* to 30+ editors whether or not they may civilly even discuss how to spell “yogurt” (as if such discussion is somehow *subversive* to the harmony of the collective). PBS should be de‑sysoped. That he was blocked for a few minutes means nothing. It is folly to suggest that all involved admins should have instead quietly cloistered themselves and attempted to dignify the wiki‑proceedings with wiki‑adornments and the trappings of Great Wiki‑Power®™©, where they discuss the finer points of what the 30+ minions may be permitted to discuss in the way of Wikipedia-related matters. Only the shear arrogance of someone on a power trip explains the totality of the above, which shocks the conscience and is unheard of on Wikipedia. Instead, User:‘Boing! said Zebedee’ blocked PBS for a few minutes. Bravo. His block was an exhibition of “doing the right thing” in the face of peer pressure that would otherwise offer up a Gomer Pyle-like “For shame, for shame! He’s one of us!” That User:Boing! said Zebedee’s manner of reverting in the heat of the moment was less-than-perfect (but was shortly later corrected) is understandable; citing those minor flaws as an excuse for what PBS did amounts to wiki‑grief for effect. Get over it; move on. It is unseemly for there to be even the appearance of circling the wagons in defense of that which is utterly indefensible. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Greg L, I am interested why you select half a sentence I wrote and assume bad faith for all of my actions. In the past you have made similar accusations against me based on misinformation, yet when looked at in detail it turns out that [your accusations were false. In this case the whole sentence which you cherry pick just the first phrase reads: Personally I think that "Yoghurt" looks like the "Correct" spelling, BUT I agree with the arguments on this topic of WP:AT#National varieties of English, and if I had closed the last one I would have gone with that as the close (but I do not question the decision of the last admin to close a Yoghurt debate). Did you read what I posted to Talk:Yoghurt at 05:38, 5 December 2011? I assume that you did, because you replied at 05:51, 5 December 2011, in which case you ought to have followed the link to Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 1#Requested move and read what I wrote yesterday "the one time when I expressed an opinion on the issue which was back on 12 May 2005, I explicitly stated that I supported moving it back to primary author usage." You statement above was written at 21:31, 5 December 2011 more than 16 hours after my posting at 05:31. Given the full sentence from my close statement and the statement I made at 05:38, the assumption of bad faith in your first bullet point leads to a clear misattribution (because you could just as easily have selectively chosen the second half of the sentence and written: PBS made his position clear (he stated that he would have closed in favour of yogurt that because he though it was losing in the RM). -- BTW I think that you use words like "loosing" shows that you consider an RM to be a contest rather than a exercise in consensus building. Having constructed a false premise in you bullet point one, you go on to draw conclusions from it in you bullet point 3 which can not be justified by an impartial reading of what I wrote. Is this an intentional tactic/ploy (like a prosecution barrister in court trying to paint the worst possible picture by using selective evidence) or is it a mistake on your behalf? If the former than it is a breach of the assumption of good faith and a manipulation of the process. If the latter then I would appreciate it if you would strike out points one and three and qualify your other statements with "I think". -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC) You have the audacity to chastise him with regard to consensus building? And I suppose 'locking a talk page was an effort to support consensus building? Your actions were outrageous, and you continue to plead ignorance of the gravity of them. Appalling. -Kai445 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC) PMA, please desist with protestations of victimhood here. I didn’t even bother trying to select a piece of that hard-to-understand sentence in order to quote it; instead, I merely stated that you professed a personal preference for the spelling “yoghurt”, which is a perfectly true, mighty reasonable, and straightforward interpretation given what you wrote. And nowhere did I write that you had “bad faith” or that there was an assumption of bad faith on your part. The totality of my above post makes my views on your conduct abundantly clear: The power of admin-hood has clearly gone to your head because your imperious serial actions make it clear that you think you can boss everyone around. The U.S. military gives leadership training to all its officers. Frankly, my take on how you see yourself (a big fish in a small pond) leads you to fancy that “leadership” means “bossing”. Any good instructor on leadership, upon figuring out what your style of leadership was all about, would result in the “facepalm.” Anytime 30+ editors in good standing who are discussing Wikipedia-related matters in good faith, are properly citing this ‘n’ that Wikipedia policies and guidelines as the governing principles that ought to apply, and there are no flamewars on the talk page, you have no (zero, nada, zilch) right to barge in, shut down discussion, threaten people with unambiguous accusations that what they are doing is “disrputive”, and pronounce that maybe you’ll permit such things to be discussed six months from now. Is any of this sinking in here? Greg L (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I believe this is the statement that has created some confusion: Personally I think that "Yoghurt" looks like the "Correct" spelling, BUT I agree with the arguments on this topic of WP:AT#National varieties of English, and if I had closed the last one I would have gone with that as the close (but I do not question the decision of the last admin to close a Yoghurt debate). [112] It's a cumbersome sentence, something I might write, and easy to misunderstand. But it does clearly convey a personal preference for "Yoghurt" as looking "Correct", while at the same time a belief that "Yogurt" should be preferred per WP:AT#National varieties of English. So Greg saying "PBS made his position clear (he stated that he preferred the spelling that was suddenly losing in the RM)" is a bit of an exaggeration, but not that big of one, and an understandable misunderstanding. In any case, most of what Greg says is not at all premised on this point, and it's disappointing that PBS chooses to focus solely on this relatively unimportant aspect of Greg's argument. Despite almost unanimous true consensus here about how egregious his actions were, I have yet to detect even an inkling of understanding on PBS' part about how this was a blatant abuse of power. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC) WP:LAME So, who wants to do the honors and add this to LAME? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC) It's been there for years. Whoever wrote it did a nice job too. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC) "Apparently, some people don't know when to get the "H" out of there... or not" - nice :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC) It has been there since October 2006. This is probably a better link than the one that first included it. Hans Adler 14:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I love that page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Suggest renaming Sour milk with added bacteria (leaving redirects in place of course). I've heard it's goes well with oily fish. — Ched :  ?  22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC) As happened at times during the Cold War, Yoghurt is a proxy war where those who want to grandfather in certain practices that are odd with those of the RSs find themselves in conflict with editors who have a different view on how Wikipedia best serves its readership. The perception is that the *process* to resolve the matter at Yoghurt could serve as a precedent for other articles. That’s why it interests so many editors. Let’s not try to pretend that this phenomenon doesn’t underly much of the wikidrama. And frankly, User:Burpelson AFB’s effort to dismiss the vitriol as “lame” unfortunately comes across as if he wants to paint himself as a *Big Picture* kinda guy who laughs at the pettiness of the 30+ other editors who are devoting their spare time to resolve how one best solves this and similar situations. Such posturing does not impress. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cuza edit warring

Saturnian (talk · contribs) is edit warring, canvassing, and leaving insinuations of racism in his effort to change the "defamatory" Alexander John Cuza to Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Can someone keep an eye on his edits and take action if he doesn't clean up his act himself? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also an issue at Talk:United Principalities, also instigated by Saturnian. Both of these issues are predicated on Saturnian's desire to impose his will of what should be used as article titles the English Wikipedia as opposed to what the accepted usage per policy and guidelines are in reality. In Cuza's case he wants to use Romanian spelling, and for the Principalities item, he wants to change the name to what appears to be a lesser-known term. MSJapan (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can you please step back and take a break from all this scandal. It is not helping anyone. I understand that you can give a hard time to Saturnian based on Wikipedia policies, but he made a huge set of contributions on both Romanian and English WP around ancient history, particularly Roman Castra documentation. Look at all this tremendous work and give the guy a break. Ultimately Ioan or John are the same thing...--Codrin.B (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Codrinb's is an attempt to poison the well, and make it seem like Saturnian is somehow being harassed. I urge administrators to look over the linked discussion, and especially over Talk:Alexander John Cuza; they will note perhaps who was doing all the harassing, and how Codrinb's participation in it is the result of Saturnian's canvassing. As for the "tremendous work"..., not that it carries any weight when Saturnian is under scrutiny for quite serious breaches of behavioral and editorial guidelines (from canvassing and sock-farming to repeated personal attacks and taunts), but his contributions are actually the very questionable additions of unformatted bot-like stubs on subjects that may not even be encyclopedic. Like so (all of them here). I will not comment any further on this issue, but I felt it was important to note that Saturnian is not the experienced editor of Codrinb's account. That defense is a smokescreen. Dahn (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note that Saturnian has been using sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saturnian/Archive. WilliamH (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I simply asked everyone to take at look at the Saturnian's contributions to both English and Romanian Wikipedias. He has been working for years on a large number of articles and it is unfair to minimize his work. I never ran into any issues collaborating with him. Nonetheless, he obviously lost his temper and if he is proven to have used sock puppetry, it is indeed disappointing. He should know better and stay cool despite provocations from others. Speaking of poison, I haven't seen any Wikipedian spreading more poison than user Dahn ever since I started editing. Not even close! Your can read through the Talk:Alexander John Cuza to a get good, fresh sample of the neutral stance of user Dahn on the obvious need to move the article. Also, I've never seen anyone as actively involved in setting traps, playing with people's nerves and ultimately getting Wikipedians blocked as user Dahn does. He seems to have a full time job (and getting a lot of pleasure from) eliminating any other Romanian user from Wikipedia. Probably a personal ambition to be the last and only Romanian (is he truly?) Wikipedian. He must have gotten duzins if not hundreds of Wikipediands blocked by now. How is this helping anyone? And how can this be called moderation and collaboration? --Codrin.B (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cordrinb, I think I recall clearly an instance where I told you, on your talk page, that I do not intend to tolerate yet one more personal attack against me. This was after you, like your friend Saturnian now, had decided it was a good idea to label me "anti-Romanian" (and in other ways an enemy of whatever ideological stance you imagine is relevant to me). I notice that, above, you have barely switched from that position and use rhetorical questions to discuss the truth of my Romanianness ("is he truly?"), which shows that you have yet found no way of muting such indecent tribalism for the sheer purpose of writing an encyclopedia.
  Now, I want to advise you that poisoning this thread by diverting the flak of your imaginary war, yet again, against my person is exceptionally tactless. Not to mention tasteless. (For the record, nothing requires that I should have a "neutral" stance on matters of expressing opinion - I am not an admin -, so you may consider finding yourself a rationale that is not the prototype of red herrings.) Let it be known: I take no pleasure in having to deal with trolls, not even in pursuing wikipedia policies against them. That is because I don't enjoy being taunted by the immature. Not that it's any of your (or anybody's) business if and how much pleasure I derive from whatever activity. Period. I also think that your account about how I "set traps" or whatever for people unable to preserve even a modicum of netiquette is about as sound as blaming me of giving them/you the evil eye. To your advantage so far, I despise wikidrama. Emphasis on "so far". Dahn (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• You are attacking Dahn here for trying to raise the level of discourse at that move discussion by pointing out how ridiculous most arguments of your side are – while staying neutral on whether a move makes sense for other, better reasons? Seriously? Hans Adler 13:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether the move takes place, I see Saturnian's endeavour to do so is motivated to a large extent by nationalist reverence, and his responses to articulate arguments sometimes resort to playing the race card. Another Romanian editor has even expressed his embarrassment at this behaviour. Codrin.B's comments, which address editors and not edits, have no relevance to the matter at hand, and the suggestion that the burden for his edit warring, canvassing and sockpuppetry lies not with him but on other people's behaviour is absolutely ridiculous. WilliamH (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Questionable behavior by Leifern

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

An established editor and an IP editor had a dispute over material in an article, with the IP editor deleting large portions, and in general, not being particularly constructive. The dispute got a bit heated. The established editor moved the disputed material to Wikisource. The issue has now been resolved. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I came across Leifern (talk · contribs) when I saw some strange edits to Jewish deportees from Norway during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) of which he is the original author. This appears to be his pet project, because he has been vehemently opposing any sort of drastic good faith changes to the page, which has included removing a list of every single Norwegian Jew who was deported by the Nazis as part of the Holocaust, as well as their date of birth, the boat they left Norway on, the concentration camp they were sent to, the day they died, what they did for a living before the deportation, and their age (this has since been shunted off to WikiSource) as well as the removal of unsourced information that he claims is sourced.

While WP:OWN issues are not a sole reason for reporting, he has been fighting a single IP who came across the page and sought to clean it up. He has been repeatedly accusing this IP of being a revisionist (I would provide other diffs, but they include the restoration of the list and have crashed web browsers). He also told me that I should be ashamed at myself for agreeing with the IP on the utility of the list on this project because I am Jewish.

While I understand that this is not exactly a happy subject, I severely doubt that Leifern should be accusing people of trying to rewrite history just because that they think an article's content is not up to par, nor should he attempt to guilt me into agreeing with him on these matters just because we share an ancestry.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what your ancestry or mine has to do with the issue. You are the only one who has brought ancestry into the discussion. I think you should be ashamed of yourself as a Wikipedia editor for siding with such blatant attempts at revising history. As for the charge of WP:OWN, I agreed to move a list that was entirely within Wikipedia guidelines to wikisource, once another editor pointed out the option and conceded that your reasons for deleting the list had no merit. The IP is first tagging every sentence that disagrees with his/her POV and then deleting entire sections. If you look at the vandalism, you will see that his/her agenda is pretty obvious. To charge me with bad behavior for confronting him/her with it is pretty lame. But hey, if you think editors should spend their time endlessly footnoting indisputable historical facts to placate Holocaust revisionists, you're entitled to spend your time that way. Meanwhile, I had to report to Norwegian journalists who wanted to use the article that it is actively being vandalized. Leifern (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Accusing other editor's of being "revisionists" is simply not on. GiantSnowman 15:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as it's potentially a rather nasty smear where the Holocaust is concerned. Having said that, looking at the article's recent editing history, the IP editor does not appear to have been editing in a very constructive way. I would suggest semi-protecting it for a limited period to encourage the IP editor to make more use of the talk page to reach agreement with the article's other editors. Prioryman (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution is at WP:DR causa sui (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This is an issue of Leifern's behavior, which includes WP:OWNership and accusing others of being Holocaust "revisionists", which I assume is just a step below being a Holocaust denier.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "Others" refers to one and only anonymous editor, and I think I am on firm footing in pointing out that he/she has consistently been deleting content that provides historical substance to the holocaust in Norway. And he/she has done so on the flimsiest of evidence. I have responded to criticism against the edits and have made compromises based on reasonable suggestions. I think the WP:OWN charges are completely without merit, and though I agree that the accusation is harsh, I believe it is warranted in this case. Others may disagree, and I am ok with that. I think that Ryulong's actions here border on wikilawyering, but he probably doesn't know better. Leifern (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It does not matter who you are calling a "Holocaust revisionist". The fact of the matter is that it should not be something you bandy about. And saying that "[I[ probably [don't] know better" is most certainly another WP:CIVIL violation, considering that I've been on this site just as long as you have, and was an administrator for a short period of that time. I brought this issue to this board because of the multiple problems that are arising from your interactions with the IP editor (who as far as I can tell is acting in good faith), your accusations of vandalism, and your allegations that I should be ashamed for siding with the IP editor for whatever reason. This is not a collegiate manner that Wikipedia seeks to encourage. Edits to articles should be taken on their merit, and the fact that this Norwegian IP is trying to improve the page by removing what he sees is not relevant for coverage on this project, and requesting more sources where none were to start with (as well as removing that massive footnote which took up most of a paragraph).—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Ryulong, I think you are giving your own judgment too much credit, and mine too little. At the very least, my take on the IP's actions and motivation had basis in the way he/she behaved, and I have provided examples both to you and to him/her. In addition, I am familiar with the way Holocaust revisionism takes place in Norway, and I have to assume you aren't. You tried to uphold these - in my opinion destructive - edits by citing guidelines that simply weren't applicable. After we arrive at a compromise solution, you drag me into this forum. By saying that you don't know better, I am assuming good faith. Leifern (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2011 (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.

Ongoing personal attacks by Phoenix and Winslow

Unresolved

Despite frequent requests to stop such behaviour, Phoenix and Winslow has been continually referring to and misrepresenting a past dispute with me on another article as a means to discredit not only my comments but those of other editors who support me in the unrelated Ugg boots article and the current noticeboard discussion regarding that article.

• WLRoss
• Phoenix and Winslow
• Bilby
• Daveosaurus

Several of the edits in question [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118] and [119].

The instance that prompted coming to this board was this post on an admins Talk page on November 27, where it was particularly inappropriate.

I have posted asking Phoenix and Winslow to refrain from bringing up the past dispute to discredit me here and here.

Bilby took the matter to the Wikiquette assistance board on October 11, where Phoenix and Winslow was advised to strike out the comments and refrain from further mention of the previous dispute.[120] Phoenix and Winslow did not post in reply but a SPA anon who always supports Phoenix and Winslow’s edits did and not only repeated the accusations but made further accusations that had previously been discredited on another board. Phoenix and Winslow ignored this request to stop the behaviour and continued bringing up the dispute.

Daveosaurus has posted asking Phoenix and Winslow to refrain from making these personal attacks here. On Phoenix and Winslow’s Talk page. And again here.

I previously posted this case on November 27. Despite receiving notification, Phoenix and Winslow decline to reply and the case was archived (728) after 24h. I have brought it back from the archive due to the behaviour continuing in this post. Wayne (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) Wayne: I also asked you to stop allowing yourself to be baited by P&W's behaviour but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

Admins: the underlying issue here seems to be that Wayne is Australian, and P&W has an aggressively disparaging attitude towards anything Australian, including people. See numerous comments along the lines of "intimidated by the massive wall of the United Australian WP:OWN Defense Force." [121]; "edit warring and Talk page remarks by various Australian editors, there is still a large group of editors who believe that Australia is more important than any other country" [122]; "swayed by an AU/NZ cultural bias" [123]; "Not outside of Australia and New Zealand, where 99.5% of the population of the world resides. Please try to overcome your cultural bias, Bilby, and see the worldwide perspective." [124]. (These diffs all just from the last few days). This has all been in the context of an article about an Australian popular-culture item (Ugg boots) where P&W (and puppets) have for over a year been edit warring in an attempt to turn the article into an advertisement for an American manufacturer. I do not believe that someone who displays such attitudes towards Australia and Australians really has any business editing articles about Australian content, let alone edit warring (edit warring primarily on his/her part has led to the article currently being locked) armed with a mind-set that sees any actual Australian as being guilty of "cultural bias" when said Australian writes on an Australian topic. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid being baited but he has been doing this for over a year now and although I do get hot under the collar at times I have still refrained from attacking Phoenix and Winslow's editing at the other article and generally AGF when dealing with him. However, Phoenix and Winslow is now attacking me in replies to other editors[125] and by extention attacking them as well.

