Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive796

Sockpuppet of blocked editor Mangoeater

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

---

Can someone please block the latest sockpuppet of blocked/banned editor User:Mangoeater1000? He or she is back to try to edit Polytechnic Institute of New York University, an article that is currently semi-protected to try to prevent this precise situation. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2013 (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.

Trouble with proposed rewrite of Zeitgeist: The Movie and User:Earl King Jr.

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

---

To Whom It May Concern, I recently started a serious discussion on the talk page for Zeitgeist: The Movie consisting of notions the page requires long-term attention to reflect a balanced encyclopedic view, which at this point it does not. There have been several digressions, including a few regarding WP:RS, and so far little progress has been made. There is some consensus the article lacks neutrality, which I am hoping I (together with other users) can work on in the medium to long-term.

Unfortunately, I have come across some trouble with User:Earl King Jr., who I have accused of trolling for the following reasons:

• Aforementioned user took down the POV template I had erected less than twelve hours prior,
• Aforementioned user, in my opinion deliberately (that is, to be subversive), injected polemical criticisms about the film into the article introduction. My reverting such has resulted in an edit war.
• Aforementioned user continues to act subversively and perniciously, and his edits are undermining any progress towards neutrality.
• I warned aforementioned user to desist from the behaviours outlined above, but his actions only gained impetus.
• Aforementioned user has been generally provocative and divisive in his (ungrammatical) contributions on the talk page. He has also made several immature comments.

I move to censure this user's contributions, and invite arbitration where necessary. Xabian40409 (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be best to ignore this one, especially if Xabian40409 is willing to withdraw it (without prejudice). (Speaking as an involved admin.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not willing to withdraw it. The atmosphere of disruption has hitherto made progress almost impossible. Although I may now be spider-man climbing the Reichstag, on principle alone I see a real need for the services of impartial adjudicator, if any progress is to be made. This includes making an example of Earl King Jr. Xabian40409 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at Zeitgeist: The Movie and your contributions and discussion. I strongly suggest you reconsider Arthur Rubin's generous offer and read WP:BOOMERANG.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how I am shooting myself in the foot, unless an arbitrator were to focus more on my arguments with others, than on the content of the article that's being abused and compromised by the actions of others. Nevertheless I have an important assignment due on Friday, and I can't invest more energy at this point. I am willing to take a cold shower and have a cold glass of water, and hereby revoke my complaint. Sorry for the disturbance. Xabian40409 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2013 (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:Jiraiya47

Jiraiya47 (talk · contribs) keeps posting Tagalog language jokes, which keep getting speedily deleted. He's just posted two pages of jokes into File-namespace File:TAGALOG JOKE TIME.png and File:Tagalog Jokes.jpeg, after his mainspace pages were previously speedily deleted. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There's more, File:Joke Time Na and File:Joke Time Tagalog.gif -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What's more, I can't find any edits at Special:Contributions/Jiraiya47 which are not disruptive. —teb728 t c 06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And indeffed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Orlady

I feel it is my duty to inform the group of a situation that has arisen due to my work on the Category:County government in the United States category. I am sure that many of you realize that this is an area which had been neglected because people do not care enough about it, even though it deserves the attention. County government is just far enough out of people's attention that most people could not name a single one of their elected county officials, yet perhaps more deserving of attention than, for instance, the mayor of a municipality within a county (a person which most people usually could name).

I soon ran into a few small issues that came up, and I responded to the eventual consensus. The matter was the question "Is a county government local government, or is it an agency of state government?" I can tell you for absolute certain, that with a very few possible exceptions, that county governments are agencies of the state government that are locally accountable through elections. The Wikipedia consensus was that county government is local government, and I organized it as such. Even thought the campaigning and elections are local, the actual governing involves state powers.

In the course of these discussions User:Orlady was very immature, unhelpful an obstructionist. There were no policy violations, at that time, but the fact is that I lost respect for this person quickly, and for my part I have refused to respond to her immaturity, and informed her not to contact me further. At this point I think I have a case for Wikipedia:Harassment, and if it does not rise to that level yet, then I feel I need to put these events on the record, so as to establish that a pattern is occurring.

A) Orlady spammed about a dozen state article talk pages (including Rhode Island and Connecticut which have no county government?!?). At some point I interjected and pointed all the discussion to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. I was willing to enter into a discussion of the matter, but not 50 discussions. Orlady interpred this as **ME** starting new discussions while there were on-going discussions. Obviously this is very disingenuous.

B) At some point I mentioned my education and experience in the subject matter, and I have not heard the last of it! How arrogant I must be! There is a brain drain problem at Wikipedia, and knowledgeable editors are being driven away by the hoi polloi that very often prevails. For myself, when there are editors who are knowledgeable in subject matter in which I am not, I stay out of their way.

C) Orlady specifically mentioned the idea about discouraging me from editing, and the idea that perhaps in the future, I would not be editing.

D) I had asked for some time to do some work on the category, but that has been met with cries that I am WP:OWNing content. So I have been dealing with hypersensitive sniping, nitpicking and reverting of my work in the area. It's hard enough already without her. She appears to be wikistalking me.

E) Orlady has opposed every proposal for moving, renaming or deleting categories, as well as every proposal to merge articles which I have made, and which is her right. However, I feel it is my duty to express my view that she has not brought up a single useful point in the entire course of the discussion.

F) The most disturbing development is that it now appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Orlady is standing by her false beliefs and imposing it in the content. This is agenda editing, and not appropriate. My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government, and this claim is supported by several sources, and is what I learned in graduate level studies in local and state government. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Orlady has looked at this evidence, and rather than accept and learn from it, is clinging to denialism1, and trying to rationalize her own views with her own wild interpretations 2. Most recently she deleted a substantial amount of content from County government in the United States which is completely objective information, but which contradicts her agenda.

H) She has posted about me personally, which is not relevant to any discussion underway.

G) Orlady announced her intention to continue to hound me in the future.

I am perfectly willing to account for all of the nuances and variances in county government as the evidence arises. However, At some point I think a topic ban may be in order for Orlady. I need to be able to work in a mutually respectful environment. Could some reasonable and mature editors intervene please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs)

I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Wikipedia reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Orlady did nothing which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban. [OK, this diff deserves a wrist-slap, and one will be duly administered. But beyond that, I see no evidence of an agenda, conspiracy or serious misconduct. Your own conduct appears to be far more tenditious (eg. repeatedly dismissing other editors' comments as "Not Helpful"). Manning (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post [1]; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." [2] Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I find the comments: "... you have an entitled attitude..." and "It is very clear that you have supreme confidence in your own beliefs" in the link provided by NE Ent to be ironic, if not outright hypocritical. I'm sensing that there may be a WP:BOOMERANG nearby. — Ched :  ?  02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that this case appears to star an inbound WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So the question is, what to do about it? Is Gregbard's participation in this particular domain a net positive even as he wars against what would appear to be wider consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Gregbard is currently saying the same sorts of things to (and about) Alansohn as he has said to and about me in this section of Gregbard's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gregbard

• Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
• Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.

• Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Wikipedia:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by 71.139.157.86 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support this as preferable to the watered-down 3-month version below. Civility problems, WP:OWNership issues, and an apparent persecution complex make a rather nasty cocktail when mixed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why Gregbard is informing readers of over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy about the proposed topic ban on local government. I'm also not sure why he felt it necessary to edit other people's comments in the process. Very odd. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a form of WP:CANVASSING. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Support topic ban and a side order of trout. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Both the diffs given and the editor's comments here certainly demonstrate that there is an issue, one which unfortunately requires something like this in order to hopefully resolve. I don't think limiting it to 3 months is sufficient, because I don't think a short pre-determined length of time is something that will fix anything, and I think an indefinite topic ban would be more appropriate (emphasizing that indefinite does not mean infinite). - SudoGhost 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I know this makes my position unique in a place bristling with admins. Orlady acknowledges that the topic has very little traffic and Gregbard is contributing to it. I suggest that the allegations of damage to the project be examined in detail, and an AN/I is not the place for that, as that would involve examination of content. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been looking at this and I see an awful lot of heat having been generated, and I think that is not the best condition for deciding on topic bans. Gregbard has reacted emotionally to what has been happening, but "striking while the iron is hot" should not be the way we work here. With the consensus on article content being the way it is, I don't see any pressing need for a ban right now, so I think we'd be better to let things cool and let emotions subside - we can see how things develop once everyone has settled down again, and if any problem persists we can reconsider the issue with cooler heads all round -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. This thread is too much to read, but Greg, it seems you believe you're right about something, can't gain consensus and it has upset you a lot. My suggestion is that you drop the subject for at least one month, then return to it with a series of article RfCs or requested-move discussions, or whatever is appropriate. But first you have to let the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Racing straight get the lynchin' rope again, obviously. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose --doncram 00:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose. If Greg agrees to abide by consensus (which is clearly against him on this particular issue), and actually does so, there is nothing further to discuss. It should be noted that he has specifically agreed not to abide by consensus in another section of this thread, so an explicit agreement is required. I think this sanction (applying to talk pages) is too severe, even so, but I wouldn't object to an indefinite ban on posts in other than talk pages where there is a consensus which he has agreed not to abide by. (A preposition is something one should never end a sentence with.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What statement of mine are you interpreting as "specifically agree[ing] 'not' to abide by consensus?" Greg Bard (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"I will not accept a sanction of any kind." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That means that if I am sanctioned in any way, I will appeal it. If the issue is not resolved to my satisfaction upon appeal, I will just refrain from contributing. So, it really is a matter of people needing to get their minds out of the gutter, frankly. Greg Bard (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I didn't know of this dispute until just now and have never encountered this editor. That said, a topic ban appears richly deserved, especially when the quote just above is factored in. "Won't accept" should be a red flag to any editor who believes that we are a community based on consensus. Opposers should be taking that into consideration. An agreement to abide at this late date, if it does come forth, is clearly made under duress. Jusdafax 03:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

All that means is that if I am sanctioned in any way, I will appeal it. If the issue is not resolved to my satisfaction upon appeal, I will just refrain from contributing. I don't deserve any sanction of any kind, and I don't have to pretend that I do. Wikipedians have not only the right, but also the duty to challenge any infringement on their user privileges. If your vote is based solely on this statement, that will only support my claim that the admin community has acted in a wildly rash manner. I told a user who had been causing issues for over a month that their statement was "Not helpful." So in your mind a three month ban is in order on that basis? Correct? Greg Bard (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, I am not an admin, and over a period of years have expressed numerous concerns about admins and various abuses of power by those with extra buttons. Among other failings, you appear to be unable to understand the Five Pillars which we all edit under: "fundamental principles" which we violate at peril of restricted or eliminated editing rights. If the community sanctions you it will come as a consensus, and usually means you have "messed up" badly. Appealing a community-approved topic ban to ArbCom isn't likely, in my view, to be heard by them, though you are free to try. And if you continue to defy and disparage the core values of the encyclopedia as you have in this latest round of foot-shooting, I don't call for a topic ban but an indefinite block, until such time as you gain the wisdom of humility. Take heed. Jusdafax 05:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you articulate yourself, exactly how I have "messed up?" How have I abandoned any of the five pillars at all?!? Consensus on content issues are one matter, but disciplinary sanctions are subject to due process. So I have (again), not only the right, but the duty to challenge this matter. The proposed ban is wildly harsh for an extremely mild offence, which I maintain my innocence. Please do investigate the fact of this case thoroughly. I violated no policy, I came to the ANI/I in good faith to request input into a conflict, and people are throwing "boomerang" around as if that is some reasonable or mature thing to do. I have stopped editing since the insane proposal arose. So there really is no just cause for any action against me, and if a consensus arises, then that really will just call into question the process. The idea that coming to my own defense is somehow an offence in and of itself is highly immoral. It is bullying, and abuse. Some are calling it "suicide by admin" as if that somehow justifies anything. The analogy is not apt, as I have my hands in the air. If the community decised to shoot anyway, that isn't a case of "suicide by admin," it's abuse. If we are to stay consistent with the analogy, it is a situation where the gun and badge get taken away. Greg Bard (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on the above comments by Gregbard dated 8 May. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This ban discussion appears to me based more on Gregbard's poor choice of phrasing in an ANI thread than any actual disruption ; saying they'll appeal a sanction, regardless of the chances of success of that appeal, isn't disruptive. NE Ent 09:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion to above

• Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:

• a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The claim that a county government is an agency of a state government is patently absurd, and the fact that not only does he refuse to change his position but is attacking other editors to defend it is extremely concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:

1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting something to ANI is never just "putting it on the record". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)What he said. Also accusing people of being bullies doesn't help your case; 'I will immediately appeal' and 'Don't waste your time' are not words that help your position, either. The fact of the matter here, Greg, is that after reviewing your claim here - which you continue to insist is correct without even the slightest possibility of your being mistaken, despite everyone else contending you are, being considered - it is entirely without basis. If you make a claim that cannot be verified, such as 'county governments are agencies of state governments', and then personally attack people who call you on it while continuing in the aforementioned 'I'm right because I'm right' behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when people start wondering if you're a net positive to the project. Your "huge contribution" matters not if you refuse to follow policies that are in the Five Pillars in your editing. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick, accept that you are in the wrong, have some seafood, and move on - if you continue as you have been above, a topic ban is inevitable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wise words, those are. Heed them, you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try a different angle. Gregbard - we ("the admins") only have one agenda - to protect and enhance the project. We do not support any individual - we don't even support each other - unless the project directly benefits. You may have believed that coming to AN/I would only provoke the admin body to examine Orlady's conduct. But it didn't - we ALWAYS examine the entire situation, and then we try to do what we believe is best for the entire project. We don't always get it right, and we definitely encounter a lot of criticism, but that is exclusively what motivates us and directs our action.

I know you believe quite strongly that the project is benefiting hugely from your contributions. However your agenda ("to present the truth") and our agenda ("to preserve the project") have now come into direct conflict. You state above that you have not violated any policy, but I can say with great confidence you've clearly violated two of our biggest ones - Civility and Consensus.

SO, your approach to presenting the truth is strongly going against "how we do things" - through the Five Pillars. You are welcome to criticize our process (everyone else does). But for all of its faults, our process works, and we have Wikipedia as proof. So please examine The Bushranger's and Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice given above - it is well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If Gregbard is dropping his participation in this domain voluntarily then we're done here, at least for now (his misunderstandings of the consequence of consensus, of the role of administrators and of the purpose of ANI may work against him elsewhere, but that's for another day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Gregbard is dropping out of this area voluntarily, if his most recent statement on this talk page (later than anything he's said on this page) is any indication. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems clear that discussion and negotiation are not really achieving any success. Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a determination? Manning (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've experienced much of what Orlady has endured in dealing with Gregbard. The inability for GB to recognize that consensus may conflict with his interpretation of ultimate truth has led to an inability to work together as part of a community. There is room for cleanup and reorganization of county and local government articles, but the idiosyncratic interpretations of source materials and the failure to work towards consensus have made these areas more of a mess than they ever were before. A period of reflection and observation would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• comment Does it make any difference that Gredbard just so happens to be right? County government is an extension of the state government. Or does that matter? Just to use a bit of extreme hyperbole, I probably could find, if I tried hard enough, consensus that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Yet we all know the sun doesn't rise or set. The earth spins. It is simply our perception that leads us to believe the sun rises and sets. Same goes for county government. We perceive it one way, but in actuality it is an extension of state government in every state I know of.Redddbaron (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, when it goes this far it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. If someone can point to an easily available reference where it can easily be seen that a particular side in a dispute is correct, then of course the community would prefer that right triumph. However, it is clear that this matter cannot be so readily resolved, and the collaborative approach would be to say, "Thanks for all the feedback. I know that in due course it will be seen that I'm right, but I see that consensus is against me, so I'll drop the whole matter." Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmmm Easily available reference? You mean a simple easy reputable source that says plainly, "When our national government was formed, the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state."-National Association of Counties; Something like that? Takes about 30 seconds to find references like that. I seriously don't understand this big blow-up. Maybe the issue has nothing to do with the wiki pages at all. Maybe the big whole thing is about personalities instead? I mean it is pretty obvious that Shakespeare was correct when he wrote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." You think GregBard forgot that wisdom and over reacted himself, so that the two of them together kept tensions increasing as each one over-reacted to the other? It's pretty clear to me that Greg wasn't actually rude, just dismissive ie... scornful of the ignorance on such a simple and obvious mistake that any first year student of civics should know. A reaction most anyone might have. Using my previous example of rising sun and setting sun. If an editor actually did try to make a consensus that the sun rotates around the earth rising in the east and setting in the west, it would be a very likely reaction by any educated person in science to be dismissive and just change it back. Editors do that all the time on many wiki pages. They have to. But some people would take offence to that when no offense or rudeness was intended. Just fixing a silly mistake. Why exactly has wiki allowed this to escalate this far in the first place? Just find a wiki admin to change it to what Greg said. He is right. And then take the time to explain it in a way that is not scornful, so the "consensus coalition" don't go crazy getting "revenge" for perceived insults.68.229.213.209 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Sorry, I forgot to log in so the signature is an IP Redddbaron (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not quite so easy as you portray - the very next paragraph of that reference you cited discusses how local governments have since changed to being heavily autonomous. I don't think any of this is about personalities at all. For me, I simply can't see how GregBard's argument is supported by any of the references he provides (and I've examined every single one of them). I'm more than willing to be persuaded on the basis of factual accuracy, but so far everything I have been shown supports the consensus position. Manning (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• I can support the idea of restricting Gregbard to talk pages on the topic of government for a short period, to try to encourage an approach more closely aligned with our consensus ethos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, no, I think any sanction would only make things worse at this point, and I see no likelihood of damage to the project - we need voluntary disengagement for a little while. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I oppose any action without evidence that he has and that he would continue to do damage to the project. It is regardless of his behaviour here, such as calling those who are critical of him "shameless" ashamed of themselves, he may do well to strike that out, as it is only making his case worse. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I hope he steps away from this for a few weeks, but by persuasion not force. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is not an area I'm very familiar with. However, my understanding is that there is a difference between being a state agency and being under the authority of the state. Per Dillon's Rule, local government is under the authority of the state and doesn't have the same federalism protection which states have from the federal government, but that doesn't mean local government is a state agency (and some jurisdictions may not follow Dillon's Rule, but rather Cooley's Rule). Whether or not a county is a "local government" is a semantic question which probably hasn't been worth answering in most cases, but generally my impression is that country government is thought of as local government. In any case, generalizing about the law of United States is quite difficult and should be done very carefully. Orlady has shown in User:Orlady/County_by_state that the sources Gregbard is bringing really aren't up for it. In the case of Colorado, it does appear that If Gregbard used law review articles or perhaps textbooks, maybe you could start to describe the situation: a start might be looking at sources which cite Regionalizing Emergency Management: Counties as State and Local Government or perhaps getting access to Conducting Research on Counties in the 21st Century: A New Agenda and Database Considerations or County Governments: “Forgotten” Subjects in Local Government Courses?. As a further comment, think about the word 'agency' and consider the law of agency. State agencies are literally agents of the state, whose principal is the state's governor (and ultimately, the state's population) and a legislature which represents the state as a whole. On the other hand, counties typically have their own elections on a regional basis. II | (t - c) 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Still too severe a result for an early report of problematic behavior. For the record, @Gregbard: Counties are not agencies of state government, they are independent administrative divisions of state territories. Each county has its own charter and bylaws. County administrative structure varies from place to place. Counties are subject to state law. This is all axiomatic; do not attempt a novel reinterpretation of reality, if this is what you are doing. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The relationship between county and states is not a "Paris is in france" kind of thing and best determined by reliable sources, not assumption, and may, in fact, vary from state to state. NE Ent 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. --doncram 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose. If Greg agrees to abide by consensus (which is clearly against him on this particular issue), and actually does so, there is nothing further to discuss. It should be noted that he has specifically agreed not to abide by consensus in another section of this thread, so an explicit agreement is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes Ent is correct that it is a bit complicated, since everyone seems to agree that state governments are unitary states and not federated; on the other hand, the consensus to categorize counties as local seems to have consensus and seems to address other salient characteristics of counties. So, follow consensus.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin abuse

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.

---

We have a new issue here. I have tried to defend myself against accusations, and my attempts to defend myself are being met with offence that I should even try! I have stated that I think I am being bullied at this point, and I am being told "not to take this approach." Bullying is an important issue in our society today. We have a system here with no due process, and my options, in terms of my free speech are limited here (i.e my ability to defend myself without running up against some other restrictive policy). You know if someone told me that I was "bullying" someone, I would be taken aback, and stop to investigate the nature of my offence, because I am a morally reflective person. When I tell this group that I am being bullied, and told not to speak out about it, well that's how bullies act. They don't hear plaintiff pleas to stop, and they plow forward. I am being accused of thinks that I didn't do, and this situation has just gotten way out of control on your part. I'm getting very condescending messages on my talk page filled with presumptions, and I don't have a system of due process available to me to defend myself. What are the limits of consensus? If there is no policy violation, do you just make up a conflict and then claim that the consensus itself is the policy violation?!? What are my options here? Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? Can I post a message to this board every day for the next three months, or will that be intrerpreted as a policy violation? The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that?! People are plowing forward with their presumptions as if they are real, and here I am telling people to stop, and not being heard. Who do I go to if my claim is that this process is being abused? I take this situation very seriously, and I wonder if those who have the power to abuse me take what they are doing as seriously as I do. I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard. Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?! I have stated that I will cooperate. You basically have a gun to my head, and I have my hands up. If you pull the trigger, that really supports my claim that this situation is abuse. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard." See also, WP:NOTHERE Bobby Tables (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I guess it relates to the ANI thread above about Orlady? I'll look at it, but in the meantime: "Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?!" Not necessarily, no. People do things in good faith that are wrong all the time. If they can't learn from their mistakes, then we have to stop them through sanctions. An example: take a person who doesn't understand copyright policy. They keep uploading text from copyrighted sources without attribution. Now, they might think, "Oh, well the text is published, so it's out in the public and not private, therefore it's in the public domain and okay for me to copy." That's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, and they're doing it in good faith, believing that it's okay and in Wikipedia's benefit. But it's still wrong, and if they don't listen to explanations and learn from their mistakes, then eventually we may be forced to block them, to prevent more copyright violations from seeping into the project. Everything they did, they did in good faith, but it still ended up in blocks and sanctions. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's necessary. Again, I don't know what your situation actually is, so this isn't a comment on or an analogy to your actions specifically; just a response to the general principle of sanctioning someone for good-faith actions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw the thread title and came here to abuse an admin. This is false advertising. :) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You were cautioned previously what could happen if you would not come in line to the Wikipedia community consensus regarding behavior and how to build consensus. Now you've opened another ANI thread and it looks like you're complaining about the cries of "Admin abuse" for being properly warned and some community members suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the community to not edit for a while. Having looked at your talk page (and it's history) I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia is not the government, and you don't have rights here. Wikipedia grants you privileges that can be suspended or revoked depending on the community's perception of your actions.