• Quote: six people with a cultural bias, who are owning the article, and have adopted as their new de facto spokesman a person with a long history of fringe theory advocacy and POV pushing, particularly evident where admins stubbed a lengthy article that was loaded with his misrepresentations.
  Despite Phoenix and Winslow taking the edits to three different boards none of my edits were found to contain misrepresentations. My long history of edits is open to admins to check and they will find nothing to support Phoenix and Winslow's claim. But how many editors reading his false claims will check? He is also making tendentious claims to support his edits:
• Quote: At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers:
  In fact this was over a year ago, it was removed as trivia not POV and none of the Australian editors objected. But how many editors will check?
• Quote: At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed,[126] and has previously remarked on the advocacy of fringe theories by the opposing de facto spokesman on other articles.
  Mongo, an editor canvassed by Phoenix and Winslow, actually supported the version of the article he "thought" Phoenix and Winslow had proposed. He made a mistake, he didn't realise it was the version after Phoenix and Winslow's edits had been reverted that he was commenting on. Phoenix and Winslow also brings up my 911 editing again despite no evidence I have ever been an "advocate" of anything...but it still sticks because editors will not bother to check whether the claim is true or not.

This behaviour has been ongoing for a year and must be stopped but no admin seems willing to do anything. Wayne (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wayne...I'm thinking that all of you should find another article to edit and go your own way...otherwise this will end up at arbcom and probably result in topic bans for you and Phoenix and Winslow. The last time you two argued was over that Franklin child prostition nonsense and luckily some neutral editors came in there and cleaned that disaster up...there the editors cited BLP issues but this matter is one regarding trademarks and a possible misuse of Wikipedia for advertising. My advice to you and Phoenix is to walk away.MONGO 17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The ongoing problem is that the two are completely different articles, with no significant elements in common. Yet Phoenix and Winslow uses the previous "win" over Wayne to discredit Wayne's input into the current debate. While there is something to be said for both editors staying away from each other, Wayne's contributions should be taken on their own merit, rather than this constant referral to how Wayne was defeated before. The ugg boots article presents a difficult environment for editors, and Phoenix and Winslow's approach is making it more difficult. I don't think this is at the level of a block or any serious administrative action yet, but perhaps something can be done to tone down the situation, as I would rather not see it escalate. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mongo. Who do you mean by "all of you"? The whole of Wikipedia? Note that as far as I can remember, every non-involved set of eyes who has looked into the background of that article (even I was one, once) has seen that P&W&P is editing against consensus and against Wikipedia principles (most obviously against WP:V). It would be detrimental to the integrity of Wikipedia to abandon the article to what amounts to nothing more than spam.

Wayne. If you seriously want something done about this I have had a quick look at the available options and it looks to me like you should bring this up either as a request for comment on his/her conduct (this would need another user who has tried to solve this problem to co-certify it), the dispute resolution noticeboard| (this would concentrate on resolving the Ugg boots situation). I wouldn't recommend the Wikiquette assistance noticeboard as its instructions state "Avoid initiating a request if: ... It is a request for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties". Either of those would be preferable rather than subjecting the poor admins to Yet Another Boganwear Flamewar. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Aggressive POV pushing by Verman1

For a few weeks now, an editor by the name of "Verman1" has been pushing his point of view aggressively and editing warring on articles related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh. He has been trying to add a foreign language (Azerbaijani) in the lead to a number of city articles Yerevan, Gyumri, Artik, and Kars, but has gone about doing it without properly elucidating his position. Indeed, he has copy-pasted the same explanation on the talk pages of these articles and used them as the sole basis for the justification of the inclusion of the names (see here, here, and here). In my discussions on the talk pages of these articles I have told him multiple times that the simple, one-time and temporary presence of a people is not enough grounds to include a foreign language in the lead, lest we start adding the Ukrainian alphabet to Brighton Beach or the Italian to New York City - all to no avail and little interest or engagement by Verman1.

In fact, he has unilaterally overturned a consensus established on the Kars page, and went ahead and removed a name that had been agreed to be left in the lead (Armenian) and replaced it with two languages that were agreed to be left out (Azerbaijani and Turkish, even though the article is already spelled in the modern Turkish orthography). I have asked him to undo his revert his edits and to start a new conversation, also to no avail. Add to this his long history of POV-driven edits, seen in his most recent edits on the Askeran clash and Daşkəsən. It should be noted that he was blocked for six months from editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan in March 2011 (see here) for virtually the same reasons (namely, hostility toward Armenian-related articles; see [127]), but ever since he returned in September, the same troublesome edits have continued unabated. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside view: The User has clearly not taken a hint and I recommend an indefinite block. PaoloNapolitano 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion that concludes the alternate spellings/languages shouldn't be in the article lead, but Verman has a history of sanctions related to this topic. That fits a broader picture of tenacious editing. There's also surprisingly little lack of actual discussion on talk pages (way too much discussion in edit summaries). I'd like to see the discussion about the alternate names in the title (I'm unsure how established the consensus is). Any additional edit warring by Verman should be met with blocks though. Shadowjams (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Per my comments below it seems like we agree. I completely agree with your opinion on the ratio of talk page edits to WP:REVTALK. Still, I'd like to stress that "prior convictions" ought not weigh against an editor unless what they are doing is shown to be actually disruptive or against consensus. For example, sometimes editors with a "rap sheet" will later make good contributions that are opposed disruptively, and the disruption caused by the opposition will be attributed to them. We don't ban people just because someone objected to what they did. causa sui (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After a quick look I don't know that the responses to the diffs you provided are a clear enough consensus against what he is doing to merit an indef for WP:IDHT. In general I would not want to indef a user for good-faith edits before a clear consensus against what they are doing has been formed for them to edit against. I'm not at all familiar with this dispute so if there is another discussion about which I am unaware, please let me know. Barring that, an article content RFC may be a better idea, followed by WP:RFC/U if he edits against any consensus there. causa sui (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Does seem to be a "remove Armenian or insert Azaerbajani" modus. But on some of the pages these disputes are long running, so I'm reluctant to support precipitate action. Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

In response to Shadowjams: at least for the case of Kars, the results of a consensus can be read here. This was maintained until very recently when Verman decided to remove the Armenian name solely because there are no more Armenians living there - which is a very curious excuse considering that the Armenians were expelled in 1920 when the city fell under Turkish control. Invitations to Verman1 to return to those comments or at least initiate a discussion and a quotation of Wikipedia naming conventions are met with the following, rambling response: "Can you please explain why Armenian naming should come first and only, as you did such edits like in here ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). Seems like you clearly want to ignore naming rule of Wikipedia, not only in this article, but also in articles Yerevan, Gyumri and Artik. Case of Russian and Armenian namings are clearly irrelevant, if so, then we should apply Turkish names to all former Ottomans cities and regions." Like I said, he shows little inclination to play nice with others and if I were to revert the article to the consensus version I wouldn't be surprised if he would revert me and not bother to discuss it any further.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What Rich says is quite true and I don't even pretend to know much about the background of the content dispute. But I don't think it's controversial to say that at the very least there needs to be a meaningful discussion from Verman before implementing these changes widespread. I'm not foreclosing the possibility that more should be done, but discussion, and having someone else agree, would be the bare minimum the requirement. Any violation of that I think is a clear case for some sort of sanction. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Verman1 should be notified that these articles fall under the arbcom rulings. Also, his userpage is worth noting. Nationalists make my eyes hurt. --Blackmane (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To say the true, I don't clearly understand which rule I violated. I would be very grateful if someone specify this. Some users like MarshallBagramyan accuse me of pushing POV, because I added alternative spelling to some cities. But there is still an ongoing discussion, no consensus was reached. I am really suspicious that my opponent is simply trying to win those discussions by getting block on me. Regarding Kars article, I have been brought to this case from this warning highlighting MarshallBagramyan's ethnocentric POV edits. --Verman1 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely the rule you violated, Verman1. While "there is still an ongoing discussion" or even worse: without engaging in a discussion, you make multiple changes and try to push your point of view by means of edit-warring. --Vacio (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I did engage in discussion and still doing this, you can simply see that in relevant articles' talk page. Instead of spilling all guilt on me, it is worth looking on edit history of user MarshallBagramyan, who has already been topic-banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan pages several times and faced with 1RR per week restriction. Specifically on Yerevan article, he is trying to suppress information that Yerevan for example had a huge native Azerbaijani community and was in majority over Armenians. --Verman1 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

List of articles vandalised

Resolved

 – Done, for now. 28bytes (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this list. It appears to be a list of articles vandalised. I fixed a few by hand, but it needs somebody who is familiar with editing tools to do so semi-automatically. (I tried to put this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but could not get it past the bot.) HairyWombat 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll clean them up. 28bytes (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, for now. There are a few bots (including mine) and a few editors that keep an eye on this and clean it up when necessary, but occasionally it does get backed up. 28bytes (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks at User talk:Bubblegumcrunch

Resolved

 – Indef'd, talk page access revoked by Bushranger causa sui (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bubblegumcrunch (talk · contribs) was blocked for their repeated personal attacks on other editors, myself included, for the subjects of their ire's participation in an AfD. Please see their Talk page. Is that screed an appropriate use of a Talk page? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not a constructive use of a Talk page, but I don't see that it violates any policy. Stepping back, though, from the irony of using a Wikipedia Talk page to lambaste Wikipedia, to me the more important issue is what can we expect from this kind of editor and whether his views of the project are sufficiently destructive to justify preventing him from editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, it is - and, given the user's edit history, the faint smell of sock is around it too (and not just the sock they admit to, either.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw this a few weeks ago. As the subject of the rant, I say meh. Not the worst that's ever been said of me.--v/r - TP 23:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you were the only subject of the rant, I can understand why it wouldn't bother you much, but my belief is your just a component (no offense :-) ), and that the rant is directed at the encyclopedia. This is the worst of it: "I, for one, will never again look at another Wikipedia page for as long as I live. Also, I am reporting, in detail, this fiasco to everyone I know, and I know a lot of people. I am making sure the whole world knows what a catastrophe this joint is, and how little they should trust the process that leads to the writing, editing and maintaining of every single page in this place." Why should we keep an editor like this, and why should we host this kind of thing?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what he's saying about me? He claims I colluded with a vandal to get the article deleted. He claims to know who I am. He doesn't, of course, and I never even heard of this guy till I saw the edits in the Recent Changes. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Block him, blank the talk page, and remove talk page access to stop him from soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm across the barney on the AfD page, and I've copped a little stick from the editor myself. Nothing worth worrying about - very small beer. I'd written a few paragraphs gently defending this editor, his undeniable passion and his right to maintain his rage, and I was thinking of contesting the speedy that has recently been placed on their talk page. Then I re-read a few posts, looked at his history of blanking posts, reminded myself that the editor has never once in 2 years edited outside of their area of obsession ... and replaced those pars with this. So I'll merely suggest that admins don't forget to also consider his IP, User talk:24.2.119.41.

The editor is right in that not all editors 'voting' keep were sockpuppets - many were in fact meatpuppets. Which, as I explained to him on his talk page, is a subset of sockpuppet ... so the user turns out to be wrong. There you go. :) I don't know what outcome MotB wants from this ANI, and I'm not convinced that there aren't some personal issues at play - but it doesn't matter, really. I have to ask, though - what is the outcome sought? Colonel Tom 07:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

24.2.119.41 (talk · contribs) reverted the blanking of the page, and has put the exact same personal attacks on their Talk page, which I have deleted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty obviously the IP. And now this. Given everything, I think we can agree this chap is WP:NOTHERE. Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please indef block Bubblegumcrungh for repeatedly vandalizing my Talk page, and long term block the IP. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alredy indef'd with autoblock - and they blanked the block notice from their talk page. C'est la vie! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They reposted their screed; talk page access revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And little of value was lost. Good block. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Footnote: Apparently somehow the autoblock didn't catch 24.2.119.41, who has now been blocked for a month for block evasion and reposting that screed on his talk page... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Newcomers at Addictive personality?

• Addictive personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure what's happening on this article, but it appears that several socks have popped up and started editing it at once. It's not obvious vandalism.... Perhaps self-promotion? Could an admin take a look? NickCT (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just notified some of the new editors who have been working on that page of this discussion. One of them referred to the group as "team members" here. Perhaps it is a school assignment of some kind? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, has all the signs of an educational assignment. Poor schmucks--imagine the edit conflicts they'll run into. I'll paste a template on the talk page if it isn't already there and start welcoming the editors. Really, we should know, though. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like they're trying to raise it to 'good article' status. A laudable aim. Colonel Tom 04:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Ooh, this would be a great launching point for a community discussion on some sort of policy for these types of things. Collaborative works or school projects, that is. I'm running into more and more people who have been given the task of 'improving' a Wikipedia article by a professor; more often than not, said professor has no clue how Wikipedia works, and it can be very frustrating having to piece things together yourself when you're being marked and have a deadline. Village pump, anyone? m.o.p 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it says on the talk page (dated sometime in October) that they're in an intro psychology class. LadyofShalott 05:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the diff LoS waS looking for was this.UnbelievableError (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Typo'd last try. Here's the link with the group intro... [[128]]UnbelievableError (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2011

Pretty cool how commenting here draws folks to everything I ever edited. Fix it all, folks. I believe strongly in every edit I ever made but won't battle to keep any of them. It does say something about the mentality of the regulars at an/i, though, that I picked up stalkers/watchers in the first evening of posting here. Strange that I was only trying to provide a diff....UnbelievableError (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What was your original account name? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't understand what makes you think that, to justify questioning anyone's mentality within reason. Most of your last 50 contribs are (top) marked, and your watchers total is "–", meaning you have less than 30, so you can't even know if it's 1 or 29. And your page views from today won't display a total until tomorrow, I think. Bit, uhh.. presumptuous to assume everyone regular is a "stalker", don't you think? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond my Ken: This is my original account. I also want to apologize to you for the remark above. I will strike it with this edit. It was a terrible reaction to being reverted for the first time. I also apologize to the others here for misuse of this board.UnbelievableError (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: You are absolutely correct.UnbelievableError (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Send them to Wikipedia:School and university projects?

Also: Instructions for students and Instructions for teachers and lecturers. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Start by {{welcome}}-ing every new editor. If they are having any difficulties, give them kind and patient guidance. We should welcome everybody who wants to participate and assume that newcomers will make all sorts of mistakes. This is an opportunity, not a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I also am dealing with a teacher/student in regards to this article creation. I also feel that this is an opportunity, not a problem. All we need to do is help these new Wikipedian teachers/students on the DOs and DON'Ts. Planetary ChaosTalk 21:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disparaging comment

Could an administrator please consider removing the diff for this disparaging remark left on someone's talk page? Thanks. Calabe1992 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry, could have done that earlier. User:Drmies 23:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Strontium-9000

He says he's been "fighting censorship on Wikipedia since 2001". As I think a previous editor has been banned for adding his anti-circumcision rants, I thought I'd check here to see whether he should just be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

QUACK--v/r - TP 19:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Should also be blocked for uploading that image to commons and spamming talkpage links to it. Clearly does not intend to be a constructive editor even if they aren't a sock. Monty₈₄₅ 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gone.--v/r - TP 19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It might make a difference if the previous user was blocked or banned. If banned, all his edits should be reverted. If blocked, all his edits may be reverted, but, potentially, they should be looked at individually. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked this editor on the disruption in his own edits. I sense serious quacking with the "since 2001" and the creation of a user page as the first edit but I don't know who the master is so I couldn't tell you whether they are blocked or banned. As far as this editor goes, using Wikipedia to promote your cause and disruptively posting it to several talk pages with blinking images is disruptive enough for me to block without a warning. This is a single purpose account as far as I am concerned.--v/r - TP 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: It's a  Confirmed sock of User:Joe Circus, and I also found a sleeper that I shan't bother giving the light of day here. WilliamH (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Fighting censorship since 2001"? That also means he's been getting blocked since 2001. Is there some sort of 10-year award we could give that guy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Golden Whale? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. The prince of whales.

The Fighting Irish are going to adopt him as a mascot. He'll be the Humpback of Notre Dame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HEAR HEAR! I sei! Blackmane (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio or not?

I made this revert the other day; I believe that the guideline that User:SilkTork is invoking does not apply, that WP:ELNO does, and that the link is a true copyvio. I got this message on my talk page today trying to convince me that WP:ELYES#2 actually encourages links such as this. I will let the current edit stand while this discussion takes place. We've had a spate of dubious links to sites in music articles from users in Eastern Europe lately. Radiopathy •talk• 23:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, here's the thing. The page they link to seems to indicate that it's OK to link to; I'll take Elen's word for it (though I'd love to hear what Moonriddengirl has to say). On the other hand, just because we legally can doesn't mean we should, of course, or that it's OK per our policy.