'TL:DR You were warned about WP:BOOMERANG and now here it is.

PS: Where's the abuse of admin I came to enjoy? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Suicide by admin (board (post)). LOL. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Greg, at this point it's as if you're asking to be blocked, as you are clearly not listening to a word that's been said - or, perhaps more precisely, you're putting your own, prejudiced by virtue of your obvious "I'm right, because I am right, and I CANNOT be wrong" POV, spin on what is being said. Consensus is that your original contention that raised this whole mess is erronious. That's not "made-up conflict" - the only person causing, and escalating, conflict here is you. I repeat what I said earlier: you could easily avoid any and all topic-bannings by simply realising that you are not in the right here, admitting as such, and stating that you won't WP:BATTLEGROUND against consensus in a WP:IDHT manner in the future. If instead, however, you post another rant as you did above, you'll simply establish, through your own actions, that you don't understand the very basis of how Wikipedia works, and that you're here to spread WP:THETRUTH, not to build an encyclopedia. (You might also want to have a look, based on your comments above, at WP:FREESPEECH.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to the admin abuse claim

Greg - I will continue to try and negotiate with you. I'll note I have made several previous comments and you have not responded to any of them.

• I have tried to defend myself against accusations - Could you show us where have you done this? There are many comments and suggestions above from a variety of admins (not just myself), and I don't see your response anywhere.

I still have yet to see a valid accusation! What exactly is it that I am accused of?! The idea seems to be that I have gone against consensus, and I have yet to see a discussion that has been closed! As far as I know, I was still trying to inform the consensus. We do, however have the example of Orlady redirecting the County government in the United States article after a merge had been proposed, one person registered their opinion, all within 24 hours. Is that the way we are supposed to achieve consensus?!? This is outrageous. I am not playting games here. I am telling you this situation is out of control, and AI am getting nothing but patronizing, condescending, ill-informed statement directed toward myself. My proposal is to delay any sanctions for one week. I think this has been very rashly put forward. I have recieve NO warning. I have been given NO opportunity to correct myself, nor has anything been put forward that I need to correct. The idea seems to be that I should roll over and die, and anything less is some great offence that is making my situation worse. That isn't judicious. That isn't fair-mminded. That isn't a mature, rational use of administrative authority at all. I have been present in discussion from the very beginning of these issues, so the idea that punitive sanctions are needed is gratuitous abuse of power.Greg Bard (talk)

As to what you are accused of, I would list ignoring/bypassing Wikipedia consensus procedures and severe incivility, particularly but not exclusively directed at me.

The above comment includes a false accusation against me. I did not unilaterally redirect County government in the United States. It was redirected by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah following merger discussion at Talk:Local government in the United States, where that other user judged that the consensus was to redirect. My subsequent edit there was a null edit done to supply an edit summary to identify the talk page that the other user's edit summary had identified as the location for continued discussion. I personally thought that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's action was premature (if I encountered it in my role as an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion or taken action), but I think the judgement of consensus probably was valid in view of the direction that the discussion was taking. Your comment here indicates that you didn't look at the edit history or the talk pages when you restored the full article and blamed its redirection on "one person". I did revert that edit of yours 23 hours later, after additional discussion had occurred on the new talk page the other user had started and after this WP:ANI discussion was well under way. At that point, I did comment that the redirection had been "proper" and based on consensus; mostly I wanted the edit history to document why the redirection had occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? - Yes, that is us. And despite your protests and accusations of "bullying", many of us are actually trying to help you. No actual action has been taken by anyone, we are still trying to sort the matter out. However if a ban is applied, you can take the matter to the arbitration committee's ban appeals process.

You don't seem to be listening to me at all, and instead seem to be presuming guilt from the beginning.

• The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that? - In numerous places, but this is a good example.

Excuse me! That doesn't state anywhere that I intend to go against the consensus AT ALL, but is rather still an attempt to inform it. So I will ask the same question again, and please show me one of the "numerous places" that are not a matter of a wild interpretation! Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have stated that I will cooperate. Good. Please start by explaining on the talk page of the relevant articles how you achieve your conclusion from the references you have provided. Sweeping statements like "Any intelligent person can see I am right" are NOT helpful. I am an intelligent person, as are all of the admins here, but I cannot not see how you got to your conclusion from the references you cited. If anything, they contradict your claim (particularly the NACO example). If an argument is not strong enough to persuade the editors, how can we expect it to sound reasonable to our readers?

The NACO claim directly supports my claim in no unambiguous terms. It clearly states that the original intention was that "counties were created as an arm of the state", and sure does not name some event where any of that changed.

I provided about a dozen links. If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before, and it came up the day before... it is reasonable to believe that it will come up tomorrow. That's how the principle of induction that underlies all of scientific knowledge works, and that is how theories work. So each one of the dozen or so individually support my claim, and together they form a strong argument for my claim. At this point my explaining this seems like I'm being condescending, which I do not wish to be. However it appears to be necessary. At least one of those sources includes the clear statement: "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state."Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg, you provided those links on a page in your user space (where I am not permitted to engage in discussion) and on a couple of other users' talk spaces. You have not presented your evidence in venues designed for content discussion at Wikipedia. If you want other Wikipedians to accept your opinions as valid, you need to tell us what your opinions are, you need to provide a sourced basis for your views (saying "I was taught this in college in no uncertain terms" doesn't qualify as sourcing), you need to let other people participate in discussion, you need to be willing to interact with those other people, and you need to let the discussion take some time. Finally, you need to accept that Wikipedia consensus might go against you; you cannot "win" by announcing that your position is correct because you know you are correct and because you know that everyone else here lacks your superior qualifications.

As for the links you cite as evidence, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I followed some of them. (Thanks for adding a little levity to my day. See User:Orlady/County by state for my comments on some of your evidence.) For the most part, your links are to primary sources, which are not generally relied upon at Wikipedia because they are susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Your "it is a well settled matter" quote is from this document, which is not only a primary source, but a non-authoritative primary source, being an attorney's legal brief, specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". One lawyer's argument is hardly authoritative, and my reading of the brief indicates that your quotation has far less significance in context than you place upon it. Some of your quotations are even more severely misinterpreted; for example, at one point you cited this court document to say "several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state," but the complete sentence says the opposite: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases." Your assertions of moral, intellectual, and academic superiority might be more compelling if your evidence were not so weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility. Please also do not tell people to "defer" to your opinion - that is the very opposite of consensus building.

People really seem to be offended that I responded to Orlady's comments at WP:USA with "Not helpful" REALLY?! That was an attempt to avoid arguing about irrelevant issues. That was a very mature move on my part. Those statements of hers were not helpful, and my identifying them as such were not some great insult. Furthermore, I thought we were mature enough to handle requests to defer. That was my presumption in the context of AGF. I think this is a gross hypersensitivity on the part of people who are just looking to make trouble for me. That isn't AGF. I say it again: people should be ashamed of themselves. It isn't rhetoric either. I am a fair-minded person, and I have demonstrated that conspicuously. Being "ignorant" is not a morally blameful thing. It isn't offensive to a mature adult to have one's ignorance pointed out to them. There are plenty of areas in which I am ignorant. Knowing right from wring isn't one of them. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You said "not helpful" to multiple other participants in that discussion. That was just one example of a refusal to engage in discussion aimed at reaching consensus. I've been trying to figure out why you consider that responding to another person with a curt dismissal of "not helpful" is a sign of maturity, and all I can come up with is that it's similar to a parent telling a child "because I said so". As a veteran parent myself, I don't see that parental behavior as particularly mature; regardless, unsubstantiated assertions of superior authority aren't how we resolve differences of opinion at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The admins are charged with a responsibility - to prevent disruption to the project. Right now it is very difficult to interpret what you are doing as anything other than disruption. So work with us, talk to us as reasonable people, please stop insulting everyone involved, and and maybe we can work this out. Manning (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a harsh, unnecessary, interpretation and goes completely against AGF. You should apply the same disposition toward Orlady with regard to the fact that I requested she not contact me again, and yet she has repeatedly badgered me, as well as the merge without consensus which she performed, the evidence of which is indisputable. I go back to my original claim: Orlady is a troublemaker, and she has you all played. For my part, I have stopped editing in the articlespace, and if I am sanctioned I feel I will have no choice but to address the systemic issues that have lead to this attack on myself. We could analyse this situation in depth for months if you feel that the priority is to teach me some lesson. Please do articulate what that lesson is first. Show me a closed discussion, whose consensus I have gone against. Show me an example of incivility, which could not also be interpreted as standing firm in ones position. The lesson so far seems to me to be a political one, that just defending oneself is itself on offence. I don't think that is what admins want to impart. So please do use your words, not your powers, of which I have none. Pretend for a moment that the respect of a person who has no powers over you matters.

We don't rd" tiue process here. We rely on the fair-mindedness of administrators. Yet we have people mockingly throwing "boomerang" as if stating that makes it fair or reasonable. I have receive NO warning, and the moment the proposal to sanction me arose, I stopped in my tracks. This has put a chill on my contributions (which are substantial and numerous in the very area which it is proposed I be banned). Where did this proposal of three months come from? Was this well thought out? Do we have a sanction seriousness index, or is this one size fits all? We already have a several day stop in my activities to address this administrative action on me. Does this time count? I am requesting that sanctions be immediately taken off the table. I have about a dozen biographies of mayors, and representatives which I am working on for which there is NO good reason to stop me from creating. Where are the priorities here? Is Orlady so well trusted that you are willing to stop this productive work? Is that not a real "disruption of the project" or do you not see it that way? Is the process more important than the goal here? If so, I think you have lost your way.

When I was in college, I was appointed chairman of the student Bill of Rights committee for the entire California State University system (the largest system of higher education in the world with 450,000 students). I served in that capacity, because caring about protecting people's rights are important to me. I went on to serve as commissioner of judicial affairs, and later served as the "lawyer" in the case that established judicial review at my university (you don't need a license to practice law before a student judiciary). I am fairly certain that I take respecting people's rights more seriously than is being taken here. When I say, that people should be ashamed at abusing their position, I have done what I need to do in my life for my words to mean something here. I have made over 70, 000 edits to wikipedia. I feel personally responsible for the integrity and reputation of Wikimedia, and I have defended it publicly. I have reached out to other organizations on Wikimedia's behalf with the idea that they are worth it. Do not disgrace yourselves by eating one of your own most loyal, decent and valuable members.

The Wikimedia Board of Directors does not seem to involve itself in the consensus decision making process here. Do not prove them wrong by abusing your given administrative powers for no good reason. I used to be on the board of a community radio station, as well as a public access tv station. Those organizations were in their adolescent stages when I served on their boards. There were all kinds of issues and conflicts, and by the time my term on their boards were done, I had helped make them more professional organizations. Please drop the condescending to me, and consider for a moment that I am all that I have claimed to be -- a mature adult waiting for those around me to join me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that's what way too many admins think. protect and enhance. WP:Administrator doesn't actually say that. You know it's called a mop -- not a sword and shield. What the better admins (of which there are many) get is the real purpose of admins is to help editors. This editor came here looking for help. So help him. That doesn't mean talking at him. The AGF interpretation of Gregbard's actions is that they're a frustrated editor who doesn't get the consensus model of Wikipedia, and the total lack of due process per WP:NOJUSTICE. By the way, Orlady made unnecessary posts to GB's page [3] after being requested not to [4]. That "defer" diff [5]? Doesn't say "defer to my opinion." Says defer to Wikipedia:Capitalization -- hardly a radical statement. NE Ent 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent - It is the responsibility of ALL editors to protect and enhance the project. Admins are no different in that regard, they just have a few extra tools to accomplish some specific tasks, and by community consensus are entrusted with making certain judgment calls. As to this case, no sanction has been applied. Numerous admins have reached out to Greg Bard to try and resolve the situation. Yes, I did interpret that diff as meaning "defer to my opinion" - but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Either way we need GregBard to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner. Manning (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's okay to be an admin and it's okay to be an editor -- but it's generally not effective to try to be both at once (i.e. in the same context); let the "editors" (regardless of whether they happen to have a sysop bit) doing the content work -- the protecting and enhancing, if you will -- while admins function to help with certain janitorial chores. We do not need GregBard to participate further -- in fact less participation is exactly what he should be doing now. What we need is to find a positive, non-judgemental way to connect so that going forward he and Orlady and the rest of the folks can get back to writing the Encyclopedia without dragging each other down. And ANI is really not good at that at all ; it's suitable for the "quick resolution" situations, nothing complex. NE Ent 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Of potential additional relevance

I don't want to get into substantive discussion but for information purposes another discussion relating to Greg and county categories is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed nominations, hinging on whether or not a number of categories on county government should be speedily renamed in line with others recently created by him or whether that does not constitute a convention that qualifies them for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (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.

My recommendation and final comments

OK, I've gone as far as I can productively go here, so this will be my last comment. Based on the above, GregBard seems wholly committed to his stance which boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Our collective attempts to engage him in productive discussion have largely failed (see above, and also here). As NE Ent observes above, GregBard does not appear to "get" the consensual model, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In this example he declares he will "abide by consensus", but then goes on to misrepresent the consensus that emerged in the preceding discussion as aligning with his viewpoint (by placing all categories under "state government").

In my opinion (speaking only as an editor, not as an admin), none of his references lend support to his position, despite his repeated insistence to the contrary. The NACO example seems to completely contradict his claim - the page directly contrasts the original formulation of county government (as GregBard states, as an "arm of the state") with the current arrangement, and states... "After World War I, population growth, and suburban development, the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments.... Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government." Throughout the various occasions when someone has questioned his reasoning, the response is either "it's obvious" or "I am the educated person, so you should abide by what I say". Needless to say, neither of these response types reflect "how we do things".

On that basis, it is thus my assessment (as an admin) that GregBard is engaged in disruptive conduct - although in fairness there is no deliberate intent to be disruptive as such. On the plus side, he has not editing any county related article since this AN/I discussion began to focus on his activity. If this remains the status quo, then this thread can be closed without further action. If however, the disruptive editing resumes, then I believe a topic ban of some duration will become necessary, as per the above discussion. I will let another admin to make that determination.

To another matter - Gregbard has repeatedly requested punitive action be taken against Orlady. I and several other admins have reviewed the actions of Orlady, and I reprimanded her for improper conduct in one case (a reprimand she accepted without dispute). Others are free to examine her actions, of course, but I do not feel there is anything else actionable here. I do encourage both of them to refrain from interacting as much as possible, as it is clear that (at least for the time being) GregBard holds considerable animosity against her. I also suggest Orlady refrain from reverting any more of GregBard's edits. Instead bring them to the attention of an admin (such as myself, or any other admin willing to take an active role).

That's about all I can say at this point. If the discussion dies hereafter (as I hope it does) another admin can close this discussion at their discretion. If it continues, I will refrain from commenting. Good luck. Manning (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose Not only does this proposal fail to take any actual action against Gregbard (which clearly has consensus above), it also bizarrely includes a revert ban against Orlady, which isn't warranted at all. This comes dangerously close to blaming (and worse, persecuting) the victim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • I'm not certain how the word "suggestion" constitutes a 'revert ban'. For your reference, Orlady was in fact the subject of the original complaint, thus the the final paragraph (which clearly indicates there is nothing actionable). Manning (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have to say that I have a bad feeling about the suggestion that Gregbard's "considerable animosity" towards me means that I should refrain from interacting with Gregbard or reverting any more of his edits, and should instead bring them to the attention of another admin. In its effect, suggesting that I ought to defer to his wishes is saying that a user can declare ownership of articles and edits simply by declaring "I have considerable animosity toward you, so you'd better stay away from me" to every user who disagrees with them, issues warnings, or takes administrative action. Gregbard's "do not contact me further" declarations (first on his talk page and then on my talk page) were in fact his response to my having warned him to desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process. Are we going to start telling disruptive users that every time they receive a warning they should post a "do not contact me further" message to exempt themselves from future interactions from the user who warned them? --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Orlady, it was meant as an optional short-term tactic for a highly experienced editor such as yourself to employ in this specific circumstance - nothing more. Please don't read any more into it - for some strange reason the cabal still refuses to allow me to dictate policy based on my whim. Manning (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind. You don't stand up in the middle of a discussion, declare a consensus, and the last person who reverts something get banned for three months. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and have not wavered from that. However, the shark tank here takes offence at the very idea that they could be wrong, and refuse to back down. That's administrative abuse. The comment from admins directed toward me concerning my understanding are completely oblivious! I have been an editor since 2006. I have made over 70,000 contributions. There are whole swaths of content and organization that I created. I have acted in legislative, executive, judicial, and diplomatic capacities es on behalf of Wikimedia. It is unfathomable that anyone would point to me and say that I just don't understand the consensus process. This issue barely began a few days ago. It is beyond impatient to just stand up and declare a consensus exists. Certainly no discussion has been closed yet even at this point! I am a very fair minded person, and if I had done anything to warrant a sanction of some kind, I would be able to admit it. In fact I have in the past. I won't accept a sanction in this case. At this point I believe I am owed an apology, and whether the political reality is that I will get it or not, I will demanding that for the entire duration of any sanction. I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. I have used terms like "decency" "reasonable" "mature" and "shame" It seems like I am the only person using those kind of terms. Now I am using another term: "conscience." So if no one's conscience tells them that they are doing the wrong thing here, that will be a shame on them forever. This is all the power I have here: my words. It seems that attitude is to take offence that I should ever attempt to defend myself. That's not a fair, or decent process. Show some respect for yourselves, and exercise restraint. Forgo the ego gratification that comes from using your powers. PLEASE DO relent and defer, and consider for one moment that this is not some great insult to yourselves. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, if the community decides to impose a sanction on you, whether or not you "accept" it is irrelevant. You would either edit in accordance with the sanction or not, and if you did not, further and more drastic sanctions, up to and including a site ban, would most likely be forthcoming. Considering this, it might be a good idea to step down off your soapbox and consider just what, exactly, is being said above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone look at this diff of a Greg Bard edit and try to figure out what is going on? At the bottom there is some potential canvassing, however there seems to be some bizarre vandalism going on as well. Manning (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks a lot like the damage to my user talk page that I asked about at the Village pump: Why are new edits introducing seemingly random errors into previous page content?. Gregbard apologized for it, blaming it on a problem with his computer. However, but it hasn't stopped. (I also saw it on another page he edited in the last couple of days.) The last post in that conversation was a suggestion that Greg might have some malware on his computer. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @ Greg. What BMK said ... quite frankly? If I had the time to monitor the situation? I'd have likely blocked you already. You're not some new guy. You should know the rules by now. Either get with the program, or deal with the consequences. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Greg, I've tried to assume good faith as much as I can throughout this whole brouhaha, but after this last comment of yours above, enough is enough, and I have only this to say: Knock it off. Whether or not you "accept" sanctions is, as BMK mentioned, utterly irrelevant - if they are imposed, you will accept them or you will be indef'd. Your comments promise that you will disrupt the encyclopedia if you don't get your way - this is the Wikipedia equivilant of pitching a tantrum and saying "you'll play by my rules or I'll pick up my blocks and go home". While we hate to lose any editors, Wikipedia does not need you - if I hadn't already !voted in the above discussion, you'd be indef'd already for POINTy threats, epic levels of I Didn't Hear That, soapboxing, and general disruptiveness, as every comment you make here makes it more and more clear that you are here to push The Truth, not to build an encyclopedia, at least in this matter, and you must abide by the community conduct and codes you agreed to when you signed up, and every time you push the 'submit' button, in all matters. Allow me to be perfectly clear: one more rant like the one above, and you will be blocked until you realise this sort of conduct is utterly inappropritate for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Hi Greg. I don't have a mop, and I'm still not gonna vote on any action, but I just wanted to make a few observations. At this point, right or wrong doesn't matter anymore, diffs don't matter anymore. The admins here are clearly losing their patience, and at some point soon, the hammer will come down, hard or soft. As I read it, their POV is, in short, they're done with you - enough is enough. Several would, given the chance, insta-ban you right now. This not a court of law, this whole thing is more or less run by volunteers on a consensus basis, and at some point, people are just done.