  I'll tell you something else: the Euro-pop-shit I'm listening to now is NOT Live at Leeds. The website is in Romanian, and after randomly clicking around I finally got the actual album--there it is. The sound quality is awful--"Can't Explain" sounds better through the speaker of my iPod than it does here. So no, I don't think we should link to this site. As far as I'm concerned, it's a spam link. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tend to agree with removal. It would be fine if it was The Who's own site. I don't believe the practice of linking to sites which are only available to certain jurisdictions (and not others) is at all encouraged. We have enough linking to dubious content on YouTube, this is just bad form. The audio quality argument would swing it for me even if the arguments were finely balanced. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• As a collector of most The Who vinyls, CDs, and DVD live gigs, that is Live at Leeds, only the lack of bottom end makes me feel like it's a 64 Kbps rip. Either that, or John was taking the day off. Sounds awful without his bass resonating through the songs. As for the general low-quality of the recording. Come on.. 1970 was still tape recording, and I don't think this is off the Deluxe Remastered Edition, either. Maybe the first standard CD release. Personally, I prefer vinyl. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• From my talk page, and Radiopathy's: "WP:ELYES#2 encourages a link to a copy of the work in question, provided such a link leads to a responsible and legal site". SilkTork hasn't come here yet to comment, but let me point out then that this point in the EL guidelines suggests the following: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the Links normally to be avoided criteria apply." Now, I don't have to look at this long list of Links normally to be avoided, since it is clear to me that a musical score is simply not the same as a recording. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying if it is of encyclopaedic value linking to an external site that legally hosts a recording that is topic of an article, so I have raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_that_ELYES.232_includes_recordings. I have already checked that the site is not a copyvio - see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/September#Radio3net. I'm aware from discussions elsewhere that the radio station pays a streaming licence and appropriate royalties, though it's worth me getting in touch with them directly on behalf of Wikipedia to get an OTRS ticket, and I'll do that today. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Joseph (father of moses) - vandalism/article renamed

Billybobjengs has moved the Saint Joseph article to Joseph father of Moses. I'm not sure how to fix the problem without doing more damage to the article. It also looks as though Billybobjengs has received a couple of warnings for vandalism. Thanks. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the page move mess. Will be blocking presently. --Jayron32 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Everything is back where it belongs. I have indef blocked the account, as they haven't done anything constructive at Wikipedia since they registerred. --Jayron32 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - should I have placed this notice somewhere other than here? If there's a system in place I'll happily use it. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here works. WP:AIV may have been good too, but this may have been complex enough vandalism that this board is more suited to it. But if this had come up at WP:AIV it probably would have been dealt with as well. --Jayron32 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

NESARA

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.

---

Rather than continuing to revert a new editor's replacement of the article with an HTML rant about the fictional NESARA, and violating 3RR, I've decided to semi-protect the article. If anyone objects, they can reverse it, but be sure to watch the article and block Sirianet‎ (talk · contribs) when he violates WP:3RR, as he's sure to do, eventually. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin Arthur Rubin is clearly WP:INVOLVED. First, AR reverted, calling it vandalism using Twinkle (in violation of Twinkle rules). Then AR reverted again without explanation and again and then semi-protected the article to his preferred version. I can begin to list the policies, guidelines and ArbCom rulings that this violates. Very poor judgement on the part of AR, calling into question his fitness as an admin. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's involved, but the crap that he is keeping from the article serves the larger purpose of protecting the encyclopedia from kooks. The fact that he is involved is why he brought the issue here to tell people about it. I think Sirianet should be trouted at least and blocked if the HTML-based diatribe shows up again. Wack-job screeds we don't need. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom has been extremely clear (see Administrators involved in disputes, 2009 ArbCom ruling) that administrators must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Admins must not engage in administrative action while in a content dispute or otherwise WP:INVOLVED. There are several thousand administrators available, nearly all of whom are not-involved. It is likely that this needs to be escalated to ArbCom and Arthur Rubin's administrative bit needs to be removed. He clearly cannot be trusted with it. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were several thousand admins available. Also I don't believe that replacing the content of the entire article counts as a content dispute. Vandalism is the more likely description. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Nah, by listing the matter here for oversight by other admins Arthur has ensured that there is no prospect of his gaining an editorial advantage though his action which was designed to protect an article against vandalism. If it would make you happy I can always remove his semi and replace it with my own but that would be process for process sake and rather dull. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care who reverted it – the article most certainly was not going to stay in this state. Moreover, I would like to know (Teh Truth aside) who we is. –MuZemike 07:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if any admin were to revert this or semi-protect the article, they would be accused of being involved because they are part of a grand Judaeo-Masonic New World Order conspiracy trying to suppress the truth! As Time Cube shows, many thousands of kilobytes of copy-and-pasted HTML is a guarantee that the person is telling vital truths about the world. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cf. The Paranoid Style in American Politics --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my ... that was one of the most interesting screed's I've read in a while. Comparing it to garbage in the same area, it makes the redemption movement look almost sane. Wow. And they had the balls to complain about the page being protected. Ravensfire (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I believe you just used a greengrocers' apostrophe (screed's). You naughty boy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But, I really like(?) using, punctuation! Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin Arthur Rubin has been blocked numerous times for edit-warring. Now he uses his admin abilities while in an edit-war. When will this be addressed? Observing the Admins (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone's sock get lost in the laundry? Who's sock is this? Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the entire article that Arthur Rubin reverted out was a copyvio (see [129] for evidence of the multiple incarnations of this delusional screed), he could have reverted it three times, or thirty, or three hundred, and still complied with policy. Garbage like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, end of story, and any attempt to make this look like some sort of edit-warring by Arthur Rubin is facile. I suggest that someone closes this thread as requiring no action beyond thanking Arthur Rubin for his actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2011 (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.

Clear breach of WP:LEGAL

Resolved

 – Blocked per NLT Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In this edit. While it is very clear that the user should be blocked pending a resolution, and the initial edit reverted, I would nonetheless appreciate if a third party would evaluate the merits of the edit to see whether any reliably sourced, positive information can be salvaged. —WFC— 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't see the threat there. The claim is that the sources were libelous, but no legal action was threatened. I have reverted the edit and left an explanation on the talk page, with an injunction to the editor to choose their words more carefully. Drmies (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• You know what, I'm blind: I totally missed the first half of their summary. Someone please look over my shoulder and take (more) appropriate action, if need be. I need sleep, apparently. Drmies (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is clear implicit legal threat so I have blocked with some advice [130] about withdrawing the threat or working with OTRS if they are not prepared to do so... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. —WFC— 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Those Green Bay Lions, I'm telling ya. If only there were a way to beat Jim McCarthy, Andrew Rodgers, Ndamukong Hawk, Donald Davis and company... –MuZemike 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going to end up on IR for a hyperextended joke ligament. :) MSJapan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there is still a significant difference in the article now vs. just before Green Bay Tigers starting screwing around with it.[131] I don't know enough about it to determine which is the "right" version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to be too picky, but the GB Lions are the Great Britain national rugby league team. There are other meanings of the initials GB y'all know... --Jayron32 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That was understood. We were just funnin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well its obvious there are issues with the article. If someone who knows about whatever sport this is could look at it, it would be great. Otherwise I did advise the poster how to approach OTRS... Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. Sleep was good. Better if cats don't start caterwauling at 1:30, but who's complaining. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the overall balance of the article is still not right, but all potentially objectionable statements are backed up by solid sources, and it's far more balanced than when I first touched it. GBLions could well be a good person to help with the rebalancing. Although even if the comment that prompted this thread were retracted, I think OTRS would be the best route, as GBLions appears to have a direct connection to the subject. —WFC— 15:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated wikihounding by User:174.99.127.20

This editor has been Wikihounding me for some time. He had stopped for a while but has started again, butting into two conversations with the clear intent to confront me and inhibit my work with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. As they are an IP editor and do not have a watchlist, they must be repeatedly checking my contributions, which to me is very stalkerish.

• User talk:Rodneyorpheus#Religious categories
• User talk:Creatcher#Personal attacks

I cannot notify the IP because they have a notice on their talk page asking me not to post there. Could someone else do it please? Yworo (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding? I left simple messages on two editors' talk pages. I even agreed with Yworo on one of them. And speaking of "hounding", or "stalking", or whatever Yworo calls it, he has a vendetta against me and has a history of false reports and accusations. A few days ago he was following me around editing every article I did almost immediately after I made my edit. It got so bad, I selected several articles at random and made minor edits, which he faithfully edited right after I did. Here are the diffs:

[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]
[139]
174.99.127.20 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

First, none of that is current. Your actions are current. Second, those were all vaiid improvements to the articles. None of those involve bad edits or deliberate confrontation on talk pages, like you are currently doing. Put down the weapon and back away slowly from your computer. Yworo (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Current has nothing to do with it. Yworo seems to think rules and policies apply to everyone except him. Whether you followed me today or a week or a month ago is irrelevant. You deliberately followed me to articles selected at random. If that's not evidence of trying to send a user a message that I am following you, I don't know what is. And none of my edits are bad edits. "Put down the weapon and back away slowly from your computer"??? What in the hell are you talking about Yworo? Please get over this obsession of going after me and other IPs and new editors. Yworo, all of us who are trying to improve Wikipedia have enough to deal with without someone carrying on a vendetta against us over some minor disagreement from many months ago. Please just go about your business here and let the rest of us do the same. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to leave you alone, but you won't let me. Stop interfering in my conversations. And yes AN/I is only for current issues. Any admin will confirm that. Yworo (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And stop making false accusations and false reports (such as this one) against me. And stop trying to discourage IPs and new users from editing. I think I've made my point here. I'm not indulging Yworo in this nonsense any further. If any admin or other editor besides Yworo wishes to discuss this further with me, please feel free to message me on my talk page. I will not be following this discussion any further on this page. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Every time you butt into my conversation, I will file another report. Grow up. Yworo (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• First, why don't you both just agree not to interact with each other at all? Seriously, this is starting to sound like an episode of Judge Judy. Second, Yworo, why have you placed a sock puppet banner on the IPs user page stating a concern that he may be a sock puppet of an "unknown banned user"? Such a statement seems absurd, unless there's some part of SPI policy which states that a user you have a disagreement with may be a sock puppet based solely on the fact that you disagree with them. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did really suspect them of being a sock of a banned user and had opened an SPI, but simply forgot to remove the notice when it was closed inconclusively. My bad. Yworo (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to let Yworo know that because the behaviour is current, the past history of reasonably recent events is therefore completely within the scope of this report. In other words, diffs from a couple of weeks ago are evidence that led us to where we are today ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am happy to agree not to interact with this user if they will do the same. I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with them since November 27. And even before that my edits to the same articles have generally not had anything to do with their edits, not reverts, not changes to their wording, but fixing completely different issues that needed to be fixed. Yworo (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough about the SPI banner. Try to be careful when throwing sock allegations around though! I've let the IP know on his talk page that you're willing to avoid him if he's willing to return the favour Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this guy has been avoiding scrutiny for years by editing only from dynamic IPs. Usually there is a reason for that. There have been multiple AN/I reports in the past from other parties. For example:

• Anonymous disruptive user: Shows continuity of disruption from 65.41.234.70 (talk · contribs) to 71.77.21.198 (talk · contribs)
• User:71.77.21.198: includes observation that "You're exploiting the fact that IP-hoppers can't be watched as such"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive607#User:71.77.21.198_Part_-2: adds another IP, 71.77.20.26 (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps somewhat to help understand the issue I have with them. Yworo (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to respond here. But first, I need to point out that Yworo presents one side of the story in his links above, and (as usual) conveniently leaves out his problem behaviors. Yworo has a long history of going after IPs and new editors, frequently discouraging them from editing. In response to Yworo's telling a new user (not me) to "stop making stupid arguments", the user filed a complaint about incivility here and notified Yworo here. Yworo failed to respond to the complaint, except to remove the notice from his talk page with comment "remove pointless drama-queen posts. Yworo appears to have been successful in driving away that new editor, who has not edited since.
Yworo is fond of creating his own policies to intimidate IPs and new users. He falsely told me that I had been ordered by admin Kim Dent-Brown not to post warnings about policy violations on his talk page [140]. He repeatedly told me that I had been forbidden to make such legitimate warnings, until of course Kim told him otherwise [141]. Regarding the inappropriate sockpuppet notices mentioned above, Yworo selectively quoted a policy to tell me that I was forbidden to remove any sockpuppet notice, conveniently leaving out the word "confirmed" sockpuppet notices [142]. When I called him on his deceptiveness, he issued me a personal attack warning [143]. Yworo also told me I was required to register in order to edit, but as we all know, a long-term principle of Wikipedia is that no one is required to register. And when Yworo gets mad at an editor, he feels that he has a right strike that editors comments from a talk page, again making up a policy to try to justify such behavior. That got so bad that other editors were pointing out that he is not entitled to do so, such has here. The list could go on, but that would be a waste of everyone's time. If you need more confirmation, just search "Yworo" on complaint boards and you'll find Yworo's pattern of going after IPs and new editors.
Now, to the question at hand. I will agree, as Yworo has, "not to interact with" Yworo. But I will not agree to sit passively if Yworo again begins making false warnings, false accusations, and false reports about me. I am entitled to defend myself. I also am entitled to encourage IPs and new users to continue editing if Yworo continues to target them unreasonably. Now, I again will not indulge Yworo's behavior on this page by responding to him. If anyone else wishes to message me, I welcome it. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for pointing out my many faults. Sometimes I'm grumpy. Frequently because you have been hounding me. I've been trying to be less abrasive, but you just won't let it go. It's over. Go chill. Yworo (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask anyone else besides Yworo, doesn't it seem he has already violated his agreement to not interact with me? 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please close this thread. Obviously, I meant outside this AN/I thread. Asking someone not to respond on AN/I after they have just posted multiple paragraphs of accusations as part of their "agreement not to interact" is ridiculous. One could just as well say 174 violated his agreement in the very process of making it. And I'm not talking to him now, I'm talking to the other respondents to this thread, who have been very helpful. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask anyone who wishes to close this discussion to wait a while to see if there are other comments. I would accept any admin's decision to close, of course, but I don't think it should be closed in response to a request by one of the parties being discussed. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR is around the corner, first door on the left. There's WP:RfC/U down the hall from there if that doesn't work. Doc talk 01:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox riddle

• User:Miduong/sandbox
• User:Nathompson890/sandbox
• User:Milangberg/sandbox
• User:Sedickinson/sandbox
• User:Mekrystelwhittemore/sandbox
• User:Ohscott9/sandbox

Not sure what's going on here - six new accounts have created the same sandbox item within one minute of each other. Hmm… (note - I've only notified one of the accounts, I have a feeling more would be redundant) The Interior (Talk) 20:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just a copy of Aldol. Not entirely sure what is going on, but this smells like a school project. Drop one of them a friendly, personal, handwritten note which asks if they are part of a school project, and if so, what the name of the teacher/professor's account at Wikipedia is. --Jayron32 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've left a note with Miduong. The Interior (Talk) 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That user's userpage does say "My username is miduong and I am working on a chemistry article for an Advanced Organic Chemistry class at Vassar College." Just sayin'. --Jayron32 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

They all have identical statements on their userpages, differing only in username and capitalization. Looks like the instructor was coaching them in class on exactly what to do. LadyofShalott 03:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Kolins and footballer nationality categories

I'll be as quick yet concise as I can, as I'm preparing to go away for a few days with work - basically Kolins (talk · contribs) has been brought to ANI before for his removal of nationality categories from articles on footballers. At the last ANI report, I linked to what I saw as consensus from WP:FOOTY members, but which wasn't deemed enough. So I started another discussion, at which I feel a stronger consensus has been established - basically that you do not 'lose' a nationality by changing your international representative nation. Born + raised in England but eligible to play for Wales due to your grandmother being from Cwmbran, and you make an international appearance for your adopted nation? Hey, you're considered English and Welsh! Kolins continues to ignore this, and won't respond to ANI, his talk page, or any of the multiple threads about him over at WP:FOOTY. So why am I here? For admins to inform Kolins that his removal of valid categories is not supported by the community, and to take any appropriate action if he still refuses to listen/discuss. Now as I am going away for a few days - won't be back properly until Sunday afternoon UK time - I obviously won't be add anything futher, but I think I've said everything I can in the numerous discussions linked above. I'm sure this will just get ignored again, but whatever the result, could some kind soul please let me know the result on my talk page, as it will be archived by my return no doubt...cheers, GiantSnowman 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are sure this will be ignored, then why did you post here? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To log my issues somewhere, and hopefully encourage a response. GiantSnowman 09:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. The guy just does not want to engage and continues to edit against a clear consensus. I'd support a final warning and, then if he continues to remove these categories against consensus, a series of escalating blocks. Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

certainly needs warned has no interest in discussion and continually does it against consensus. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that when things are taken to WT:FOOTY there is far too much random chatter over the subject matter and far too little in the way of practical action. To take three random examples, none of those threads include any solid consensus that Kolins is wrong or that we have a consensus for the proposal GiantSnowman has made here. So it's little wonder that no sanctions have been put in place. If people really want to move forward with this then there needs to be a clear consensus, probably on WT:FOOTY, that a) nationality categories should be deployed in a certain manner (i.e. as broadly as required) and b) that Kolins is wrong to remove categories. Until that's done, admin action would be wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong, Chris, but the section Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_61#Nationality_categories does seem pretty consensual. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Personal attack by User:Malleus Fatuorum after I requested him to revert a disruptive edit on Ernest Shackleton