OTOH, from your POV, you are clearly backed into a corner, and are so certain of your innocence that, as you state, you will more or less bring this matter to the supreme court and the media and Jimbo and everything else. The question is, what for? What's your ideal end state? What happens if that whole process goes as planned? Do you think some big trial and media show will end with Jimbo presenting you with a golden award for righteousness and all those who have maligned you will apologize and send you wiki-love? Not likely. Non-involved people who've dropped by this thread have taken a look, read a few diffs, and decided: "nyet". However, these admins aren't lawyers, this is not a trial, and I submit that it's possible that the judgement of all of those admins to block you may, in the fullness of time and provided an army of lawyers and diff-readers, be proven dead wrong. But IT DOESNT MATTER - what matters is the here and now.

Allow me to thank you for the numerous contributions (70k edits? that's a lot) to the wiki - that is awesome! And I hope we can find a way to keep you - I still AGF. I think you just seem to have fallen into a bit of bad business with some editors who are equally as stubborn as you. Maybe people were uncivil to you, and maybe they misread what you typed, and maybe they just don't understand the sources. But at some point, that ceases to matter. For whatever reason, the boomerang swang around your way.

An insight I had about myself a while back was, there are situations where you can be right, or you can win. What do you want? I have often felt as you have, so indignant that I was *right*, and they were *wrong*, and then I press on, and then, often, I lose (e.g. I don't get what I want) - but at least I remained right, right?? It's a shallow sort of victory. After tempers cool down, and careful reflection, I've often found that I, too, had made mistakes; I too had gone too far. And ultimately, it doesn't matter. So now I try to think to myself, how can I win - instead of - how can I demonstrate that I was right.

So sometimes, it's better to just swallow one's pride, take a breath of fresh air, start some edits somewhere else or take a break. If you do that, just leaving a brief message here saying "Ok, I get it guys, I'm gonna do some other work and try to be a good citizen", and then start doing that, then the hammer may not fall, there's still a chance, and the community will welcome you back. Rather than avoiding Orlady, frankly I would, after a cooling down period, try to find something to work on together with her - I've found her to be a good and experienced editor. People here are resilient, and can edit war with you one day and the chummily co-edit an article the next. You'll find humility and contriteness are virtues much appreciated.

So, that's all I have to say. I wish I could be an even more civil editor, and I continue to try, and I continue to screw up. But I continue to learn. As the Dalai Lama says, "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. That statement isn't an example of maturity (I mean they have 70000 edits and have been around for 7 years.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You take an authoritarian theory of maturity that no reasonable and decent person should ever take, and certainly not an administrator. I have every right to bring attention to this issue. The proposal is to ban me for three months because I told someone their comments "weren't helpful" and "won't respect a consensus" that is barely three days old. This all came without warning, and since the insane proposal to ban me, I haven't edited anything due to this hostile and abusive environment. I obviously take the issue more seriously than the people who were trusted with the power to determine the outcome of the issue. Rolling over and dying rather than defending ones self is not the measure of maturity. Greg Bard (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT and WP:DIVA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg Bard the proposal for ban is because it is perceived by the community that your edits to the topics under the scope of the ban aren't constructive. It isn't for your comments. Threats of taking action in "real life" against perceived wrongs done on Wikipedia does look less than mature to me. I've seen that said by new editors, I am surprised that it comes from someone 70k edits old. I think you ought to strike out the "names'" you've called editors here and promise to let other editors to judge your contributions to the said topic. You've to trust the Wikipedia process of consensus building, if your idea is good then its day would come. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

GregBard's incivility

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.

---

DISCLAIMER: GregBard linked to this discussion at WIkiproject: Philosophy. I personally think GregBard has been one of the most helpful contributors to the Philosophy side of this Wikipedia, and I've defended him before, but I don't think I've ever actually conversed with him.

I just want to see the evidence that GregBard has been uncivil. There has been numerous claims that GregBard has been so (I count six above here right now), but I haven't seen any strong evidence. So please, make any argument that I may read.

As far as I can tell, only once has GregBard's supposed incivility been described explicitly; this was when Manning above said, "Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility." But how was it established that GregBard tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are ignorant or not helpful? I saw two cases where GregBard calls other editors not helpful, but in both those cases I saw no reason for thinking that GregBard called them not helpful because he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are not helpful, rather than because he sincerely thought what they said was not helpful. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to spend too much time on this, I'll start with your example. The responses "Not Helpful" are clearly uncivil. They are dismissive and belittling, which violates 1.d. of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. It is easy enough to communicate the same idea in a civil manner - "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" is a perfectly civil way of indicating the exact same content. A single instance would be too ambiguous to make this call, but two in a row is clearly contemptuous, particularly as there were valid questions being raised which GregBard ignored. As another example, this post is quite flagrant in belittling another editor. In general any comment which asserts "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, and therefore uncivil. The vast majority of editors are willing to learn new things, so explaining one's reasoning is far more effective than just telling other editors they are ignorant. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take anything written here as merely a draft, if anything appears to be uncivil, please edit it to make it appear civil:

I don't know if those indicate the exact same content. It seems to me when one says "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" one is making a different claim then when one says "Not helpful." If two statements indicate the exact same content, then I would guess that the statements would have to be equivalent. But were one really not to know if that solves a problem, then "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" would be true, but that could still in actuality be helpful, in which case "Not helpful" would be false. But the two statements can't be equivalent if one can be true and the other false, so they are not equivalent. I think this make sense: One statement is about what one person knows, the other statement is about what another person said.

And I don't know why saying "not helpful" is belittling, if one sincerely believes that what was said was not helpful. I know there are multiple interpretations of such a word, but I think "belittling" is only relevant to incivility when it implies insincerely making something or someone appear insignificant in some way. I don't think that sincerely saying something is insignificant in some way is belittling in the uncivil sense, it is just honest judgement. I've understood civility to be like the proper atmosphere of a healthy, collegial workplace. I think that's why WP:CIVIL does well in mentioning that "Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces" and the like. I can try to speak from my own experience: If a colleague wrote beside a paragraph in a paper I wrote, "Not helpful", I might consider why she thinks that, and I may even ask her why she thinks that, but I wouldn't think that she was belittling me. My first guess really would be to think that she sincerely thinks what I wrote in the paragraph is not helpful. I would think it would be less civil of her not to write it. I imagine if everyone did that: I could go on to present the paper at conferences, submit it to journals, thinking to myself that everyone finds my paper so very helpful, meanwhile everyone really finds my paper quite useless, but they refuse to tell me so.

I also don't know if the remaining example is quite flagrant in belittling an editor. If GregBard sincerely thinks those things, then they don't seem to be belittling as such.

I agree that saying "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, because no one says such a thing sincerely, at least not on these discussion pages. But I don't think GregBard said such a thing.

I know you don't want to spend so much time, and I don't require any response: I am just writing this with the final goal of stating my opinion, not of undermining anyone else. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's good to know that Gregbard has been a valued contributor to the Philosophy WikiProject. Atethnekos, for some additional perspective on the communication behaviors have been labeled as problematic, please consider these items:

• This talk page exchange. Note Greg's comment on 18 April 2013 where, in response to my presentation and discussion of several sources, he did not comment on my sources nor present any of his own, but said (in part): "...I am sure that you feel quite confident in your view owing to your education and experience. However, I actually studied this issue formally. In Wikipedia, everyone thinks they are an expert, even with very little education or experience. ... At some point, if necessary, I may find all the sources I need to support my view if necessary, if it comes to that. However, I hope you consider the idea that you have just learned something new about county government from someone who knows. I'm not really able to reconsider my view because I was taught formally in no uncertain terms that a county is an agency of the state government." That comment was perfectly civil (albeit condescending) in tone, but the attitude expressed was that his expertise is so superior and the truth of his position so absolute that it is unnecessary even to present sources to support it.
• The first "not helpful" reply that I recall was in response to my reply to his accusation that, by posting on several talk pages to alert potentially interested parties to the extensive content discussion he had started on my talk page, I was starting 50 separate discussions. His post on that page had two paragraphs; the first paragraph accused me of misbehavior and the second paragraph was a request to begin a content discussion. My post was primarily in reply to the first paragraph accusation against me, and it included a link to the ongoing discussion that had already occurred (and that he had not seen fit to mention in his comment). Apparently he now explains his "not helpful" retort as an indication that my comment had not included any substantive responses to his second paragraph, but I submit that most readers (including me) would read that "not helpful" as an announcement of utter contempt for (1) my defense of my actions and (2) my request that people continue the pre-existing discussion rather than starting a new one. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess an easier approach is simply "incivility is what the community interprets as being uncivil". I read GregBard's remarks as being very uncivil. However I am but a single editor, and am as equally prone to misinterpretation as anyone else. Other editors are free to review the matter and make their own call. If consensus emerges that I have misread this, I will happily retract. Manning (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about that: People are going to have their own emotional reactions, and what the community as a whole treats as incivil is somehow going to reflect the complex of these individual reactions. Maybe there could be another way, but since that is the case now, contributors will just have to go back on their principles when these lead them into conflict. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I had asked the community for a response to a substantial question about county government, and Orlady responded with discussion about discussion, not anything having to do with any person't actual position on the question at hard. That's not helpful. To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF, and a cruelly harsh interpretation of my response. It is the interpretation of a person who is actively looking for trouble. That is what I was trying to avoid by not giving a lengthy response which is a very mature way to handle such a situation. If that is what you are hanging you hat on to ban me for three months, then you have lost your way. Greg Bard (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How about taking a voluntary break for a few days to catch your breath? Maybe go outside and smell the flowers, spend some quality time with your pet rock or something. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Gregbard, what Viriditas -- an editor I don't often agree with -- is telling you is that you are getting much too involved in Wiki-life and that you need to find some balance by some restorative reference to real life. Please remember that, although we think it's an important one, this is just a website, not reality. Take a breather, a break. Have a picnic with friends or loved ones, or go to a ball game or something. Come back with a fresh point of view, because the one you're carrying around now seems like it's likely to get you blocked or topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My (outside) view of that statement "Not Helpful" was unnecessarily dismissive and aggressive. As can be seen, it cause the discussion to just degenerate into mud slinging. It also set the tone of the "discussion" which [User:Acdixon] also noted. Your accusation of a failure of those reading your statement to AGF is ironic in that with two words you threw good faith out the window and set the kettle boiling. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I can't resist. GB made the statement: "To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF". AGF isn't a suicide pact. The guideline wants you to start with an assumption of good faith. Given what you've written in this discussion alone, I don't think clinging to that presumption is really required anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (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.

Harassment (2nd warning)

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

---

I have already raised the issue of bullying here once before. I haven't done anything for the past three days other than defend myself. So calls for me to "knock it off" cannot reasonably be associated with any issues of which I was originally accused (and which I continue to maintain my innocence). I have had several admins post to my talk page with the presumption of trying to teach me a lesson. If admins want to ask me sincere questions about why I think this attack on my user privileges is unwarranted, then I invite your correspondence. However, this is a second warning to stop harassing me and intimidating me from defending myself. I will interpret any further such attempts as harassment, and I am conspicuously and publicly informing the community that I will interpret it as harassment. I realize that the Wikimedia Board of Directors does not have direct control over whether or not admins harass me. However they do have control over creating and sustaining a hostile environment that allows and encourages such harassment. I have not violated any policy, and I do not intend to. Drop and withdraw the proposal to sanction me in any way and leave me in peace immediately. Greg Bard (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's some advice: stop defending yourself and let others defend you. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your demand above essentially boils down to "I will edit in whatever manner I choose, and the community MUST leave me alone". Sorry, that will NEVER happen. Extensive text above indicates several admins (including myself) feel quite strongly that you HAVE violated a great number of policies. (See earlier discussion, I'm not going to re-list them all). Let me be clear: I will NOT drop the proposal I have made. It was made in my best judgment and it was created for other admins to review and consider. If anything, your conduct since I made the proposal has strengthened my (initially hesitant) resolve. No harassment has occurred. We have made numerous attempts to engage with you in a constructive fashion, all of which have been met with your histrionics eg. [6]. You have repeatedly characterised this as "bullying", which is baseless.

Your numerous threats to engage in wholesale disruption in order to get your own way are forcing us collectively into a course I genuinely did not wish to be on. I have already stated I will not take any punitive action against you, lest you take the opinion that this is a personal conflict between you and I. But unless there is a substantial change in your tactics, sooner or later the admin body will be forced to respond. Manning (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not constructive at all. It should be obvious by now that engaging Gregbard in an authoritarian manner is not going to "work" if the goal is to actually keep him as an active editor, and miscasting his statement isn't helpful either. NE Ent 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Except, I don't see that at all in Manning's response. He's simply presenting his prediction of future events, and laying them out for Greg to see and understand. I actually find your comments, NE Ent, unhelpful and quite frankly, interfering with the discussion. Greg has to be told what's going to happen if he continues down this path. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ne Ent - In general I would fully agree with your dissent on authoritarianism. However all other methods on interaction have been tried and failed, as far as I can tell. If you have a better approach for getting GregBard to accept the apparent consensus and conform to community practices, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. Manning (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (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.

Harassment

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

---

This is a formal written complaint against User:Viriditas for a willful act of harassment, not more than few hours after a second warning to cease and desist from such behavior. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is of course written, but it's hardly formal (or persuasive) without a diff. Precisely what are you complaining about? -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Hoary - The complaint is about this pair of posts.

The key phrase in the Harassment policy is "repeated". A scan of your talk page history indicates User:Viriditas has never contacted you previously. Viriditas has made a total of two posts, the second only to clarify the intent of the first. Hence no harassment has occurred. I also note you have failed to leave a notification on User_talk:Viriditas, as the AN/I policy clearly states (and which would have been visible when you composed your post).

Unfortunately your "warning" has no meaning or substance within the Wikipedia framework - you have effectively demanded that the entire community leave you alone to edit in any manner you see fit. As stated above, this will never happen. Manning (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg, please drop it. This complaint isn't productive. Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 2 May 2013 (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:Jentri2390 blatant copyvio and promotion

Jentri2390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Repeatedly created article with straight copyvio. Three copies in article space so far, plus their userpage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hand-written message added on user's talk page. Lets see how it goes from that.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anastasia International

This is the article for a controversial dating agency. It has been the subject of serious COI and POV edits recently, with large-scale whitewashing by COI editors User:Iri2101 and User:Mcbrooks, both of whom are involved in the management of the company (I won't mention their real names here, though they have been brought up in the various SPIs that have run).

Yesterday, after yet another whitewashing of the article, I stubbed it back to the basic facts and anything that was reliably sourced (i.e. not primary sources). User:Iri2101 has today edited thye article again, and in their edit summary stated that I am the CEO of a rival company - it was named. (Ironically, previously an editor who has been adding negative information accused me of working for Anastasia!!). I have revdeleted this edit-summary, and final-warned the editor. I was considering an immediate block, but was concerned about WP:INVOLVED. I would appreciate more eyes, and if anyone wants to block for disruptive editing, then that would also not be inappropriate IMO. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I left a warning. You should feel free to block for further bad behavior. Shii (tock) 11:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption on Irish War of Independence and other articles

User talk:MrFalala received a short block on 1st May for edit warring and disruption and is now back as User talk:92.7.12.36. The edit history here and on the talk page illustrate the issue. This is an editor on a mission, including claims that his great-grandfather killed Michael Collins. This has gone on for an extended period including Scottish issues ----Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Free State was not independent because the British still retained the Treaty ports which would be used to refuel the ships of the Royal Navy in any European war, making Ireland a target for enemy planes and submarines. My great-grandfather Denis "Sonny" O'Neill shot the British collaborator Michael Collins in 1922 because the Treaty did not equal independence from the UK. Like thousands of other republicans he wanted to keep the war going until real independence was achieved. (92.7.12.36 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC))

This board is not the place to decide content matters, re-enact the Irish Civil War or push The Truth. It is for handling user conduct and yours so far suggests further blocks may be in order. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place where we accepted original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to the edit warring going on, from the one user, I've given the article a semi-protection for two weeks. Seemed safer than handing out blocks that wouldn't stop an IP change. Canterbury Tail talk 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Other article/page where this user engaged in edit warring: Talk:The Blitz, The Blitz, Bengal famine of 1943, Partition of Ireland, Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and Michael Collins (Irish leader). A very clear example of his POV-pushing can be found in an completely unrelated article: Fawlty Towers: The Germans. The Banner talk 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi protect. That said I think there is a clear case for a block on MrFalala over multiple articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I have accordingly blocked the named account indefinitely and the IP for a week. If this seems harsh, the last thing we need right now is an edit-warring Irish nationalist. There are Arbcom restrictions that could be invoked too, if necessary. --John (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IP address for the user is changing daily, and checking some histories they've been at this a while. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In the News abuse by Tariqabjotu

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.

---

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

This administrator posted an ItN blurb, despite a complete lack of consensus. He wrote, "It's far from unanimous, but I don't find the reasons for opposing to be stronger than those supporting", blatantly disregarding consensus.

I understand that the policy on consensus states that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". However, he explained his decision by saying "I understand there are some people who believe this should not have been a big deal, but, for better or worse, it was/is a big story" is like saying "I understand there are some people who believe my religion/ideology/... is wrong, but, for better or worse, it's right" and then placing it on the main page. The ItN criteria does not say that events discussed heavily in the news are automatically to be posted, so his claim that "it was/is a big story" does not demonstrate weakness on the part of the Oppose arguments.

Another major problem with his post was his ignoring of highly POV !votes. For example:

• Support Milestone in breaking down homophobia and definition of "masculinity" in male team sports
• Support as a major milestone of societal change
• Strong support; my support has everything to do with me being an LGBT ally
• Oppose. I am a vocal supporter of human rights [with the implication that LGBT issues constitutes human rights]

to quote some of most egregious examples. Since the overwhelming majority of such POV statements came from the Support camp, if he had properly ignored such !votes, there would have been clear consensus not to post.

Ordinarily, a single instance of ignoring NPOV and Consensus would not cause to complain. However, when an administrator violates two of the most important policies when updating the main page, which is seen by millions daily, there clearly is a need for discussion about this. My attempt to ask him directly was utterly rebuffed by a curt reply

If you would like to air your grievances about my "greatly disturbing" action in some official channel, feel free to do so

Rregretfully, I must oblige. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

So, how does "an administrator judged a borderline case differently than I would have" constitute abuse again? --Jayron32 14:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "abuse" was too strong, but this isn't a borderline case, as I have explained above. Declaring consensus to be with the minority without good reasons is not an acceptable judgement. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong there at all. It shouldn't be a headcount, it should be a weighing of consensus, and part of the process is weighting poor arguments lesser than stronger ones. I see a lot of rather ignorant opposes sprinkles throughout, e.g. "this isn't American Wikipedia", "what about Athlete X", etc...Just dim all-around. Tariqabjotu's close/finding whatever you call it at ItN was sound. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that decision and on a personal note its good to see someone prepared to make the tough calls on issues like this. Sound closing and if anything I commend him for it. There is nothing to see here, a frivolous complaint and this drama fest should be shut down quickly. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why my complaints are invalid? So far you've just said that he's right and I'm being frivolous. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

His close was entirely reasonable and you're giving us fripparies. (Maybe it will work with slightly different words.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your complaint is completely invalid. The close makes it clear it was about the weight of argument not weight of numbers, so your allegation it was against WP:CONSENSUS or with the minority doesn't hold water. There was no abuse and admins prepared to make the close calls are to be commended not condemned. Your disagreement with his decision is a content dispute and not about user conduct. Time to drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I already wrote:

I understand that the policy on consensus states that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". However, he explained his decision by saying "I understand there are some people who believe this should not have been a big deal, but, for better or worse, it was/is a big story" is like saying "I understand there are some people who believe my religion/ideology/... is wrong, but, for better or worse, it's right" and then placing it on the main page. The ItN criteria does not say that events discussed heavily in the news are automatically to be posted, so his claim that "it was/is a big story" does not demonstrate weakness on the part of the Oppose arguments.

He thus determined the quality of the arguments by comparing them against his own views. Quality is determined by logical reasons and basis in policies and guidelines, among other things. Therefore, ignoring the big NPOV problem with the Support arguments while citing the nonexistent problem with the Oppose arguments is a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS.