Complaint is without merit. AGK [•] 13:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I made a request for them to revert their edit, I was polite and civil, and I kindly explained to the editor about the article and the misconception of the use of Anglo-Irish, this was his reply [[144]], also look at the edit summary. Also, an admin User: Ruhrfisch who was on the opposite side of the edit-war protected Ernest Shackleton [[145]] and blocked me after he did multiple reverts, much to the disbelief of other editors. I was unblocked shortly after, but was still punished and the admin Ruhrfisch got off without even a slap on the wrist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruhrfisch/Archive_35#Sheodred. Now the he started canvassing on this page [[146]]......... Sheodred (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC) The edit wasn't disruptive, simply factual A personal attack isn't just someone disgreeing with you Malleus Fatuorum 06:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) @Sheodred: Is there anything more? I cannot see anything to get upset about there (while the redacted "I suggest that you grow up" is not a model for CIVIL, it is not a big deal and was self-redacted within five minutes). If there is nothing more, please do not use ANI for trivial reports of differences of opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Trivial? THERE IS NOTHING TRIVIAL ABOUT AN ADMIN THAT ABUSES THEIR PRIVILEGES. Sheodred (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not an admin. Malleus Fatuorum 06:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) How observant of you, did you read the second paragraph or do I literally have to spell it out for you? Sheodred (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC) What you have to do is to calm down. Malleus Fatuorum 06:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Calm down? Whats wrong did the caps upset you? Sheodred (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Not at all, but you're clearly confused about who you're accusing of what. Malleus Fatuorum 07:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Shame Malleus wasn't around when Anglo-Irish was shamefully striped from Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article after weeks of trouble, and despite the fact that most historians refer to him as such. Though not before someone who pushed and pushed against the use of the term was indef blocked. I'm sick of the number of seemingly anti-English contributors who go about rejecting the term "Anglo-Irish" on historical biogs. What about "Anglo-Saxon", is that wrong too? The editors who voice these "misconceptions" usually have no real justification for it and usually instigate these "edit wars" but appearing more prejudiced than constructive with their revert demands. Personally, I think there needs to be a shake up of the use of such terms, in the form of sanctioned policy or guidelines, to help remove contention in such articles and create a WP:COP-HERITAGE link that cannot be countered with racial rhetoric. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Ok MarcusBritish, show me one modern figure that is described as "Anglo-Saxon" in the lede. Sheodred (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Here's some breaking news for you. Anglo-Saxon England was conquered by the Normans in 1066. I think we have an article on it somewhere, although probably not a very good one, as usual. Malleus Fatuorum 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC) False premis. You stated that the term Anglo-Irish is a misconception, so it doesn't matter if the term is used in the lead, or main body, it would still be "a misconception". That being the case, it wouldn't matter if the person was modern or not, misconceptions don't have "times when they were right" and "times they were wrong". That the Earth was flat, even by law, once, it was still a misconception as much then as now. Nothing says anyone who has misconceptions is aware of it. That being the case, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, Anglo-Indian, or even Scotch-Irish, should each also be "a misconception", then or now, you can't modernise heritage. The "misconception", therefore, is yours and yours alone to explain, as most anti-"Anglo-Irish" arguments I have come across are based on racial intolerances (of the English, with a pro-Irish POV) with no regards for heritage, and no respect for the socio-economic relevance of such terms when applied to people of certain classes even when a dozen historians use the term and the editor does not agree, normally under a guise of pre-tenses. Perhaps next time you demand that someone revert "a misconception, you explain why, rather than impose yourself on their talkpage and not get an unwelcome response. The only place you have actually attempted to garner support for this "misconception" as here at WikiProject Ireland, and with a distinctly pro-Irish opening sentence: "The term Anglo-Irish is incorrectly and sometimes deliberately bandied about instead of Irish as a nationality." IMO, getting a WikiProject on Ireland to agree to change Anglo-Irish to Irish, is as bad as canvassing. Such discussions should be taken to the wider community, sanctioned by a greater consensus and then be added somewhere that gives everyone clear details, eg MOS:BIO. WikiProject England could equally decide to want to "fix" all Irish to Anglo-Irish where is sees fit. The consensus does not take into account that many historians, in reliable sources use the term Anglo-Irish, and that your reversion could in fact be considered original research, making the entire consensus moot. You closed your consensus with, "I propose that Anglo-Irish not be used in the lede as a replacement for Irish, because it is a term for a privileged social class that existed/exists within Ireland, it is not a nationality, it should be used only when we are discussing the individual after the lede, or the first line of the lede", but failed to cite any sources, official or otherwise, to support the proposal, at any point, which invalidates your reasoning as many of the articles you aim to revert are backed by reliable sources that use the term you oppose. Go figure. I note Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Anglo-Irish has been opened, but not concluded,yet editors are reverting Malleus, using MOS as cover [147]. Disruptive or COI issues? I'm not sure. Probably POV-pushing at the very least. The consensus you seek is scattered all over Wiki, started by different WikiProject Ireland editors, but creating a sense of "forum shopping". Allows editors to refer to a debate where the consensus is currently strongly in favour of their changes, and ignore the rest, to support their edits to articles. This should be avoided as it could be considered inappropriate. I think, all things considered, admins need to keep an eye on this project's agenda, approach so seeking consensus and pre-emptive edits as this AN/I thread really seems to relate to, rather than "civility" matter. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 12:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, so the subject of this ANI has been dealt with; the OP seems to have a second issue that's unrelated to the subject, but is speaking mere vague references. This one can be closed, and if the OP wishes to further the other issue, that's separate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) User:Malleus Fatuorum's comment was not a personal attack, and User: Ruhrfisch clearly recognised the mistake and reverted their own protection of the article pretty soon after protecting it - 7 days ago! I don't see any action needed in either case -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Wisdomtenacityfocus making mass changes to Wikiproject status levels

Regarding this edit: we have a user who is making mass changes to status levels of Wikiprojects without going through an evaluation process at each group. He doesn't even appear to belong to any of these groups. My initial warning has been ignored. Can you give me some guidance on how to proceed? There does not seem to be a warning template for this kind of behavior. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reassessing two articles (Talk:The Tempest (album) and Talk:Twiztid) in three weeks hardly seems extreme. In the past, I've assessed many articles whose Wikiprojects I have no affiliation with. Perhaps I'm missing something? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In this edit you not only mischaracterise a change you don't like as "vandalism", but you remove another user's comment from the page. Perhaps you should take a breather from using automatic tools and actually communicate with other Wikipedians as if they, and you, were human beings. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Easy, please. No need to be bitey. m.o.p 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bitey implies the bitten person is a newbie, and newbies should not be using automatic tools in the first place. I haven't checked which situation this is, but either way it isn't good. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anyone was new - I use bitey as a synonym for antagonistic. m.o.p 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Then please don't: on ANI it's almost certainly going to be taken as implying BITE. As for Finlay McWalter's comment, he's right on the money. This was wholly inappropriate, even if WTF (yes, he abbreviates his user name that way) is uncommunicative. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not a formal coalition with express, binding authority over an article in their scope - there's nothing stopping other users from assessing an article. If you think the user is doing it with destructive intent, that's different - but behaviour like this doesn't seem malicious. m.o.p 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no warning template for this kind of behaviour because we normally thank people for it, not yell at them about it!

While most projects have an assessment subpage, it's merely a place to flag up pages for which a rating is requested; no project I'm aware of has a formalised review process for B level or below assessments. Most assessment pages are moribund (it's easy to find cases where a request has been sitting for several years) and while some imply that they want "members" to rerate articles, this seems to be boilerplate text, and I've never seen it treated as binding. (Even if it were, "membership" in a project is so nebulous as to be meaningless.)

In short, Wisdomtenacityfocus has done nothing wrong; reassessing articles as they change in quality is a good thing, and should be encouraged when done competently and intelligently - which it seems to be. Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case a change was made to 5 different project ratings. Given the guidance found here that "different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area" how can this kind of cross-the-board upgrade (made by someone not even a workgroup member) possibly be legitimate?

Absolutely mind blowing. With all the problems Wikipedia has with credibility, with readers who rightly ask "how can I trust what I read?", and with me (for one) naively telling them something to the effect of: "one of the ways is to check the talk page. There are Wikiproject workgroups who have special interests in particular articles, who use a rating scale to judge quality, &etc." It turns out these ratings are just shams, that anyone can come along and jack them around for whatever reason they deem fit? Without even (in this case) the courtesy of an edit summary explaining their thinking? How can this be anything other than out-and-out misrepresentation?

Does anyone think this might be a problem? Judging from the comments above it seems not. Quite the contrary, this a "good thing" and thank you very much. Holy happy horseshit people if these "ratings" are not credible, are not what they are advertised to be, are misleading unsuspecting readers, what the hell is there raison d'etre? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need a list of users approved to make ratings changes per Wikiproject? How does that fit with the WP:PILLARS?--v/r - TP 21:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What we certainly do need is a clear expectation that people shouldn't make, or modify, project ratings without giving at least some basic explanation for their choice. It doesn't matter if you're a member of some club, but explaining what you're doing is a basic demand both of simple politeness towards the article authors, and of accountability towards other raters and readers. Any rating between "C" and "Start" should come with a statement clearly pointing out what the weaknesses are, and any upgrading above that should come with a statement of how those weaknesses have been fixed. I have often found project ratings extremely erratic, utterly unhelpful, and in some cases downright insulting towards the authors, when they come without such explanations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, ratings are mostly "erratic and unhelpful" because they're massively outdated. We have so few people routinely updating article ratings that perhaps 25% are hilariously out-of-date - listing a rating from 2008, since which time the article has quadrupled in size and been entirely rewritten twice over. If more people updated ratings as they browsed (and I include myself in this), a substantial portion of the problem would resolve itself...

In terms of "showing the working" as to why articles are rated the way they are, one approach would be to encourage more projects to use the MILHIST system of tagging by B-class criteria; the talkpage template allows a more nuanced "yes on points 1 and 3, no on 2, 4 and 5" approach. It's configured in such a way that all need to be explicitly "ticked" before it's rated B - otherwise, the rating devolves to C or Start - and so editors can easily tell that "this needs more work on referencing and grammar, but structure and coverage are okay". It should be relatively easy to roll this out to other projects - if you know ones which would be interested, please let me know! Shimgray | talk | 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Alcmaeonid: Did you feel any of these articles were incorrectly rated? You're calling them "shams", "misrepresentations", and so on, but your original complaint was focused entirely on the lack of process rather than the results. The two reratings that I looked at seemed fairly reasonable, edit summaries or no.

As to discrepancies... while it is true that some projects may have slightly different thresholds, this usually means "disagrees on what C is"; B should be more or less universal, and start is universal inasmuch as it's "not a stub". Outside of the Start/C threshold, I've rarely seen strongly held disagreement between two project ratings. In the case of Twiztid, the article you originally complained about, the five projects involved have identical boilerplate text describing what they feel a B-class article should be - three of them even list the same example article! Shimgray | talk | 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• My understanding is that STUB/START/C/B are all any-user-assignable grades, and that A/GA/FA are assignable only through a bureaucratic assessment process. Am I missing something? It's pretty god damned easy to differentiate the first four, pardon my french, and the latter three I'm happy to leave to bureaucratic types who actually care. Carrite (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to take a case in point. Recently an editor came to my talk page to request a reassessment of an article he was working on. I advised him to list it at the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome which he did. (This was a request for upgrade from C to B btw.) The result was no upgrade (it was deemed not ready for B level) but instead editors at the project went over to the page and did substantial work and added extensive evaluations via discussions on the talk page. The article was featured in a collaboration box at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome page. Presto! As a result the article has been expanded in both quality and quantity. This IMO is the way the rating system is supposed to work. Yet it seems from the tenor of the replies above that this whole process was unnecessary. So I ask the admins here: are you suggesting that this editor should have just gone over to the page and jacked up the rating on his own? Grands dieux non! Either the system should work as advertised or readers and editors should be unambiguously alerted to the fact that the only ratings worth taking into consideration are the FA/GA/A. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has said editors should assign ratings to their own articles (though in practice, "destubbing" ratings is uncontroversial). In the case you mention, it would have been quite reasonable - and appropriate, and valid, and so forth - for you to say "yes, that's a B" or "no, sorry, it needs more work" and assign a rating accordingly, if you felt it was a clear-cut case. Note that the lower ratings (up to B) are explicitly intended and permitted to be applied by one person. ("In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating ... Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified.")

In many ways, the request-review approach is the best system - especially when, as in this case, it drives attention to the article. I use it for articles I've written, for just this reason. But it's not universally workable - not every nominal project is active enough to have a working review process; not every editor who makes major changes requests a review; many editors don't even know ratings exist. There are a lot of articles out there with inappropriate quality ratings, which need corrected, and an author-request method just won't reach them. Extensive discussion about quality is great, when it happens - but it often doesn't, in part because we have vastly more pages than active editors.

One key part of having meaningful ratings that we can quote to readers is that the ratings reflect the current version of the article. Requiring an active multi-participant review process before ratings can be changed means that many of them will languish unchanged for a long time - several years - regardless of the state of the article; the result is that they will be of little or no use to readers.

Yes, WTF could have seen the page, thought "it's incorrectly rated", filed a request on five different project pages asking someone to look at them and rerate it, and left it there waiting for someone to get around to it. None of them seem to be very active at producing reviews, so it might have waited a few weeks (or indefinitely!) and then caused someone else to read through it, think about the quality, and rate it. The net result is the same, it just takes twice as many editor-hours and leaves the incorrect assessment up for a few thousand more readers. I'm not sure anyone really benefits from this approach! Shimgray | talk | 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Review Request is slow, non-functional for many projects, and needlessly sucks up time and scarce editorial resources. It seems perfectly fine to me for any editor of good faith to fix what needs to be fixed in the STUB/START/C/B spectrum. Obviously, people may differ about the C and B line, but then again I've seen some pretty weak "Good Articles" and I doubt 1 editor in 100 (or 1 Wikipedia user in 100,000) could tell you the difference between an A and a GA (the former designation is applied to something around 1% of all WP articles, I saw recently and should be eliminated altogether, in my opinion). Seriously, it's about a 10 second process to see that something listed as a "Stub" should actually be a "C"... There's no need to shut down WP:BOLD in favor of WP:BUREAUCRATIZATION. If Military History wants to be all fussy about B level ratings, that's for them to decide, I'm indifferent. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll also add in response to Shimgray that there's nothing wrong with a content creator assigning an appropriate class rating to their own starts. By way of example, my most recent start is Paul Grottkau, which I started last night. That's a C the way it sits and if I'm able to flesh out the latter years and maybe add one more graphic, then it becomes a B. I know the state of the literature, it's more or less as good as any bio out there already, although I haven't visited a book edited by John Commons yet. It belongs in at least 4 projects. Wouldn't it be nonsensical for me to tag this as a "stub" or a "start" and then to have it sit around for weeks or forever in that state waiting for Approved Article Raters to get around to "assessing" it. It's a C. Some people might call it a "B" (but they'd be overrating the current state). There you have my position, in concrete form. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Now it's a B. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit disturbing when articles are assessed for a project without respect to the standards of the project. :/ The Tempest (album) was assessed as a "C" and then a "B" when it is neither; it is a "Start." It is missing essential information. The template says the rating is assigned "according to the Project's quality scale", which is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Quality_scale. The project's quality scale requires information about performers and technical personnel. But I'm not sure this is an administrative matter? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a strong C. Carrite (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

<shrug> WikiProject album regards information on the people who performed on and created an album as essential, I guess. That standard has been pretty steady since I came aboard. :) I got my start in that project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Davis1000

The recently banned Davis100 has returned as Davis1000 and has continued to add false information on several articles. Please reinstate the ban on this user as I am tired of dealing with his vandalism. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done--v/r - TP 15:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Tolea93

Not sure this is the right place for this, because I'm unsure if this user is a vandal -- or a machine. I am concerned about the editing of User:Tolea93, who has been blocked twice in the last couple of weeks. He makes hundreds of changes to statistical data, primarily in USA-related articles, but also in articles about various other countries. See user contributions here [[148]]. None of the edits appear constructive, none are supported by sources, and they are so widespread across unrelated articles that I would only describe the account as being set up solely for vandalism. His editing is almost robot-like, but there are a few edits where the human factor seems to be present, such as here [[149]], here [[150]] or here [[151]]. He seems to be particularly focused on USA-related articles, and Moldova. He started out in June 2011 with a series of edits to Moldova-related articles, and then suddenly this little offensive tidbit appears in an article about Nebraska, USA: [[152]]. Not sure how to go about checking the accuracy of all his edits or reversing them all, or how to flag this account as set up only for vandalism. Can someone please look into it, or advise? Eastcote (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's one Tolea93 born every minute: he appears long overdue for a block/ban. Consider that the first article he created is on the imagined place Cacatii Vechi, which, in Romanian (the language of Moldova), means "Old Shits". Nothing this guy writes can and should be trusted. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Virginia Tech

We may need eyes on the Virginia Tech pages (and pages related to the 2007 shooting) as there has been another shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant news story. Deor (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:AnnaBennett making allegations that I am being 'bought' via a ' secret government contract'.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

AB has been indefinitely blocked, and what she needs to do to get unblocked has been clearly explained to her. No further action is needed here and there's nothing productive coming out of the continuing discussion. Swarm ^X 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Looney Serious journalistic investigator has been indef'd.--v/r - TP 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See this diff [153]. AB has already strayed into tinfoil-hat territory previosly in her talk-page comments (see also [154], though there are earlier examples), but this seems beyond the pale. Given that she is to all intents a SPA, and has shown no willingess to conform to normal policies (endless speculation, OR, etc being the major problems), I can see no way in which she can usefully contribute to Wikipedia. A person that thinks that contributors are part of some sort of wild government conspiracy, and attacks them as such, has no place as a contributor in my opinion, and should be permanantly blocked from contributing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked as that diff, along with the user's history as regards dispute resolution, does not suggest that a time-limited block will have an effect. That said, coming here with an expected punishment is a little full-on; it's enough to flag the issue and see what resolution is suggested, and less likely to result in the blocked user assuming that the admin corps is, well, obeying the orders of shadowy gummit operatives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples of AndyTheGrump's edit style:

• [155] What fucking part of 'not WP:RS don't you halfwits understand?)
• [156] fuck off, scumbag
• [157] moron
• [158] go fuck yourself
• [159] what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article?
• etc etc

I've never complained about this but AndyTheGrump writes:

• [160] If you persist with your violations of WP:CIVIL, I shall raise this at the appropriate noticeboard.

If those are your standards Andy, you should at least live up to them yourself.

Here andy deletes the mention of a patent:[161] [162] (there are more instances of this edit war)

There is no doubt he wants the "excess heat" patent deleted.

Then Anna created a section about the patent.[163]

Then Andy created a notice board entry[164] that says: "Should the article discuss and cite a patent relating to the Patterson Power Cell?"

The request for comments confirmed that we do mention the existence of patents (if they are relevant) but we don't use them as sources.

I spend some time looking over the patents and listed the relevant documents. The patents are then deleted again:[165]

Important to note is that Anna, Povbrigand and I are doing all the work while Andy deletes everything, calling us names in the process. He was even blocked for this recently. The users User:Binksternet and User:IRWolfie- while equally unreasonable in their endless deletions don't insult other editors the way Andy does.

I think the correct action to take here is to ignore his soap boxing and go back to working on articles.

While the joke was just as inappropriate as Andy's usual edit summary there was no real damage done.