I agree that "admins prepared to make the close calls are to be commended not condemned" but this doesn't permit admins to decide things based on personal preferences. And it is very much a user conduct issue when two vital policies are disregarded. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no incident here. Suggest that this be closed without prejudice.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I just explained exactly why there is an incident. If you disagree, please explain why. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What wrong needs to be righted here? What admin action are you seeking?--WaltCip (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The wrong is the violation of core policies by an admin in a very visible way. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else seems to see it that way. Certainly I do not, but I did support that nomination. If Tariq had gone the other way and chose not to post it, I would not have called that "admin abuse", however. Resolute 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a valid call by Tariqabjotu. In any event, the item was posted a week ago and is no longer on the main page, what redress are you seeking? WJBscribe (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an incident that can be handled by this board. If you are concerned about a pattern of behavior, please (1) speak with the editor, (2) find a neutral party to review the matter and speak with the editor, and then (3) if no resolution, you and the neutral party can file an RFC. If you can't find an obliging neutral party, that's a good indication that your concern isn't especially valid. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is stale, lots of editors have advised you to drop the stick, and I don't see any issue with the close either. Sure, it's a tight decision, but I'm glad we have admins who have the guts to do those, and they shouldn't be abused by people whom lost out as a result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate the hard work of judging consensus, but that doesn't give admins permission to do what ever they want regardless of policy. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Tariq and I have disagreed about various content items several times, but I don't doubt his judgement at all in posting things to the main page. I don't see a major problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you examined this case, or are you talking about other instances? I'm not saying he's usually wrong, but here he is. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This case could have gone either way. Discussions are not votes - there's absolutely nothing in this "situation" that is against any policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussions are not votes, but that doesn't mean the admin can do whatever he wants. And wp:NPOV is a policy. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2013 (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:Darkness Shines

User:Darkness Shines has repeatedly inserted the same material into the article British Pakistanis, after I deleted it as a gross misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, the article claimed that there were riots in Bradford in 2001 "between the city's majority white population and its visible ethnic minorities". None of the sources cited state this: [7][8][9]. The 'majority' of the population, (regardless of ethnicity) took no part in riots. The initial flashpoint for the riots was a march by fascist BNP and NF outsiders, and a counter-demonstration by (mostly white) anti-fascists. Though later there were ethnically-driven disturbances (started by white youths attacking Asian-owned businesses), it is entirely misleading to present these events as a simple ethnic conflict - and highly questionable to include such material at all in an article about a particular ethnic minority. Given this clear and fundamental breach of Wikipedia policies (i.e. regarding neutrality and accurately representing sources), can I ask that appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Boring Do the sources say this? Why yes, yes they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

More sloppy sourcing - though I'm glad to see you have conceded that your earlier reverts were invalid. Now how about explaining why an article on British Pakistanis needs to cover this at all? Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources are just fine, and I am conceding nothing, I added references for content you removed. As to why an article on british Pakistanis should cover this, I suppose because the majority of the Asian lads rioting were, you know, British Pakistanis. But as that is a content dispute it has no place here, in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please use WP:DRN for content disputes. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Already the editors are under 3RR, please be careful and discuss it. Agreed with Andy's point. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Darkness Shines is now citing off-topic Google-mined material from sources entitled 'Culture Wars in British Literature', 'Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics' and the like [10] to justify inclusion of the disputed material - a clear violation of WP:NPOV, in that he has selected sources not for their general content, and not in order to present the opinions of the authors, (Personal attack removed) He is refusing to accept the developing consensus on the talk page, and insists that he will include the material, regardless of the comments of others. I note that Darkness Shines was previously blocked for "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing despite streams of requests to stop", [11] and suggest that at this point in time a topic ban might be more appropriate, since he singularly fails to get the message that his POV-pushing isn't welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note ATG has already begun to use his usual fallback position of implying I am a racist, above and here in violation of WP:NPA. BTW, that block notice was given by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED and is bullshit. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, it would be nice if ATG looked at the sources for a change. Cultural Wars in British Literature: Multiculturalism and National Identity written by Tracy J. Prince and she writes directly about British Pakistanis and the riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can cherry-pick material to suit your aims doesn't alter the fact that such cherry-picking of off-topic material is a violation of WP:NPOV. Incidentally, I didn't call you a racist (and I don't actually think that you are one). I did however use the same language that was used in your block log, where you were described as engaging in "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing". Which you self-evidently were, and still are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-Pakistani POV pushing" is not an accusation of racism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was, although it is a personal attack. However this most certainly implys I am a racist & from above "pursue his self-evident anti-Pakistani agenda", an obvious attack on me. And as this is not the first time Andy has resorted to such low tactics I feel a lack of good faith in him, strange that. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What about this comment by DS about Andy: "in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy.", Isn't it a Personal Attack?

• Comment: Majority white doesn't mean majority of white. Also Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? sounds OSEish. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Darkness Shines has repeatedly had problems with POV pushing, sometimes with misrepresenting sources but oftener by picking weak sources with extreme statements: The history of Rape in Pakistan is troubling. DS mis-represented a statistic on domestic violence as a statistic on rape, which was pulled from the DYK queue. In my experience, DS writes as if pushing an anti-Pakistani POV; I don't recall any instances where DS made a mistake in a pro-Pakistani or even soft-pedalled direction. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And you have of course checked all my edits? [12] [13] Supporting Mar4d, a Pakistani editor. Saves the article Pakistani English from deletion[14] Majority of keeps came after I went and found sources. Votes keep on Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad [15] Went looking for the sources needed. Ya, I am so Anti Pakistani I even created Pro-Pakistan sentiment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The solution is simple: indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Pakistan or Pakistanis, broadly construed.--В и к и T 22:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly a content dispute, once again brought to the ANI to get rid of a content opponent. My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am not really convinced that Darkness Shines is guilty of POV-pushing. However, the filer of this complaint is indeed engaged in POV-pushing and edit wars. For example, he repeatedly removed a large portion of well-sourced text with an edit summary requesting discussion [16], however his own comments on this article talk page [17] do not qualify as a meaningful discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you engage in 'meaningful discussion' yourself before restoring the material? Nope. Anyway, if you wish to start a thread on my deletion of what was self evidently coatrack material from the Victim blaming article, feel free to do so - but don't be surprised if you get told to stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the problem. One can reasonably argue that well-sourced and notable examples of victim blaming belong to article about victim blaming. By removing this good faith work by another contributor [18] that belongs to the article, you create a conflict. By "explaining" your edit simply as removing a coatrack (sorry, but this is not convincing at all), you increase the conflict. Perhaps your conflict with Darkness Shine followed the same scenario? By bringing someone to ANI without a sufficient and clear evidence, you involve a lot more people in the conflict. Doing so is disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to derail this discussion is disruptive. You failed to engage in talk page discussion before restoring the material to the Victim Blaming article: do so. I have no intention of discussing this irrelevance further here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about victim blaming (although this frequently happens on the ANI), but about a behavior problem as I see it. How many ANI threads initiated by you failed and how many of them succeeded? Here are results of search. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"their views do not matter"

Having failed to obtain support for inclusion of disputed material in the British Pakistanis, article (so far seven people have commented: five have opposed inclusion, and only two support it), DarknessShines has apointed himself judge and jury of the talk page discussion, dismissing the opinions of those opposing with "their views do not matter". [19] I'd like to see comments from uninvolved contributors regarding this unilateral declaration of 'authority'. Is this indeed the way Wikipedia works? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I have written. "No, their views do not matter, they gave no reasons in policy to exclude the content." And that is policy, you cannot keep content out of an article without giving a reason within policy as to why it should be excluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several policies involved here: possibly the most significant one being WP:NPOV. You have singularly failed to explain why an article on a significant ethnic minority must include material relating to events in a northern English town over a few days in 2001. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have explained it to you a great deal on the article talk page. How about the source which says "Those involved in the riots were predominantly from a Pakistani background" and your response to that? I am misrepresenting it and taking it out of context. It is not possible to take that out of context at all. Again, this is a content dispute you wish to win by drama over discussion. This needs to be closed out for what it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that the source in question makes it clear that when referring to people 'involved in the riots', it is referring not just to active participants, but the local community in general (and not all those involved were local, as you well know). You are cherry-picking a phrase to suit your purposes. Anyway, this issue regarding the precise proportion of Bradford rioters who were a British Pakistanis is rather beside the point - the real issue is whether the Bradford riots merit inclusion in the article at all. And concerning that, your assertion that you alone can decide what is or isn't eligible for inclusion in an article isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. That content does not belong there as it is irrelevant REGARDLESS of how well it's been sourced because it violates the neutral point of view of the article. You saying "their views do not matter" is to my mind a personal attack. I see that it's already been reverted, but if I see it there I will remove it myself.--Launchballer 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant to have a few lines on British Pakistanis rioting in Bradford in an article section about British Pakistanis living in Bradford? Feel free to use the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to explain why you are asserting the right to determine who's views are relevant, here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I already have, no argument within policy, no point in listening. Same as at an AFD. BTW in response to your other shit exists question British African-Caribbean people mentions every riot which involved them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"no argument within policy, no point in listening". Once again, Darkness Shines asserts his right to decide who's views matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So now you think that following policy is wrong? And that not wasting my time responding to people who use emotive arguments over policy is a bad thing? I follow policy, if an editor choose to say ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT I will ignore them. You are the only editor on that talk page who has tried to cite policy, if the others choose not to then no, I will not bother with their arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The more you two yap amongst yourselves, the harder this thread is to follow. What are we seeking here, again? Doc talk 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Andy is after a topic ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What am I after? At minimum, that Darkness Shines is told in no uncertain words that he isn't the sole arbiter of what constitutes NPOV (he's just slapped a POV tag on the British Pakistani article because it currently doesn't discuss events occurring in a northern English town over a few days in 2001). Beyond that, I think we need to ask ourselves whether DS is suited to editing articles relating to Pakistan in general - he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material to such articles, and failing to consider the opinions of others when the inclusion is questioned. He also seems to have a habit of claiming that sources say things that they in fact don't. So yes, I think a topic ban might well be appropriate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

At least a week's block for disruption, wasting editors' time and for violating the NPOVs of articles, because that's about how much of his and our time he's wasted and a six month topic ban.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How the hell have I wasted a week of your time? You only just got involved in this content dispute. How am I violating NPOV? Adding well referenced content to an article is not a violation of NPOV, removing it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Our time = the time of every editor involved, if you cumulate all the comments in this thread. See? Misinterpreting sources.
2. What you have added to the article is too badly biased to be included in the article. If you have to put it on the site, bung it on the article of the event. It doesn't matter how well referenced it is - it isn't encyclopedic. Now drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse.--Launchballer 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If we move it to an ivote stage, and end the "jibber jabber", it may get somewhere faster. Doc talk 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy made three points above. (1) "he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material". Adding well-sourced "negative" materials to any articles is not a problem, unless this is an obvious violation of NPOV or BLP. I do not see it. (2) "failing to consider the opinions of others". There is clearly a disagreement on the both sides. (3) Misinterpreting the sources, which means placing content that is clearly not in the source while referring to the source. This is a serious accusation. This should be easy to prove with a few diffs. Unfortunately, diffs above do not look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifics? Take a look at this diff[20] I'd asked for a source that stated that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. DS cited The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy, p275. It simply doesn't say that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. [21] There are further examples on the article talk page, where DS quotes part of a sentence in such a way as to mislead. Unfortunately, since I'm only looking at the same Google-mined snippets that DS is, I can't quote the whole sentence either, but DS qoutes Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain (p.75) as "A crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" (note the capital A, implying this is the start of the sentence). [22] From what Google shows us (incomplete, obviously), DS has omitted what came before: "...demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police..." It is simply impossible to use an incomplete sentence as an assertion of fact in the way DS does. Elsewhere, DS uses a statement regarding the proportion of local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters were British Pakistanis - a statement that the source doesn't make. [23]. Not everyone involved was local, as DS is well aware (there was a fascist march and counterdemonstration, which brought in many from outside), and we can't simply assume that the proportion of rioters equals the proportion arrested and charged. The real problem here is that DS engages in Google-mining to find 'sources' to back up his predetermined opinion, rather than looking for sources and then representing the views of the authors. An appallingly-bad practice if one is attempting to provide a neutral perspective... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, again you misrepresent what I have said. You know full well that the majority of the protestors not local had left, I cited and quoted the source on the talk page. And BTW "demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" obviously supports the edit in question. I did not say that any of "local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters'" should be used as a source for the content in dispute, it is an example (which you asked for) that the majority of those arrested were BP. Of course had you left me to finish editing rather than starting this dramafest all this would be quite clear. I am not posting here again as it is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I know (or at least presume) that the majority of non-locals left at some point, I have no reason to assume that none of them were involved in rioting before they left. A quote from a sentence from which you haven't even read in full cannot possibly support anything. And where exactly did I ask for information regarding the proportion of people arrested? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"What became an ethnically diverse crowd of men and women at the anti Nazi league demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p73 I had read it in full, and quoted it to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't support any general claim whatsoever regarding the proportion of rioters overall from any particular community. It says nothing regarding later incidents such as when white youths attacked Asian-owned businesses. A narrative relating to one point in time cannot be used to generalise regarding a whole series of events over several days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see just one point in the whole thread. Have a content dispute with someone -- take them to ANI and try to solve the dispute by getting the opponent banned. (Well, good use of ANI. No?) OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for DarknessShines