Regards, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a little different view. I think that both AnnaBennet and the IP 84.106.26.81 are both a bit inexperienced. In defence of Anna I can say that she seems to have done a good job on California State Student Association. I am pretty sure she will understand that baseless conspiracy theories are the last thing we need on wikipedia. But for the rest Anna seems to have potential to become a good editor. At least see doesn't become uncivil all the time like AndyTheGrump does. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The irony here being that now that she's blocked, it will only strengthen her conviction that WP is a government shill heh. Too much damn dopamine in some people. N^oformation ^Talk 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I truly think that Anna will be able to understand what got her into this and will distance herself from those conspiracy theories. I thought she was just joking. Together with her solid work in other topics she will be a good candidate for a second chance --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. I have less confidence. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

AB has made no edits unrelated to 'cold fusion' topics since the beginning of October, as far as I can see. If there is any possibility of her ever becoming a useful contributor (which I doubt, given her problematic attitude to sourcing, weight, reliability of sources etc), it might be appropriate to unblock her with a ban on any edits or other interactions regarding any 'cold fusion/LENR'-related articles, broadly construed, with a proviso that should she show evidence of understanding and conforming to policy, the ban might be removed after a reasonable probation period (say 6 months?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just 10 hours, like your latest block for outrages personal attacks lasted ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so, about that... were those diffs handled somewhere else? Because I don't know why "fuck off, scumbag", among others, isn't worth a block. causa sui (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Only one insult was sanctioned, the other were not brought to attention. The Block was lifted after a mere 10 hours without the editor showing remorse. But with a promise (after he was unblocked) to refrain from further uncivil behaviour, A promise he didn't keep. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the incivility and personal attacks from POVbrigand about other editors and his incessant canvassing to get his opponents in trouble may be of interest to those looking to clean house: [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]. Just keeping y'all honest! 128.59.171.194 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@causa sui- Relevant discussion. Swarm ^X 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Given your involvement regarding the topic POVb, I think you would perhaps do as well to leave this issue to disinterested people. Yes, I know I lost my temper, and I know it wasn't appropriate. There is a difference, however. I am not using Wikipedia to portray fringe 'science' in a positive light, and I am not making allegations about vast conspiracies manipulating Wikipedia, the media in general, and the world at large. This is the key issue regarding AB's comments. She sees Wikipedia as a forum to present the 'truth' to the world, and when asked to comply with policy, and to treat others with respect, she makes allegations that can only do harm to the project as a whole. (And for the record, I see no reason to assume her comments were 'a joke', given her past history of making wild claims about 'conspiracies'.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This:

• [172] what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article?
• Referred to this:[173]
• Which in turn referred to POVbrigand's original research:[174] Right where it says "citation needed" the crackpot conspiracy theory[sic] begins?

I'm not seeing anything of the kind. This is a bad faith report designed to out a user. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a game of cluedo to an uninvolded editor/admin. Maybe time for mediation ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Professor Patterson did it, in the garage, with a cold-fusion-cell ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy - Didnt you agree to avoid this topic because it tends to get your blood boiling a little?--v/r - TP 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to avoid the article in question until the AfD closed. It has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, you did. My bad.--v/r - TP 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The phrase "using an iron wheel to crush a butterfly" comes to mind. Greglocock (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ask this editor [175] about his opinion on Andy being "hell bent to kick other editors off this project" 19.10.2011 --POVbrigand (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

POVb, if you want to make a specific complaint about my behaviour, do it properly, by starting a new thread, and presenting the evidence in a way where it can be properly assessed. This thread relates to an issue that appears to already have been resolved, and your continued sniping looks petty and vindictive. Cherry-picking random out-of-context comments by contributors proves nothing in particular, and is unlikely to result in anything beyond objections to your behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2011 (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 claims to feel suicidal

handled. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While patrolling new user feedback, I noticed this feedback from User:AllyG.1. The feedback explicitly mentions that the user feels "sad and suicidal" as a result of seeing his/her edits reverted. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I sent an email to the folks that matter. We'll let them take care of it.--v/r - TP 21:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC) ...and I left a nice welcome template with a plate of cookies. So, two people just revert her only edits (sure, they weren't overly beneficial edits), left a couple of warnings, but nothing to tell them how to actually edit the project? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Meeeeh. I may be the exception, but honestly, I tiptoed around here and was very scared when I made my first edit, hoping it was good enough. But because I did my research and read up on the whole thing, it was. I see no reason to expect less of anyone else. Though, the welcome template does help I guess. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC) In what was is this even remotely benificial. On 8th Dec 2011, Jonsson finally decided to remove Romanov's flumpy Lithuanian sausage from his back side and join local rivals Hibernian. Im all for welcoming new editors but when there first edit is vandalism. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC) So they're a passionate fan ... haven't you thought essentially the same thing once or twice about a player? It wasn't vandalism, it was personal opinion from a passionate and frustrated observer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I really hope, Bwilkins, that you are making a joke. Bielle (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC) You, erm, do understand what "Romanov's flumpy Lithuanian sausage" refers to, don't you? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC) It was vandalism. Plain and simple. There is no way that any user, new or experienced, would think that the statement in their first edit belongs in an encyclopedia article. Have I been mad about things that happen with athletes and teams that I'm a fan of? Yes. Do I think that talking about them taking sausages out of their asses belongs in an article anywhere? No. It was vandalism. It was reverted as vandalism and they were properly warned for it. AllyG? (Ali G?) Sorry. Not a huge amount of AGF when it comes to them just being a passionate fan...which wouldn't be an excuse anyway. --Onorem♠Dil 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, I fully understand. No, it does not belong. But no, it was not vandalism in the true sense of the word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Vandalism is any addition ... in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding ... crude humor to a page ... and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. In the true sense of the word, or as the word is described on Wikipedia? I'm confused why anyone would defend it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Whatever the intent the edits were, the post on the FeedbackDashboard is not a joke, nor is it to be taken lightly. (At least I am not convinced that this is mere trolling, nor should we take that chance.) Moreover, I think it shows some rather bad taste in discussing the edits in question in the midst of a potential suicide threat. Given, I joke around occasionally, but situations like these I do not, and neither should others. –MuZemike 22:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Indeed. It was closed by the foundation guy. That should be an end to it. Leaky Caldron 22:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Carl Jung

Resolved

 – Duck season declared open. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the revision history of Carl Jung, it seems obvious that this article has been the victim of persistent sockpuppetry and vandalism. See for instance edits by Guitarani (talk · contribs) like this and edits by Guitarani2 (talk · contribs) like this. (I shall notify both users in a moment, as required). This has been going on probably for months now, and those rather obvious sock accounts are probably only two of a swarm; I suspect the same user has been editing Sigmund Freud and Abraham Maslow as well, again using a series of different accounts. Some of edits made by the person behind those accounts actually seem helpful, but many more are just random dymb vandalism. I understand that there is a standard procedure for reporting sock puppets and suspected socks, but I'm not familiar with it, so I thought I'd comment here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Both the above named accounts have vandalized Torero in addition to Carl Jung, so this is really, really blatant stuff. See also Guitaristani (talk · contribs), which follows the same pattern of vandalism to Torero and Jung, and has a rather similar username too... Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed just those three accounts. Keegan (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack quack - all three blocked and tagged, Guitaristani the presumptive master. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone file an SPI for posterity for this? Should this resurface in future it'll be much easier to revisit an SPI case instead of ANI archives. WilliamH (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Хорошинда

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

After creation this attack page he has continued to make personal attacks in next diff. Alex Spade (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The attacking commentary on their Talk page was removed weeks ago and has not been restored as far as I can see, and I don't quite understand how "Hello, pider!" is a personal attack - is "pider" an offensive term in some language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

It's Russian for "faggot". --NellieBly (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the Russian for "Commie Rooskie"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate has failed me again! GiantSnowman 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But the Urban Dictionary didn't! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP's name translates as "Horoshinda". A Japanese pretending to be Russian, perhaps? (Despite the proximity of Pearl Harbor Day, I'll leave out the obvious retort.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good tires, yes? (Хоро шин да) ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 14:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Khorosho in russian means good so I'm guessing this is some kind of personal dimunutive to make it a nickname about a child. (Its too, er sweet to be seriously intended for any Russian adult.) Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User notified... GiantSnowman 11:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me! What is going on? I wanted to write "Hello spider"! May be, the one letter was not written? I am sorry for my bad English! I have learning English intensively now!--Хорошинда (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to write hello spider on the talk page of someone you have never interacted with before? Do you have any plans whatsoever to do anything constructive here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I know this user from Russian Wikipedia! I should like to welcome and remind about myself to him! I took name Хорошинда from Simlish! I gonna contribute in the articles of Astrakhan--Хорошинда (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, Alex indeffed you on the Russian wikipedia [176] so you decided to come here and insult him. Looking at the totality of your contributions you have nothing you wish to offer us here and you have wasted quite enough of our time by importing a dispute from RU on to EN. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User indef blocked now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, for non-russian speakers the referenced reason for the block was destructive behavior which presumably means disruption. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Take pity on our little Commie friend. He suffers from hammer-and-sickle cell anemia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does Russian = commie? My 10 year old was born in Moscow, does that make him a commie too? If you haven't got anything useful to add except to sterotype 220 million people with a tired old saw that died 20 years ago then you need to get a life. Bedfore youy answer I'm well aware that I need one too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Check out his user page before you go griping at me. P.S. Correction: That "tired old saw" died thirty years ago - around the same time Communism itself died. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really 30 years ago now? It only seems like yesterday I was watching the wall come down on the news but damn its 15 years since I was posted to Moscow. Blimey, I think I must be getting old. Anyway Bugs, can't you see how cruel it is to mock a user at the same time an admin is in the process of blocking them off the 'pedia. Dammit, you have been around long enough to know the signs and it wasn't a good time to make a funny - yeah even when it was funny. It wasn't the right time or place. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming good faith and teasing him at the same time. Yes, it is cruel to kick a user when he's down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

man, you really need to work on your timing.... I know you meant no harm but cummon, its clearly a child we are dealing with here (he says he is 17 in his block appeal) but it was starkly obvious and irrespective of how badly behaved he is we should do our best to manage the ejection process with kindness and respect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know he was going to be indef'ed. In fact, I'm not altogether sure why he was. He claimed the "faggot"-in-Russian thing was a typo. I would have given him one more chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bugs (and all other droogs) I'm just surprised some other lewdie didn't creech for a bolshy tolchok in the vonny rot of this malchik's litso, for his chepooka govoreeting, real horrorshow.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC and drive-by comment:) Maybe Baseball Bugs is making too much of this, but Хорошинда does have several "Ima commie" userboxes, doesn't he? As for all Russians being commie as a stereotype, I think that's misrepresenting the Solzhenitsyns of this world, but come on! :D Dahn (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia is populated by millions of good people, many of whom have a sense of humor. :) For example, the very first edit by Good Tires Yes is pretty funny:[177] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN close request

Can an admin please close this discussion if you have the fortitude to actually read it all its an interesting discourse. As it stands its going nowhere, its bordered on NPA violations since it started the only reason its not been here before is that the editors been there seen that for years or are single focused. At this stage even the neutral people who responded to the request are on the edge, the reality is that sometime in the future it'll be coming to WP:ARBCOM discussion near you. Gnangarra 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:DimitrisLoveIvi not here to build an encyclopedia

DimitrisLoveIvi (talk · contribs) has been here since September, and has never edited anything other than their User page. They are using their User page to keep track of an imaginary game which they are running on other websites. I asked them on their Talk page what their purpose of being on Wikipedia was for, but they have yet to respond, even though they have edited since I asked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have blanked the page under WP:NOTWEBHOST. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tired of running into these editors. Usually, we blank, sometimes we delete after an MfD. It's nice to see this here, as a kind of a test case. Let's go with a proposal: I say we indef-block editors who use WP as a WEBHOST and who don't communicate any intent to contribute positively when asked. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • DL has made a grand total of five edits to mainspace: to Triunfo del Amor (telenovela), Soy tu dueña (3), and Ivi Adamou. The user page should definitely be suject to an MfD. Merely blanking it doesn't keep him from coming back to it. LadyofShalott 05:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • My blanking was simply a preliminary move. I'd support MfDing it as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks Lady--I guess I didn't look carefully enough and thought that they had only edited their user page. But an MfD is, practically speaking, only formal; the page can be recreated. Of course next time the admin has a tool in hands: previously deleted and not significantly different, but that only works if an admin (or another editor) runs into it. Any discussion on the editor rather than just the user page? Drmies (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I think it's a matter of order. Get rid of of the user page and warn the user about its inappropriateness. Then they either (a) actually contribute to the encyclopedia - yay! (b) go back to the non-useful behavior, (c) do some mix of a and b, or (d) disappear. If (a), then great, problem solved. If (d), then not-so-great, but problem solved. If (b), then indefinite block is in order. Scenario (c) is the most complicated, but maybe least likely. LadyofShalott 05:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Lady, your smile makes the world go round. Lead, and I will follow. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Rather than indef people, we could just make a new CSD covering WP:WEBHOST violations in-userspace. causa sui (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• That would be a lot quicker than MfD, yes. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it sounds like a rather vague definition — I seriously doubt that it would be specific enough to pass muster. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I see Excirial went ahead and deleted it before the MfD had time to run. I also see that DL has yet to respond at all to the discussions. LadyofShalott 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• So, we have precedent for administrative deletion? Drmies (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have seen these type of pages deleted before under WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTWEBHOST, and i am yet to see a MFD where this type of page survives (in cases where the page is not related to the 'pedia whatsoever). If there was some kind of value for the encyclopedia in the page i would have waited out the MFD, but in this case i felt that a snowball would do precisely the same thing as waiting. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the editor returns, he can make a case for the pages' usefulness at DR; doubt it'll fly, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Guys you destroyed my contest! http://www.youtube.com/user/DimitrisLoveIvi?feature=mhee find a way to fetch it back now! Please :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've undeleted it. You appear to be online right now, so you have one hour to get it before I re-delete. --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• What i should do? DimitrisLoveIvi (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• You go to User:DimitrisLoveIvi. You copy the information to your own computer. That's all. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why its bad to keep them here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Because as you have already been told several times, Wikipedia is not your own personal WP:WEBHOST--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• But I can't keep them somewhere else :( Let me keep them here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bernhardinamusic/sandbox this user has a same contest as me and he keeps them here<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tough, thats not what Wikipedia is for. WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Restore them so I can move them on my sandbox :p

No, because it's not what your sandbox is for either. And I have nominated the Bernhardinamusic page for deletion too. If all you're here for is your contest, then I suggest you look elsewhere, because Wikipedia is not for you--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DimitrisLoveIvi reposted the deleted material as User:DimitrisLoveIvi/sandbox, so I deleted it per G4. I have also closed the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bernhardinamusic/sandbox as "delete". I have left a final warning at User talk:DimitrisLoveIvi. I have left a "first and final" warning at user talk:Bernhardinamusic. Bencherlite^Talk 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

...and Jac16888 has blocked DimitrisLoveIvi in between me leaving a message for him and leaving the message here. Can't say I'll shed too many tears; it was something I considered doing myself. Bencherlite^Talk 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They reposted the content 2 minutes after your warning, So I have blocked the account indef--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good call. And I have declined the unblock request because the reasons given ("Why blocked me? Its not fair -.- Wikipedia is free to make edits. I didnt make anything bad." and "I didnt make anything bad im just building my contest") hardly demonstrated an understanding of the problem. Bencherlite^Talk 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I was not aware of these rules. I use this account to make real edits at Swedish language Wikipedia. I did not see why it would be harmful and for me it was a great tool to create tables. It will not happen again. Sorry for taking your time. Bernhardinamusic (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed a new CSD

I'm starting a discussion about a new CSD here: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed:_New_CSD_for_WP:WEBHOST_violations_in-userspace causa sui (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I *think* this is vandalism, but it's systemic....

I happened to be looking at the current UEFA Champions League season, and FC Otelul Galati was listed in 4th place in Group F, but it looked strange to me. It displays as O%C8%9Belul Gala%C8%9Bi (it's a capital T with a comma under it, in case it doesn't render). In the body of the Galati article, however, Galati is spelled with a small t with the same mark, and in the FC article both instances of capital T are small. Therefore, I would assume that something is not right, but the change seems to have been made across the board in every instance where "Otelul" or "Galati" is part of an article title. If it's fine, it's fine, but otherwise it's systemic vandalism that I cannot figure out just from looking at history. MSJapan (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may interfere. This is all part of a convoluted and obnoxious battle, popping up all over the place, in which neither side is entirely right. For technical reasons (as you noted, not all diacritics display right with most displays) and because it was simply a non issue until two years ago (when the Romanian Academy issued a couple of half-assed pronouncements on which diacritics it prefers), wikipedia, like most of the online community, has opted for the simpler version: Ţ, ţ, Ş, ş. This as opposed to Ț, ț, Ș, ș (subtle difference).

Romanian wikipedia has decided it was switching to the now official version as of last year, but the change it performed is non-systematic and created many articles which still used both spellings in the same body of text. Just like that, but they still proclaim it to be a 100% move to a better version. Let me be clear about it: necessary it may have become, but better it is not. I have heard several Romanian users argue against the move on various, quite solid, grounds.

The main disadvantage is that the task of moving articles around is accessible to even the barely literate, and various wikipedia sections, including the English one, have had a surge of article moves which only reflect the apparent consensus on Romanian wikipedia. So far, since no system was conceived to approach the issue globally (as much as I dislike the new diacritics, I would endorse a global, complete and actually thought-of change), and since, again, anybody can do it, this is exceptionally random. At least one user I know of who did this was blocked for what was admittedly a disruptive activity - said users don't realize that just doing this were they feel like it loses internal links, messes up the format, punctures holes through recognized content etc.

I for one have repeatedly tried to get a centralized discussion going as to what we should do next, but I'm aware that this comes out at the worst possible time, with all the debate surging about whether we even should have diacritics in article titles (let me restate my position on that one: yes, we should). The result was nil: no computer literate user was ever capable of conceiving of a tool to automate the changes; the argument was restate that we should not be changing things at all, but simply revert those comparatively fewer recent changes; the possibility of confusion with the entirely opposite diacritics used in Turkish or Azerbaijani was brought up, as a major argument against mass changes. See for instance my latest attempt at determining consensus.

In my own editing work, I am left with the following compromise: I write articles with the "old" diacritics, and staunchly revert moves to the new ones in the body of text, because they create huge format problems until such time as a global solution is applied. I do not however revert moves of titles: Viața Basarabiei, Pitești, Alexandru Tzigara-Samurcaș use "new" ones in the titles, "old" ones in the body of text, simply because it's the only option that works so far. Dahn (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out another aspect, that may become relevant in the future: although I'm a Romanian editor editing from Romania, I generally do not use the standard Romanian keyboard, and therefore did not install the default Romanian keys. I find it impractical, and in other programs I tend to set my own character keys. This means that, when I write wikipedia articles, I use the character icons listed at the bottom of the editing window - most users may not be aware of this, but there is a character map hidden somewhere in the menu over the "Please note" part, in the same set as "Insert" and "Wiki markup", but under "Latin". Ironically, the "new" Romanian diacritics are not listed there at all, meaning that, even if the changes were applied or I were to want to apply them, I would be starting off with a huge handicap. Someone please fix this anomaly, regardless of the desired outcome. Dahn (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism. Everything displays essentially correctly for me with both Firefox and Internet Explorer. However, the letter ț (looks like a t with a comma or short ascending stroke below it) is a bit fatter than the others, suggesting that it comes from a different font. Hans Adler 10:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably because the font you are using to view Wikipedia articles doesn't have that glyph in it, so your browser is falling back to use a different font which does contain that glyph. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a user who heavily lobbied for the new diacritics (comma-below) on ro.wp and also as the one who implemented the change, I feel obligated to make a few clarifications:

1. The change MSJapan noticed is certainly not vandalism. The truth is the large majority of people do not care about this subject, even in Romania. They just write with the characters provided by their operating system: cedilla-below for Windows XP and previous, comma-below for Vista, 7 and Linux (and I believe, also OSX)
2. Dahn has made above a series of untrue remarks that need to be corrected:
   1. Romanian Academy issued a couple of half-assed pronouncements on which diacritics it prefers - the Academy has made it very clear that the correct spelling is and has always been with comma-below; in the same period, some of its representatives, together with people from IBM, Microsoft and other big IT companies, as well as some FLOSS translators had a series of meetings that lead to the change of the characters in Windows systems, as well as better support from other vendors. So this was not just a declaration, it was followed by action.
   2. wikipedia, like most of the online community, has opted for the simpler version - there is no simpler version; the simple version is the one supported by the user's software (see my remarks in the first paragraph); Wikipedia needs to adapt to the best of its capabilities to the user's requirements
   3. Romanian wikipedia has decided it was switching to the now official version as of last year, but the change it performed is non-systematic and created many articles which still used both spellings in the same body of text - that is simply false. At no time were there articles with both spellings. We had some articles with the old version and some with the new during the transition period (a few months last year). In 2011, the only articles containing cedilla-below diacritics are doing this because it is needed (either for illustration purposes or because the name comes from the Turkish alphabet, which has the letter Ş ). We mark these with a special tag. If you find what seems to be a mistake, we would appreciate some feedback at the Embassy or Village Pump there.
   4. I have heard several Romanian users argue against the move on various, quite solid, grounds. - that is correct; but contrary to what Dahn seems to be implying here, these complains have not been ignored. We implemented a JavaScript system that allows the user to write with the characters it prefers and then converts the cedilla-below letters to comma-below unless the word has been marked with the special tag. Also, if the user's system is unable to show the correct diacritics, we convert them to cedilla-below. So where you see squares on en.wp, you will see comma-below characters on ro.wp
   5. said users don't realize that just doing this were they feel like it loses internal links, messes up the format, punctures holes through recognized content etc. - not entirely true; in june 2010 i asked for redirects to be created from comma-below to cedilla-below titles; this created over 9000 redirects that can be safely used in articles in either form. If needed, this process can be repeated.
   6. no computer literate user was ever capable of conceiving of a tool to automate the changes - totally false. At ro.wp there is a working system that empowers the user to use the diacritics supported by his system. The difficulty of applying it to en.wp is how to distinguish Romania-related articles. A perfect algorithm for this might be impossible to find, but I can imagine a few solutions that would cover most cases without any risk of false positives.

I apologize for the pretty long message, but I felt the need to clarify some points. If at any time you need help with adapting the content to work with both kinds of diacritics, feel free to leave a message on my userpage.--Strainu (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Strainu, I could carry on replying to your contentions about my "untrue remarks", but, really, is how I relate to these issues really the relevant topic here, or is it the issues themselves? For instance, under your point 6, how is it "totally false" that a real bot for the task has not really been created? It is very much true that the one working on Romanian wikipedia, despite all the self-congratulatory language, is anomalous and inconsistent: User:Anonimu (praise be to him) mentioned the magnificent case of Hadin Süleyman Pașa, a Turkish name Romanianized in ro:Ștefan cel Mare. So far, as in many other instances, Romanian wikipedia does not solve the problem as much as it ignores the problem, with Potemkin village results. And it is even more obviously true that no such bot was conceived for the English wikipedia, for the reasons you yourself acknowledged as true; if you click on the discussion page I linked above, you will perhaps note that a(nother) user, User:Kotniski, had been attempting to do it over here, but that it came to nothing. (I do believe it would be in the best interest of wikipedia if you and Kotniski, together with User:RashersTierney, should have yourselves a powwow, as you're clearly the most qualified ones, and the only ones still regularly active, to have taken an interest in this matter.)
Also, you don't seem to realize that the bulk of my comments is about half-assed manual moves on the English wikipedia, not about whatever happened to Romanian wikipedia: those comments I made that were not explicitly about Romanian wikipedia, including those about broken links etc., refer strictly to the problem as noticed by MSJapan, which is that of inconsistencies on the English wikipedia. That is the purpose of this conversation, and not the various issues on Romanian wikipedia, where I'm sure you did a good and honest, if incomplete, job. I also do not have any objection to your redirect creation, but it has not yet answered to the issue of article space diacritics, nor has it prevented some Romanian users, some of whom can hardly speak English (one of them blocked as a result), from making parallel manual moves that leave the articles a) inconsistent; b) incomplete. Do you realize what it means when a guy will change twenty out of forty instances of ş in one article, and then leave it for dead? Because that's what some have been doing, and not only do we all have better things to do than cleaning up that mess, but we need to send a message that this should not happen, and then make some sort of centralized effort to see if we're actually intending on performing the move at some point in time. Dahn (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep the ro.wp discussion on our userpages.

Going back to en.wp, I don't see the issue in having mixed diacritics for a while, as Romania-related articles are only a tiny fraction of the encyclopedia. For most people, the difference between comma-below and cedilla-below is almost invisible. The poll that we had last year showed that less than 10% of the users saw squares (mostly IE6 and mobile browsers). For the rest, the font substitution worked more or less. I expect that in the last year and a half the situation has improved, with many desktop users switching to Win 7 and mobile users switching to Android.

If some links are broken, the simple solution is to create redirects in either direction. If templates depend on the diacritics to display correctly, the fix should be made within the template. Of course you will have people with an attitude (Baican was also banned on ro.wp for disruptive editing), but that will happen regardless of the solution chosen.

The ideal solution for en.wp IMO would be to convert the page titles to the new letters and then gradually convert the articles with a human-supervised robot (i.e. the person running the robot should check each change and repair the damage, if any). Doing this on a wisely-chosen subset of pages would go fairly quickly.--Strainu (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, were here's more of the problem that I'm facing: I'm all for creating redirects, but which one will we eventually prioritize, and are we even considering it? And consider a redlink: how do I create a redirect to that, short of actually creating the article and adding enough sourced content just so it doesn't get deleted as unsourced (do you picture how exhausting that is?); and how do I anticipate the redlink at the moment: do I go for the new diacritics, from a text that uses old ones everywhere else, or do I just hope that the theoretical person who will jump ahead and fill the redlink will also have read your post, and has the same vague concept as me of what needs to be done? Your suggestion about templates is not simple at all, not in practice: in the absence of a bot, one would have to manually recheck and/or move every article included in any one template, just for the sake of decorum; many do not care about this problem at all, but those who do will have a gargantuan task to complete, without ever being sure that it is the desired outcome, and risking countless clashes with users who have not been informed about the issue and may regard mass article moves as insidious vandalism.

I am all for your bot solution (notice above where I mention me not changing new-diacritic titles, or where I venture to suggest a supervised bot), but it's seems like every time we approach this subject somewhere everything gets submerged in eerie silence or we get absorbed into off-topic threads. Considering I'm, for all practical purposes, computer illiterate, I can't be expected to follow up on the few attempts at creating a bot; I am, as I have said, willing to help in whatever way I can, even against my conservative instincts, but for Chrissake, let's see something happening one way or another. Dahn (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And, yes, it is an issue when en:wikipedia has mixed diacritics, as indicated by this discussion here. And this is not just for aesthetic reasons. This is especially the case with a random mix of diacritics within one article, where incomplete changes to the new form would be insidious and hard to revisit by either a bot or a human being who wants to preserve his sanity by the end of it all. Dahn (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

<pin dropping>Kablam!</pin dropping> And there's that eerie silence I mentioned... Dahn (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That silence you're talking about should show you this is a non-problem for en.wp. The only real problem is to make the users aware of the fact that some editors write with ş and others with ș, often without realizing it and certainly without bad intentions.

I personally would favor the comma-below versions because that is the language rule. However, it doesn't matter which redirect you're creating now, since it's trivial to change it further down the road. Also, who said anything about creating redirects for non-existant articles? You create the redirect when the article is created, either automatically or by hand. This doesn't have to be done by the creator of the article.

If redirects exist, there is no problem with templates (I assume the parameter names are written in English, without diacritics). The only possible problem would be an if that compares something with an article name, in which case you can just duplicate that. But let's be serious, how many templates do that? I dare to say they're under a dozen.

The thing with mixed diacritics is that they're heavily biased one way or another (i.e. either many comma-below diacritics and a few cedilla-below or the other way around). This makes it easy for a human editor either to mark the exceptions or to clean up if the robot fails.

You might wonder why am I against a definite solution on en.wp if I pushed for it on ro.wp. The answer is simple: today, more than ever, the writing style is mixed, with roughly half the users writing with each version and unless you are willing to impose a conversion script (very, very hard to do here), you will still have mixed pages after the robot has been run.--Strainu (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"That silence you're talking about should show you this is a non-problem for en.wp." Actually I think that this very thread shows that people are confused about the inconsistencies. Whether they are or aren't thinking of this as a problem, and whether you yourself give a hoot about the practical problem a user like me is facing (though I can easily point out other Romanian users who have identified the same problem), the problem is still there.

"I personally would favor the comma-below versions..." We're talking past each other. Again, please look closely over the link I provided; if you do that really carefully, you will notice that the changes, in just one article, follow an absurd logic: only some of the ş instances were changed, none of the ţ ones. Whatever option you or I like best is irrelevant, as long as good content is being marauded in this way - if I'm to "sofixit", what would be the most sustainable option, to change them all back to what they were, or to change to the new versions the ones that careless users don't bother with? And how can I even be expected to go from article to article fixing that stuff, when it could conceivably be solved (yes, not entirely, but still!) by a bot.

"You create the redirect when the article is created, either automatically or by hand. This doesn't have to be done by the creator of the article." I am obviously talking about redlinks in one article, the ones that happen to contain the disputed diacritics. Does one change them in anticipation, knowing that not all editors are aware of what we may or may not use for a style guide, or do I spend a lot of pointless time trying to figure out if those articles don't show up, under different names, say, right now? Since I cannot create redirects in vitro, I can only hope that a bot looking for certain parameters might/will move those articles as they appear, instead of me having to do this thankless labor-intensive task for the sake of preserving consistencies. Sure, there will always be overspill - like articles that have entirely misspelled titles -, but I can only hope there is a third choice between taking on an absurd workload or just ceasing to give a damn about articles.

"If redirects exist, there is no problem with templates..." Templates are supposed to highlight the articles they refer to, and there should be consistency between what's used in the article and what's in the template. As I'm sure you know, the article that shows up in a template appears as regular bold text when the template is pasted to the relevant page; if the template uses a redirect, this doesn't happen, and what we get is a circular link. Also, it's not about how many templates, it's about how many articles in any one template. Try applying your solution, say, by cleaning up articles from this template, and let me know when you're done, so I can point you to another sector of our Augean stables.

"This makes it easy for a human editor either to mark the exceptions or to clean up if the robot fails." Again, I'm all for a bot solution to settle them one way or another, but, again, the prospect one like me is facing now is having to do, undo and redo changes applied by "well-meaning" editors who have one idea or another, without even knowing myself if I'm doing the right thing. Also, these changes are not in fact as clear-cut as you make them seem: in the Iorga example I mentioned, and in similar ones, what editors actually did was to reduce that margin, because they stopped mid-way; unless I police every such instance I could be bothered to care about, the margin will just keep getting smaller and smaller, and the consequences more annoying to fix.

"You might wonder why am I against a definite solution..." Sure we will still have mixed results, but surely you can see the advantages: a) a resolution as to what diacritics we should actually be changing to (instead of chaos); b) a bot to run and rerun though the old and new articles; c) less rather than more of an inane task to do manually. A move from a universal format dilemma to a particular copyediting project. Sure there's going to always be a need to drive a tractor through a field come spring, and the field is never going to yield 100% of what I put in it; but that doesn't mean I should do it with a wooden plow and horses, or even worse stop doing it at all. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Dahn

There's a heated discussion here. In this section User:Dahn launched a series of personal attacks against me, and apparently he is unwilling to put a stop to it. A chronological and not exhaustive list:

• [178]: a very poor editing practice. It basically says: "I have peeked through fragments of these two books and exclusively used them to shut up those who disagree with me on the talk page."
• [179]: You see, here is the behavioral issue I was talking about: why would you even think it's necessary to (yet again) harangue me
• [180]: Do you see the point I'm making, or is this the part of the post you never actually read
• [181]: Yes, Daizus, you fail to see a lot of things
• [182]: I can only reasonably assume you don't actually read them
• [183]: The rest is really your unexpected and unlikely tribute to Romanian paranoia, according to which everyone opposing an idiotic rationale that was stated by a Romanian do so because they follow a secret agenda; you don't know and can't rationally explain what that agenda would be, but there must be one.
• [184]: regardless of your immature attempts to bully me
• [185]: if you can't deal with arguments about why you're not always right, then perhaps you might reconsider whether you're even doing yourself service by stating your opinions here. It's not like we're all waiting on you to enlighten us. Really, it isn't
• [186]: since you again cite (willy-nilly) WP:COMPETENCE, I would like to point out two relevant part of that essay. You will find them under "Social incompetence" and "Grudges". Those are the only two reasons I can picture why you, Daizus, would continue to misrepresent and rant against my arguments which suck cockamamie travesties, manipulative rhetoric and (so very) self-important slogans. Really, these might (still) work on the WikiProject Dacia jungle, but I hoped you would instinctively adhere to a more sanitary system of reference in the out-of-universe world. Now I know for sure that is too much to expect.
• [187]: I will repeat openly the claim that your rationale above justifies esoteric and paranoid claims
• [188]: Most of your posts is a string of childish insinuations
• [189]: not necessarily because I intended, but because the alternative is disgusting. Much like your solipsistic machismo above
• [190]: the very fact that your argument relies on that taunt is part of the behavioral problem I referred
• [191]: problem with understanding my previous must be elsewhere, somewhere deeper in your ego, and beyond my powers to address
• [192]: you're embarrassing yourself with anyone but the WikiProject Dacia mob, and their approval is not something to look forward to
• [193]: your invoking of how I "assault" Saturnian for having debunked that claim of his is purely rhetorical and inflammatory hogwash
• [194]: that I rushed in here to "shut you up" is also hogwash, and comes from the same solitary dungeon of your imagination
• [195]: At long last, do you even take yourself seriously anymore?

I know I was also uncivil and employed a variety of similar insults and rhetoric techniques ranging from "inane digressions" to "attention whore" and "it hurts your ego?" and even "this buffoonery of yours reflects lack of good faith, as the alternative is not at all flattering". I know there's no excuse to use personal attacks to reply to other personal attacks and if sanctions are to be applied, they should or may be applied to my user account, as well.

However I also pointed out repeatedly that Dahn used ad hominem arguments and he attacked (Dahn was particularly sensitive on the word "assault") me and other editors, I tried to dodge or ignore several of his acid remarks (by not replying to them, however once I also said "you can insult me all the way you want - it says more about you than it says about me "), I pointed out that personal attacks have no excuse ("even if you believe you're justified in doing so, you have no excuse to make gross personal attacks ") and I also warned him of a report ("just be warned I'm one inch away of reporting this burst of invectives to an appropriate forum") - none of these had any effect. At some point Dahn said "Au revoir" only to come back with more insults. He also openly refused to admit his behavior ("There is not one a hominem to be found in any of my replies to you"). Please also note some of his attacks speculate on group membership: WikiProject Dacia members, Romanians, males

But there's more to it. From the same page, here are some of Dahn's replies to other users (or about them):

• If our entire readership is dead stupid, yes, that is a likely outcome
• Incidentally, it's Romanian users who tend to get confused about the names of people they supposedly know better - I can show you examples of Romanian users
• given the embarrassing nature of your rationale for changing the article title
• I certainly don't need your bogus, bombastic, poisoning-the-well, self-referencing, pidgin warnings in the meantime
• Do you understand this when I mention it the third time around, or is the English I'm using still too complicated and I need to literally draw you a picture?
• I know appeals to emotion work on the average overheated Romanian troll, but you're already embarrassing yourself and everyone else here with the "punishment", "dignity" etc. demagoguery.
• I have not answered your question because it is childish and inflammatory, like most of the things you have posted on this here page
• Saturnian was being absurd, Codrinb was being manipulative

Daizus (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can only urge readers of this post to actually focus on what I have said on this page, to what, and in what context, and to also reflect on what Daizus has been repeatedly stating over there. One of the reasons why this guy won't fully quote diffs to back up his ludicrous claims is that, in his renditions, he has cut down my phrases in half, which most often alters their meaning - and not even then are these actually personal attacks. To even have to deal with his sickening half-truths and outright lies about my behavior on yet another thread he opens just to troll is frankly not in the books for me at this junction. Dahn (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• his sickening half-truths and outright lies
• another thread he opens just to troll

I rest my case. Daizus (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In my initial report I did not provide diffs, since it's only about several consecutive replies. Added per request. Daizus (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the bitterness on that debate arise mostly from your own side, Daizus. You definitely need to take a deep breath, and a few steps back from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dahn's comments on the "average overheated Romanian troll" or "Romanian users who tend to get confused" arose also "mostly from my side"? Even if I'm bitter, does that justify comments about "my tribute to Romanian paranoia" and other similar remarks? And the last reply there is Dahn's (still launching insults) not mine. Daizus (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a disgusting attempt to label me as anti-Romanian. I strongly urge admins who assess this case to look closely at what parts of the quotes are missing in Daizus' account. They will perhaps note that I am not aiming my comments at Romanian people (I am in fact a Romanian guy), but referring to the usual behavior of some Romanian editors - notoriously so in the context where the very discussion to move the article was initiated (though not necessarily continued) by a particularly obnoxious brand of Romanian nationalism - in the linked discussion, you will note that several Romanian and non-Romanian users make the same statement, particularly in regard to Saturnian's behavior (at the moment, Saturnian is the subject of another AN/I thread, initiated by an editor whom even Daizus will cite as an outside voice of reason). I don't intend to waste a lifetime on debunking this spiteful nonsense. Dahn (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And whatever this person claims at this point I did to him, and however he may tailor my posts, let me also note: I am not the one to have tarnished him with epithets such as "attention whore" and the like. If anything, I am sorry I ever did try to engage this person in serious conversation, he's just not accustomed to that by the looks of it (Minor note: "which suck" in one of those posts is actually intended as "with such"). Dahn (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How and where have I labeled you "anti-Romanian" (it's not about being anti-Romanian, but about employing stereotypes to discredit users: "Romanian trolls", "WikiDacia Project mob", etc. )? On what grounds do you assess the "usual behavior of some Romanian editors"? After all, you judged my arguments based on your experience with Saturnian, you even have accused me of defending his claims ("you implicitly defend the stupefying claims that the anglicization hurts Cuza's dignity (Saturnian)"). And since this thread is about personal attacks, let's note again your wording:

• this is a disgusting attempt
• this spiteful nonsense

Daizus (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This thread is not going to benefit anybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can take action here. I have a much longer list of unwarranted offensive language and attitudes from user Dahn. But I am not going to waste my time and list it until someone is ready to look at the case. However I can say that user Dahn manages to create a very poisonous environment around the Romania-related articles. A lot of people have been blocked through his machinations and a lot of people are turned off and giving up editing after dealing with Dahn. As you know from recent surveys, many editors are leaving Wikipedia and the novice ones are meeting a lot of hostility: User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_distressing_trend_of_editors_leaving_Wikipedia, Editor Trends Study. I understand that user Dahn has been around for a while and has created a large number of articles (some of them I really like!), but his attitude is 100% contrary to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers behavioral guidelines and to the clearly defined strategies to enhance everyone's experience: March 2011 Update on strategy. I notice that his constant personal attacks, ironies and insults are ignored constantly, although the Romania-related article talk pages are full of them. But his constant and massive presence in almost all conflicts on Romania-related articles and well as in the incidents board (as both accused and accuser), not only denotes a very active contributor (which is positive!) but also someone who thrives from conflict and can't collaborate, simply believing he is too superior and always right. Someone needs to look deeper at the case from this perspective. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An RFC/U may be an avenue if action is not taken here. As you've seen above, administrators are loathe to act on AN/I reports that don't create the appearance of seeking a resolution. Having completed an RFC/U would give us something more to work with. causa sui (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I'm made to waste even more of my time and nerves on such threads, I would like to advise administrators not to take these new allegations at face value, but rather have a look over these diffs, which I think amply show Codrinb's serious hounding, racial epithets and stalking directed at yours truly, and his long-standing, hardly bearable, attacks on my dignity: [196]; [197]. Whatever this individual claims I ever did to him or said about him (no diffs, of course!), I have never, ever, resorted or even felt a slight need to resort to such language, such vicious misrepresentation, or such grotesque conspiracy theories; the only thing that's left for him to say is that I eat kittens. For his previous attempt at gaming the system by depicting me as a harasser, see this thread - I think it is telling that the other users commenting there have been quick to identify his claims as nonsense. His only tactic is proof by verbosity: the hope that empty allegations, if circulated enough on this page, will help him score points with the impatient. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think an interaction ban would help you both return to productive editing? causa sui (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there is little mainspace editing interaction between me and either of those users, it would hardly affect me; were it not for Codrinb's stalking and his being canvassed to participate in discussions where I happen to be a party, it would only formalize my personal resolution never to have to engage this character in conversation. Note however that he is still the one chasing me around and opening up venue after venue to bring up the same "facts" about me and how I bathe in the blood of his various verbally incontinent friends. As for Daizus: I simply engaged him in a topical debate, because I believed him to be a reasonable, if easily irritable, user; as mentioned, now I know better than to ever attempt that again. But whatever else comes out of this thread, I hope that Codrinb will at least also receive some form of mentoring, because it is frankly terribly stressful for me, and for anyone, to have to deal with this aggravation and unrelenting mobbing in several places over more than two days on end. I frankly regret not having taken this guy to AN/I when he first produced those horrible and highly disturbing attacks I linked to in those diffs above, I'm sure he needed some cooling off right then and there.

But whatever decision you adopt, please don't make me participate in yet another discussion on this topic. I'm frankly exhausted from just having to confront myself, a fourth or fifth time, with the same obnoxious string of accusations these gentlemen have concocted between them. Dahn (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just what I was going to suggest, Dahn: nobody can "make" you participate in anything. Do yourself a favour and go edit somewhere else for a while. Daizus, that goes double for you. You're in violation of WP:BOOMERANG here on ANI. I haven't read the whole of the exchanges between you and Dahn at Talk:Alexandru Ioan Cuza very carefully, not being a donkey that enjoys having its hind leg talked off, but from my spot checks your own posts are at least as aggressive as Dahn's — that's a conservative estimate — and in my eyes they have a bigger dose of character assassination. I suggest you both take some deep breaths and leave that article and its talkpage alone for at least a few days. You too, Codrinb. Your argument that you could post diffs of the user's 'machinations' if you wanted is stunningly unimpressive. And as for Dahn being responsible for editors leaving... ack. At least try to be a little more original. Perhaps he's responsible for global warming? Bishonen | talk 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Mulitple IP address creating disruptive edits

Forgive me if I am not quite doing this correctly, first time: The user currently using at least four IP addresses (98.92.249.28, 74.232.63.35, 184.37.2.116, and 98.92.244.252 see concrete proof here for two of them and here for an admission of multiple IP's: quote "As far as the IP address, I, like most people have a static IP address, that means that every time I turn the computer off, then on again, I am assigned a new IP address by my ISP. This is not within my span of control and is actually a safety measure put in place by ISP's to minimize hacking. So unless you're a hacker, it should be a good thing") has been continually editing the Chronology of the Bible page in a way that is disruptive, and has been reverted by several different editors, including myself, Lisa, Jeffro77, and ArthurRubin. His/her latest edit is without a doubt disruptive here (the "Warning" at the top of the page, since reverted). User refuses to use secondary sources and continously attempts to insert OR (by his own admission quote: "If you had said your objection to that particular part of the revision was that it was OR, I might have had to agree with you, or that it was without a legitimate source and mere speculation, which it was presented as, thus the term "likely", as that particular section came as a result of my own personal research into the matter of just who the ruler of Egypt was at the time of the exodus. It was presented as speculation, just as is done in many encyclopedias"). Vyselink (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't too technical. A static IP means that when they reboot they would always get the same IP address :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the multiple IP addresses that I'm really talking about. It's more the disruptive edits (see again here where he reverted back to his "Warning"). Vyselink (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC) And now that you mention it, I totally missed the "static" mistake on my original reading. :-) Vyselink (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, It's a Dynamic IP address, not a static one, but still beyond my span of control.Also three of the four usersUser:Vyselink, Lisa, Jeffro77, plus one known as Blackcab have formed a little social group so they can circumvent the rules regarding reverting the page,I am not familiar with the other user, the information they are posting, never mind, look at the pages talk section and read it for yourself rather than me re-stating everything. Also look at the talk pages of the respective persons involved( Blackcab, Jeffro77, and Vyselink), as they appear to have collaborated on several disruptive endeavors before this one regarding pages where Jehovah's Witnesses are involved. They've created a situation where "the Fox is watching the hen house". I added a Warning to the top of the page "Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs" because the page is so inherently false that it calls for one, and as of this point I have formally requested the deletion of that page because I feel it is beyond hope of repair. If Wikipedia is simply looking for the views and assertions of these few extremists, let there reversions stand, However if accuracy is in any way involved in what Wikipedia is seeking, they need to be stopped from continuing there disruptive course. They refuse to discuss the material at hand, and simply revert the page, while making claims of a "fringe" and NPOV, while reverting to their own "fringe" sources and violating NPOV themselves What they are doing is in essence vandalism of the page because they are erasing the properly source material of others because they personally don't like the source material which I think is in violation of Wikipedia's own rules regarding source material. I have stated that I am willing to discuss the dates in the chart I submitted, they apparently are not willing to discuss, only revert to material that is not supported by other than a fictitious source. Which is another point entirely, the source they use does not contain the information they present, only a small portion of it and it is not properly referenced as to page number where the information is located on the source. I can only assume this is to conceal the fact that the material is not really provided by the source the present. The rest is OR. And yet they would challenge, two or three sentences that I presented as being theory, not as fact, on a subject on which ONLY theory exists, because the facts are uncertain.72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, you haven't formally requested the deletion of the page -- that's a different process. You just posted on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, which means pretty much nothing. That said, though, I do have some concerns about this page -- it's mostly cited to primary JW sources, rather than to analyses of JW doctrine, which is what we should be using. All the analysis is on the WP side, which is an WP:OR violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My initial complaint was about disruptive edits, mainly on the Chronology of the Bible section. As far as the JW Beliefs page, I have attempted to talk with the IP user about what, specifically, he wants to change. I found it interesting that a user that wants to use JW sources for everything he does complains about an article that (as SarekOfVulcan just pointed out, and as I pointed out on that talk page) uses OVERWHELMINGLY JW official sources. Vyselink (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I am confused as to how to go about requesting its deletion, perhaps you could help me through the process. Secondly I looked up the other user mentioned and here is an excerpt from his talk page addressing another person I also don't know

NESARA Page

The edits are well sourced and verifiable, the truth and many agree and we will change the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirianet (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the (improperly formatted) sources you've added are reliable. Truth is not that important to Wikipedia, but the fact that none of your statements have a reliable source is adequate to remove it. Furthermore, the real (albeit not actually introduced) NESARA deserves some space in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My question is this, why is this person allowed to make edits when the truth matters little to him by his own admission? He states "the truth is not that important to Wikipedia" If that is the case, then perhaps, Wikipedia should be shut down....We will see if this guy is right or not with this instance, as he appears to be another friend of the social group and had made the latest revert on "chronology of the Bible"72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia's admission: Verifiability and not truth. As soon as you learn what WP:CONSENSUS means, the easier your life will be (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently anyone who disagrees with the IP user is part of the "group" (watch out Sarek, you're next). Until I searched the Chronology of the Bible pages edit history, I did not know of the existence of Arthur Rubin or Lisa. This is getting off track however. I was, and still am, seeking a possible solution to this IP users disruptive edits. His nomination for deletion of an entire page that he has yet to argue any changes for should be proof of that. Vyselink (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My sole appearance at the Chronology of the Bible page was to warn the anon user that he/she is about to breach 3RR. For that, he/she called me an apostate[198] and immediately declared I was part of a club and editing with my "friends" at Wikipedia. This person has now urged me to read a passage from the Bible, which apparently will explain everything.[199] BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor claims that a 'social group' exists among those who have pointed out his edits are inappropriate. No such 'social group' exists. I have never met any of the other people (as far as I am aware, none are in my country). I have disagreed at times with each of the other editors.

The fact of the matter is that the anonymous editor is pushing the views of a minor religious group and trying to present them as if they are broadly accepted.

The anonymous editor claims his edits are well sourced and based on the Bible. However, his edits are sourced from JW publications that calculate their chronology based on the dogmatic selection of 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem, for which all secular sources assign within a year of 587 BCE. There is therefore not any secular consensus for the promotion of their fringe chronology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The biblical passage is not what BlackCab seems to think — the IP seems to have left that as a warning rather than as an explanation. Much of the Epistle to the Hebrews is historical, but this chunk is simply a warning not to reject God. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that BlackCab understands the thinly veiled 'warning'. Reading between the lines, BlackCab is just being subtle.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

More of the same.[200]--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And he has responded again, indicating his dismissive attitude toward Wikipedia's policies, wherein he states that his use of a dynamic IP will mean he only gets banned for a limited time.[201]--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:117.211.90.154

Resolved

 – User blocked 6 months by John. I'll watch their behavior 6 months from now. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

117.211.90.154 (talk · contribs)

This user has been blocked 4 times edit warring and personal attacks. Today, it appears that they're removing variable amounts of content from different pages with no explanation. Their edits might suggest that it's a shared/school IP but I can find no actual evidence that supports that (here's the whois). Since they day they came off their 3 month block (Nov 22nd), they've made 49 edits that all seem to either be inserting WP:OR, unexplained removal of unsourced content, or unexplained removal of sourced content. Also, since then, they've only left one talk page message which accuses others of "vandalization". I'm surprised this hasn't been caught sooner given their history. On its own, I don't see that this behavior would necessarily warrant a block but given their history, I think it shows that they haven't learned anything from their previous blocks. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked 6 months. --John (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

New editor repeatedly adding uncited material, no edit summaries, no talkpage

A new editor Sallesyd (talk · contribs) is adding uncited material into the Moundville Archaeological Site, even after repeated talkpage messages to add citations with the material and removing blocks of cited material. I have left numerous messages, but no edit summaries or talkpage communication, the user many not know what the orange banner at the top of their screen is. Can I get some help with this? I've reverted them several times, after a couple of day interval asking for cites. Am approaching 3RR with them and would really like to step back and let someone else help, maybe they could get through? Heiro 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified them of this discussion, but don't know if it will do any good :-( Heiro 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be a little more aggresive in your warnings, including using templates for adding unsourced material, and templates for blanking sections of the article. I would escalate the warnings until the editor stops or you can go to WP:AIV. On a single purpose account with such a history, AIV may be more receptive to imposing a block, essentially using a very broad definition of vandalism. I would also address the issues on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For vandalism I do, maybe too aggressively at times, but I have the feeling the editor might actually be trying to add valid information. I don't want to scare them off needlessly, just get them to use talkpages, edit summaries and citations. I'm afraid I may have to go to the 3RRboard as they are now at 4RR and still no talk pages, etc. Heiro 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We are trying to use talkpages and our response continues to get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallesyd (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has deleted any talkpage posts. And who is "WE"? Heiro 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us, sorry, we are new to this. Also, the information that you deleted from Moundville Archaeological Site was information gathered by our other team members, though unfortunately we could not get the in-text references entered when we did the post. Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, the numbers in brackets were references our team members put in, it is not directly copied from another site, so no it does not violate the copyright, we did not know the exact code for entering those. Also, please understand we are trying to IMPROVE this article, we are not VANDALIZING it. If you could please refrain from deleting our material for the next few hours, we will finish our project and have all references in. The problem is that you delete our material too fast to allow us to enter the references. Our project will be finished tonight, we are not trying to cause any conflicts. Sorry for problems. Thank you User:Sallesyd —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Ok, first. See the bluelinks in my posts on your talk about WP:WOA and WP:SUP? GO DO IT NOW or have your professor do it as soon as they can. We have procedures for this. You must follow them. Second, see the bluelinks in the last sentence of my first post on your talkpage? Follow them and you can learn how to do the citations. Do this before attempting to edit again, or it will be removed again. Also, one account per person, that is a very strict rule here. These are all important. Do this correctly, follow our policies or you risk having this acct blocked from editing here. OK? Sorry if this is coming off strongly, regards. Heiro 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, I'm not even the person you're directing your comments to, and that comes off not as "strongly" but as "aggressive, mean, and threatening"--especially the all caps COMMAND in the second sentence. Yes, role accounts aren't allowed, but most people don't know that, so let's try to encourage them to do things the right way rather than ordering them about. Mind you, I agree that the information should be removed until it's verified, but now that we've got a conversation started, let's see if we can find a way to get the info into the article, properly cited, and possibly even get some people interested in editing Wikipedia in the long term. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed message on the Sallesyd's talk page and created a sandbox to work in. I'll add the article to my watchlist as well. Unless someone else thinks there's still administrative work needed here, this thread can probably be marked as resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, real life came up for a few hours. Also, sorry for the aggressive tone toward them, but it took 6 talkpage messages and finally opening this thread to get the first response from them, I was starting to get a little frustrated. And, I suspect that this group is related to the State College, PA area(geolocation from multiple IPs), which for the last year have used multiple IPs and several named accounts to edit roughly 15 or so Native American historical subjects, never with citations, sometimes actually copyvio copy and paste ins, and almost never edit summaries. Its the same editing style and this is one of the articles that has been hit before, but I can not say for sure that this is the same group. I've left numerous messages at the IPs and named accounts talkpages asking for citations, leaving blue policy links and links to WP:WOA and WP:SUP, I was doing it so much I made a short message on my user page that I could just grab and paste in whenever they popped up again. If this is from the same school, then this is the first real conversation I've managed to get out of them in the last year. I don't want to drive them away, we could use the help at these articles, that is why I brought this issue here in the first place instead of AIV as suggested by another user above or the 3RR board. My very first message to them 2 days ago included links to 2 pages about citations and how to add them here along with a welcome template with other links. Sorry again, will try to be a little more inviting and less aggressive in the future. Heiro 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us,
  - The user(s) need to be made quite clear that editing as a group on one account is strictly disallowed, and they should all sign up fo individual accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian appears to disagree. Regardless, Qwyrxian seems to have the issue under control, and, for my part, I apologize if I "incited" Hieronymous to more aggressive action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be a little more clear: I agree that 6 people cannot user one account per WP:Role accounts. I, disagree, however, with Heiro's claim that 6 people on 6 different accounts can't simultaneously work together on one article as part of a school project or even just independently. Ambassadors, for example, used to have (may still have, I stopped my association with the program recently) an "editing Friday" where as many people as possible were encouraged to tackle the same article. As long as the 6 editors don't attempt to use coordination to disrupt normal editing (i.e., to try to go to 18RR), it's fine to work on the same article. Heiro, I also want to say that I understand your frustration, as I've also dealt with both official and unofficial school projects, and when they don't interact in any way, it's very easy to feel like you're up against a brick wall. If this particular group becomes a problem again, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to followup. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said that 6 people couldn't edit the same article, but that each of them needed their own account or "one account per person". If my wording implied otherwise I apologize for the misconception, it is not what I meant. As for the school project from PA I mentioned above, if they pop up again, you're the first person I'll ask for help from, lol. Thanks, Heiro 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Russian Copyright Violaing IP addresses

Resolved

 – Disruptive editor indeffed. No rangeblocks are accomplishable. Applying WP:RBI to any future submissions the user.

Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See Also

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Rangeblocks Requested,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#IP hopper at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, WP:OTRS Noticeboard#Beatles1.ru,Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive1#Permission to use materials of the website: sexology1.narod.ru

Once again we're back here after a Collection of BEELINE-BROADBAND/CORBINA TELECOM IP addresses attempt to donate copyrighted content they don't have the rights to. I have attempted multiple times to explain to this user the rules we MUST follow for content that is suspected of being copyright infringement. Now that the OTRS noticeboard was semi-protected, the IP addresses are attempting to convince me on my talk page that they have the rights and are in the process of registering the US copyright. Based on the fact that in previous attempts we've treated the IP editors who are pushing this content with gentle hands and they have not gotten the point I feel that it's time the gloves came off. I'd like to notify the IP editor, however they have yet to confirm what username they're going to register under, so I will drop the notification on my talk page as a response to the IP editor. Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Editor has elected to regiser as Ivan Lopakin. I've droped the ANI notice on their talk page. Might some writers in russian try engaging in the user's assumed language to explain the problems? Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that will be of any merit. I've lost count how many times it's been explained to him that what he intends to do is impossible for legal reasons. A range block is impossible in terms of the ranges he uses and the MediaWiki software's limitations, but it doesn't matter because there's an edit filter in place (for Beatles songs). Effectively, his modus operandi is staking claims for other people's intellectual property in such a way that cannot be reconciled with U.S. law, where WMF servers are located. Personally, I think it's a troll. He didn't have any luck with the songs, so now he's moving on to something else. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They're using four or five different sets of IPs. I tried grouping them together into ranges, but even then they're too big to block. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I explained all on your talk page. I am not one of bad users, which use the range of the CORBINA. People can be good or bad. As known. Mistake, the words of last editor. Troll and 7000 of souls. It was joke may be. Thanks ! Ivan Lopakin (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

In other words then, a tedious waste of precious volunteer time. Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Should this account be added to the SPI for this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum article and talk page

Hi, I’ve been working on some revisions to the Occidental Petroleum article with other editors as I have a COI, which I disclosed on my account page and on that article’s talk page, but have run into some problems with another editor that has repeatedly undone several of my and other editors’ revisions without displaying a willingness to engage in constructive discussion or reach consensus. Despite attempts to work out some compromised material on the talk page, this problem persists. This user has also deleted comments from the talk page that he appears to disagree with (see series of revisions on December 9th) and rearranged other talk page posts so that some are now out of order.

In the interest of keeping the discussion civil, I have not engaged directly in conversation with this editor, but have reached out to other members of the community. I have notified this user of this post and am hoping I can get some help to constructively resolve this issue.

Thanks for your time. CBuiltother (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was also involved in this as I was asked for my opinion. I will refrain from blocking or warning Cowboy128 as I have edited the article. However I do feel we have reached the point where either a last warning or a block is probably required. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are the main policies being flouted repeatedly here. --John (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

He's a clear single-purpose account, in my opinion, whose purpose is to denounce Mr. Irani both in his article and in the article on the company of which he was the CEO. He's inserted his screed into the 'history' section and had it reverted many times, most recently by me, but he put it back, and now the article's fully protected with the undue-weight section on Irani intact. To my eye it's pretty bad; opinions may differ. Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cowboy128 has a total of 75 edits (first edit in July 2011). Only two articles have been edited: Occidental Petroleum and Ray R. Irani. Cowboy128's most recent edit (diff) was immediately prior to the article being fully protected due to the edit war. The edit (currently in the article) includes classic soapboxing such as "Irani and Occidental President, Stephen Chazen, ordered a reduction in company expenditures that resulted in hundreds of company job terminations, the majority of whom were veteran employees, in 2007-2008, at the height of the recession, even as Irani collected a massive $460 million dollar total compensation package for 2006 and the company enjoyed record profits.". In general (not commenting on this issue), I am convinced that society needs to deal with various company executives—however, Wikipedia is not the place to do that! I don't see a clear WP:BLP violation but surely an uninvolved admin can recognize inappropriate soapboxing and revert the last edit (I'm too lazy to look at the moment, but there are exceptions to WP:WRONGVERSION). Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

I've just received this apparent legal threat, but I'm not sure the proper procedure when it comes from an IP - I blocked 48 hours, but it's a mobile IP so it will be dynamic, and I'd be happy for anyone to change my block as appropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: This was the edit I reverted that triggered it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should at least point them to the WMF, or point the WMF to them. We don't want to follow WP:DOLT to the letter. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also dug a little deeper. One of the units listed there appears to be an element of vandalism, especially based on some of the prior edits. I've got a feeling that the inclusion of that item is what got the IP riled up. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims to be representing the DOD/Federal government, yet refers to a link to a state government entity conducting the alleged "investigation". And says, "Information submitted on this page was applyed on false pretense." Aren't basic grammar and spelling skills required of state and/or government employees? Doc talk 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that the mentioned agency was from one state, while the WHOIS for the IP indicated that he's in another. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is all this stuff clearly in the citation? I'm searching line by line and some of it is there, while some of it isn't. We may have an over-reliance on a single source plus post-hoc vandalism that got through because nobody bothered to check it out. I'm getting the impression that this is a WP:DOLT story from start to finish. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note sure what WMF contact details are appropriate - would be grateful if someone could give them to him if you know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  When in doubt you can send people to OTRS and the emails will get to the right people. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Just as a note looking at this, my hunch is this isn't legit. Of course, I could be wrong, I was once! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_2#Tally_of_actual_votes_at_Afd

I'm really concerned at the pillorying of the closing admin for supposedly having closed the AfD prematurely (a.k.a after 12 days, when the closing instructions say to close it after 7.) It's getting rather really nasty, and really needs some calming intervention. 86.** IP (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait what? How is closing after 12 days consider "premature" when the instructions say 7?--v/r - TP 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is bizarre. The argument seems to be that an AfD should be kept open until there is a consensus. This would (a) mean that any 'no consensus' closures were invalid, and (b) that the admin would have to assess the AfD first, and then decide whether to close it. Not only is it not the way it is done (regardless of arguments over the wording of policy - though I think current practice is in accord with this), but it would make a nonsense of the whole procedure to have repeated assessments of 'consensus', by (presumably) multiple admins, with the first to call 'consensus' making the decision. Bonkers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

: Ai yi yi - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New editor repeatedly adding uncited material, no edit summaries, no talkpage

A new editor Sallesyd (talk · contribs) is adding uncited material into the Moundville Archaeological Site, even after repeated talkpage messages to add citations with the material and removing blocks of cited material. I have left numerous messages, but no edit summaries or talkpage communication, the user many not know what the orange banner at the top of their screen is. Can I get some help with this? I've reverted them several times, after a couple of day interval asking for cites. Am approaching 3RR with them and would really like to step back and let someone else help, maybe they could get through? Heiro 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified them of this discussion, but don't know if it will do any good :-( Heiro 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be a little more aggresive in your warnings, including using templates for adding unsourced material, and templates for blanking sections of the article. I would escalate the warnings until the editor stops or you can go to WP:AIV. On a single purpose account with such a history, AIV may be more receptive to imposing a block, essentially using a very broad definition of vandalism. I would also address the issues on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For vandalism I do, maybe too aggressively at times, but I have the feeling the editor might actually be trying to add valid information. I don't want to scare them off needlessly, just get them to use talkpages, edit summaries and citations. I'm afraid I may have to go to the 3RRboard as they are now at 4RR and still no talk pages, etc. Heiro 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We are trying to use talkpages and our response continues to get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallesyd (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has deleted any talkpage posts. And who is "WE"? Heiro 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us, sorry, we are new to this. Also, the information that you deleted from Moundville Archaeological Site was information gathered by our other team members, though unfortunately we could not get the in-text references entered when we did the post. Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, the numbers in brackets were references our team members put in, it is not directly copied from another site, so no it does not violate the copyright, we did not know the exact code for entering those. Also, please understand we are trying to IMPROVE this article, we are not VANDALIZING it. If you could please refrain from deleting our material for the next few hours, we will finish our project and have all references in. The problem is that you delete our material too fast to allow us to enter the references. Our project will be finished tonight, we are not trying to cause any conflicts. Sorry for problems. Thank you User:Sallesyd —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Ok, first. See the bluelinks in my posts on your talk about WP:WOA and WP:SUP? GO DO IT NOW or have your professor do it as soon as they can. We have procedures for this. You must follow them. Second, see the bluelinks in the last sentence of my first post on your talkpage? Follow them and you can learn how to do the citations. Do this before attempting to edit again, or it will be removed again. Also, one account per person, that is a very strict rule here. These are all important. Do this correctly, follow our policies or you risk having this acct blocked from editing here. OK? Sorry if this is coming off strongly, regards. Heiro 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, I'm not even the person you're directing your comments to, and that comes off not as "strongly" but as "aggressive, mean, and threatening"--especially the all caps COMMAND in the second sentence. Yes, role accounts aren't allowed, but most people don't know that, so let's try to encourage them to do things the right way rather than ordering them about. Mind you, I agree that the information should be removed until it's verified, but now that we've got a conversation started, let's see if we can find a way to get the info into the article, properly cited, and possibly even get some people interested in editing Wikipedia in the long term. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed message on the Sallesyd's talk page and created a sandbox to work in. I'll add the article to my watchlist as well. Unless someone else thinks there's still administrative work needed here, this thread can probably be marked as resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, real life came up for a few hours. Also, sorry for the aggressive tone toward them, but it took 6 talkpage messages and finally opening this thread to get the first response from them, I was starting to get a little frustrated. And, I suspect that this group is related to the State College, PA area(geolocation from multiple IPs), which for the last year have used multiple IPs and several named accounts to edit roughly 15 or so Native American historical subjects, never with citations, sometimes actually copyvio copy and paste ins, and almost never edit summaries. Its the same editing style and this is one of the articles that has been hit before, but I can not say for sure that this is the same group. I've left numerous messages at the IPs and named accounts talkpages asking for citations, leaving blue policy links and links to WP:WOA and WP:SUP, I was doing it so much I made a short message on my user page that I could just grab and paste in whenever they popped up again. If this is from the same school, then this is the first real conversation I've managed to get out of them in the last year. I don't want to drive them away, we could use the help at these articles, that is why I brought this issue here in the first place instead of AIV as suggested by another user above or the 3RR board. My very first message to them 2 days ago included links to 2 pages about citations and how to add them here along with a welcome template with other links. Sorry again, will try to be a little more inviting and less aggressive in the future. Heiro 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us,
  - The user(s) need to be made quite clear that editing as a group on one account is strictly disallowed, and they should all sign up fo individual accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian appears to disagree. Regardless, Qwyrxian seems to have the issue under control, and, for my part, I apologize if I "incited" Hieronymous to more aggressive action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be a little more clear: I agree that 6 people cannot user one account per WP:Role accounts. I, disagree, however, with Heiro's claim that 6 people on 6 different accounts can't simultaneously work together on one article as part of a school project or even just independently. Ambassadors, for example, used to have (may still have, I stopped my association with the program recently) an "editing Friday" where as many people as possible were encouraged to tackle the same article. As long as the 6 editors don't attempt to use coordination to disrupt normal editing (i.e., to try to go to 18RR), it's fine to work on the same article. Heiro, I also want to say that I understand your frustration, as I've also dealt with both official and unofficial school projects, and when they don't interact in any way, it's very easy to feel like you're up against a brick wall. If this particular group becomes a problem again, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to followup. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said that 6 people couldn't edit the same article, but that each of them needed their own account or "one account per person". If my wording implied otherwise I apologize for the misconception, it is not what I meant. As for the school project from PA I mentioned above, if they pop up again, you're the first person I'll ask for help from, lol. Thanks, Heiro 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Russian Copyright Violaing IP addresses

Resolved

 – Disruptive editor indeffed. No rangeblocks are accomplishable. Applying WP:RBI to any future submissions the user.

Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See Also

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Rangeblocks Requested,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#IP hopper at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, WP:OTRS Noticeboard#Beatles1.ru,Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive1#Permission to use materials of the website: sexology1.narod.ru

Once again we're back here after a Collection of BEELINE-BROADBAND/CORBINA TELECOM IP addresses attempt to donate copyrighted content they don't have the rights to. I have attempted multiple times to explain to this user the rules we MUST follow for content that is suspected of being copyright infringement. Now that the OTRS noticeboard was semi-protected, the IP addresses are attempting to convince me on my talk page that they have the rights and are in the process of registering the US copyright. Based on the fact that in previous attempts we've treated the IP editors who are pushing this content with gentle hands and they have not gotten the point I feel that it's time the gloves came off. I'd like to notify the IP editor, however they have yet to confirm what username they're going to register under, so I will drop the notification on my talk page as a response to the IP editor. Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Editor has elected to regiser as Ivan Lopakin. I've droped the ANI notice on their talk page. Might some writers in russian try engaging in the user's assumed language to explain the problems? Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that will be of any merit. I've lost count how many times it's been explained to him that what he intends to do is impossible for legal reasons. A range block is impossible in terms of the ranges he uses and the MediaWiki software's limitations, but it doesn't matter because there's an edit filter in place (for Beatles songs). Effectively, his modus operandi is staking claims for other people's intellectual property in such a way that cannot be reconciled with U.S. law, where WMF servers are located. Personally, I think it's a troll. He didn't have any luck with the songs, so now he's moving on to something else. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They're using four or five different sets of IPs. I tried grouping them together into ranges, but even then they're too big to block. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I explained all on your talk page. I am not one of bad users, which use the range of the CORBINA. People can be good or bad. As known. Mistake, the words of last editor. Troll and 7000 of souls. It was joke may be. Thanks ! Ivan Lopakin (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

In other words then, a tedious waste of precious volunteer time. Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Should this account be added to the SPI for this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum article and talk page

Hi, I’ve been working on some revisions to the Occidental Petroleum article with other editors as I have a COI, which I disclosed on my account page and on that article’s talk page, but have run into some problems with another editor that has repeatedly undone several of my and other editors’ revisions without displaying a willingness to engage in constructive discussion or reach consensus. Despite attempts to work out some compromised material on the talk page, this problem persists. This user has also deleted comments from the talk page that he appears to disagree with (see series of revisions on December 9th) and rearranged other talk page posts so that some are now out of order.

In the interest of keeping the discussion civil, I have not engaged directly in conversation with this editor, but have reached out to other members of the community. I have notified this user of this post and am hoping I can get some help to constructively resolve this issue.

Thanks for your time. CBuiltother (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was also involved in this as I was asked for my opinion. I will refrain from blocking or warning Cowboy128 as I have edited the article. However I do feel we have reached the point where either a last warning or a block is probably required. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are the main policies being flouted repeatedly here. --John (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

He's a clear single-purpose account, in my opinion, whose purpose is to denounce Mr. Irani both in his article and in the article on the company of which he was the CEO. He's inserted his screed into the 'history' section and had it reverted many times, most recently by me, but he put it back, and now the article's fully protected with the undue-weight section on Irani intact. To my eye it's pretty bad; opinions may differ. Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cowboy128 has a total of 75 edits (first edit in July 2011). Only two articles have been edited: Occidental Petroleum and Ray R. Irani. Cowboy128's most recent edit (diff) was immediately prior to the article being fully protected due to the edit war. The edit (currently in the article) includes classic soapboxing such as "Irani and Occidental President, Stephen Chazen, ordered a reduction in company expenditures that resulted in hundreds of company job terminations, the majority of whom were veteran employees, in 2007-2008, at the height of the recession, even as Irani collected a massive $460 million dollar total compensation package for 2006 and the company enjoyed record profits.". In general (not commenting on this issue), I am convinced that society needs to deal with various company executives—however, Wikipedia is not the place to do that! I don't see a clear WP:BLP violation but surely an uninvolved admin can recognize inappropriate soapboxing and revert the last edit (I'm too lazy to look at the moment, but there are exceptions to WP:WRONGVERSION). Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

I've just received this apparent legal threat, but I'm not sure the proper procedure when it comes from an IP - I blocked 48 hours, but it's a mobile IP so it will be dynamic, and I'd be happy for anyone to change my block as appropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: This was the edit I reverted that triggered it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should at least point them to the WMF, or point the WMF to them. We don't want to follow WP:DOLT to the letter. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also dug a little deeper. One of the units listed there appears to be an element of vandalism, especially based on some of the prior edits. I've got a feeling that the inclusion of that item is what got the IP riled up. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims to be representing the DOD/Federal government, yet refers to a link to a state government entity conducting the alleged "investigation". And says, "Information submitted on this page was applyed on false pretense." Aren't basic grammar and spelling skills required of state and/or government employees? Doc talk 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that the mentioned agency was from one state, while the WHOIS for the IP indicated that he's in another. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is all this stuff clearly in the citation? I'm searching line by line and some of it is there, while some of it isn't. We may have an over-reliance on a single source plus post-hoc vandalism that got through because nobody bothered to check it out. I'm getting the impression that this is a WP:DOLT story from start to finish. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note sure what WMF contact details are appropriate - would be grateful if someone could give them to him if you know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  When in doubt you can send people to OTRS and the emails will get to the right people. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Just as a note looking at this, my hunch is this isn't legit. Of course, I could be wrong, I was once! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)