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

---

• I think this is the last straw. One-year ban from editing anything related to race, broadly construed. The drama just isn't worth it. --John (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - to include Pakistan and Pakistani people. I've seen a general tone of anti-Pakistan bias in DarknessShines' various ethnic disputes before (and he's had a block for it). This case looks like cherry-picking in order to include undue anti-Pakistani material (badly misrepresenting sources in the first instances). Adding the POV tag was just belligerence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, on second thought, I'm going to keep out of this - don't have time for the drama. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Darkness Shines can be a big pain in various unmentionable regions of the human body but this is really a content dispute that is spilling over onto ANI. If a tag is unwarranted, that should be discussed on the article talk page. If the tag is restored against consensus, the editor should be blocked. We have admins with the tools to block editors and protect articles so that we can properly harness the fact that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If this trend of issuing bans every time something becomes a bit of a bother continues, we're going to lose the set of editors who care passionately about difficult and contentious topics and will likely be left with an encyclopedia that documents every detail about every minor character in Doctor Who but will have little to say about the real things that life is all about. A battle between editors on controversial subjects is a good battle, it produces evidence in the form of sources and weight that other, more dispassionate editors, can examine and comment on. I suggest that we ask these editors to move on and seek dispute resolution where this weighing, examining and balancing can properly be done. --regentspark (comment) 20:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per RS (well said!)NE Ent 09:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my suggestion of one week block, six month topic ban.--Launchballer 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I see absolutely nothing wrong with the material DS was adding. When you have a list of different communities with a high number of a specific ethnic population and fail to note that there have been notable disturbances in some of them involving said ethnic population, that is a legitimate POV issue. Granted, the mention of that community is in the context of demographics so that is not exactly the right place for it, but it certainly seems appropriate to mention that there have been major civil disturbances involving an ethnic group. This could be presented elsewhere in the article with more meaningful context. However, that is strictly a content issue, not a conduct issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. What RegentsPark said above, basically.If this trend of issuing bans every time something becomes a bit of a bother continues, we're going to lose the set of editors who care passionately about difficult and contentious topics and will likely be left with an encyclopedia that documents every detail about every minor character in Doctor Who but will have little to say about the real things that life is all about - yep. Smeat75 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. This started out as a content dispute between Darkness Shines and Andy the Grump, and it has been pointed out above that it should not be being discussed here at all. It has caused a few people above to say what a waste of time, and that seems to be cited as a reason for a topic ban. However, why is DS being considered for the topic ban as it was brought here by ATG? I am most definitely not calling for a topic ban on ATG on this, but it seems unreasonable that someone who is brought here by another user and gets threatened with "action" should get a topic ban because they are wasting everyone's time in responding to the threat. Also people have raised the issue of "cherry-picking" by DS. I find the use of that term problematic, either a source is good or it isn't, so attacking sources as being cherry picked is prima facie POV. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a content dispute only in the sense that DarknessShines has misused sources (if that's clearer to understand for you than "cherry-picked") to promote an ethnically divisive POV in a way that he has been blocked for before. I'd say it's more of an editor copnduct issue now, hence my proposal. --John (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

    John, if DS is pushing a cherry picked source (and there is consensus that the source is cherry picked) then just block him. If he does it again and again, issue escalating blocks. Topic bans are a lousy way to deal with specific situations because they only lead to more drama. --regentspark (comment) 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP is an uncensored encyclopedia. I wonder since when ethnic divisions/promoting ethnic harmony/political correctness have become our concerns. If you have put up this t-ban proposal because you see the material in question as ethnically divisive, I would say that you have put up the proposal for the wrong reason.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

John is putting up the proposal because he's claiming that DS is misusing sourcing to push a POV - which would be a valid reason to put it forward. Whether it's "ethnically divisive" or not is irrelevant. (Note that I'm not supporting the proposal, just clarifying it). Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If "ethnically divisive" etc. is irrelevant, the only thing that remains to be discussed is "misuse of sources". I see no misuse. And even if there is a dispute regarding misuse, the article talk page and DRN would be appropriate places to thrash out the issue? Bringing it here before establishing that there is misuse seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose As of what I know, topic bans are imposed only when the things go out of control. I liked the way User:The Devil's Advocate described this whole case - "that is strictly a content issue, not a conduct issue." ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose - this looks like a content dispute that's been blown out of all proportion. Neither side are perfect, but I fail to see how "cherry picking" of sources is a valid complaint in this case - surely the whole reason you look for a source is to support the edit you intend to make? I've not spotted any misuse of sources either. As the majority of those whom haven't been involved in the dispute said prior to this, DRN would've been the place to go, not here looking for blood. I suggest an admin closes this entire thread before any more of this sort of silliness occurs, and indeed points them to DRN. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 7 May 2013 (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.

Anonymous IP on Kurgan hypothesis

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

---

Hello. An anonymous, IP has been posting long, rambling posts full of ad hominem attacks and eyebrow-raising ideology on Kurgan hypothesis for some time now. Just look at the talk page and article space history. Can someone go ahead and ban this troll and protect the article to the fullest extent it can be protected? This is getting pretty old. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please. It's gone beyond "routinely annoying".Volunteer Marek 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the IP for WP:NPA, rather than for WP:TE. If consensus is to extend the block for WP:EW or other reasons, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding me? Out of the all of the policies that this user was breaking over and over again, he or she gets a simple WP:NPA block? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You're welcome to request an edit warring block. I would have to do more research to support a block for edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Actually, Bloodofox, the main problem very much was the personal attacks, in the edit summaries as well as on the talk page. The editor without an account had a valid point to make, but was seemingly incapable of making it in a manner unaccompanied by insults to everyone around xem. This is actually very sad, because if the editor without an account had actually had good communications skills, xe would probably still be here, citing academic sources to make a talk page argument. I've read the analysis of the Kurgat Hypothesis by professor Endre Bojtár, and I recommend reading it to all editors of that article. Yes, there is a problem that the article doesn't adequately cover the problems with the Hypothesis that other scholars have put forward. I see no mention of some of the linguistic problems, for example, in the article. There is a neutrality issue to address, by making the coverage of the subject more rounded. I suggest, Bloodofox, that you stop erroneously confusing blocks with bans, and actually read some of the sources that the editor with an account so hamfistedly and self-destructively put forward. There is actual work to be done, and a block of an editor for being such an all-round fool in dealing with other people that xe even thinks Arthur Rubin of all people to be a sockpuppet should not be taken as some sort of administrative endorsement of the article content, the positions on the talk page, or any failure to read scholarly sources that are cited down to the exact page number. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone disputes that there are legitmate criticisms of various forms of the theory, but the IP consistently confuses this with opposition to Gimbutas, who indeed had some very fringey ideas, which likewise, no-one disputes. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You aren't getting the point that I just made. The problem was not anything to do with the article-related part of the talk page discussion. The argument, sans the namecalling, rudeness, and patronizing attitude, was a valid talk page argument to make, especially given what Professor Bojtár et al. turn out to actually say when one reads the sources cited. The problem with the editor without an account was things like "trolling asshats", "teenage assholes"/"dumb pigs", and this. Arthur Rubin's block for personal attacks was addressing the real problem, despite the reaction of Bloodofox above. The actual content-related argument made by the editor without an account, once stripped of the insults, idiocy, irrelevant posturing, and general incompetence in dealing with other people, wasn't a problem in any way meriting administrator attention, and indeed had a point about the article neutrality. And if the person making it hadn't been such a unmitigated twerp in xyr interactions with other people, xe would still be pointing to scholarship to bolster a talk page argument. The right thing to do now is not to think that because the edit privileges have been removed, the content question raised against the article is thereby rendered invalid. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't getting the point I just made. If you are telling us that he is blocked for being an ass, and that if he hadn't been an ass he wouldn't have been blocked for it, I fail to the the value of this "information". If you are telling us that it is legitimate to raise questions about the theory using reliable sources, then again, I fail to see the relevance of this "information". We all know that. The point I was making is that the way the editor refers to sources mixes up various aspects of Gimbutas's ideas, making it an obsession with Gimbutas, not specific ideas. In this respect, the editor does not have "a point about the article neutrality". He/she (or Xe if you prefer) does not make sufficient sense to have any clear point. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I repeat: The editor without an account's content argument wasn't the problem, despite your going back to it repeatedly as if somehow it were, certainly not one relevant to this noticeboard. Arthur Rubin hit the nail on the head, and if you don't see the value in explaining that given that it was questioned immediately above, then you aren't even following this discussion. If you want, similarly, to hit the nail on the head, then you need to read the editor without an account's argument again, because there is a valid point about neutrality in there. I found it. You could too. (It doesn't take that much effort.) You're making exactly the error I'm cautioning against: trying to dismiss a valid argument simply because a fool made it offensively. As I've already both demonstrated and noted, it's quite possible to make it without calling complete strangers names. It's a common mistake to think that blocks equate to ending a dispute in favour of the non-blocked parties. And you can see people, like Bloodofox in this case, think that just going back to the status quo ante is just fine because the editor without an account has been "banned". A personal attacks block, however, really is for personal attacks, and doesn't imply that the person making the personal attacks is automatically wrong on the substantive content issue. That's just as much an ad hominem fallacy, ironically, as that made by the person who made the personal attacks. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've restarted the talk page discussion, collapsing the nitwittery, in support of the point that the content question is valid. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this. Uncle G, what are you rambling on about? Are you new to this topic? From what you've been typing up, you certainly seem to be. Obviously the article needs work. A lot of work. I've repeatedly tagged it FOR work. Had you dug into the article history and discussion there, you'd have seen that. I suggest you apologize.

Second, the anonymous IP is back and, yes, needs to be banned. Not blocked. This has gotten far out of control. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (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.

Mobile edits

Has there been a sudden upsurge in the number of mobile edits lately, or is it just something I happened to notice? I haven't been RC patrolling a great deal recently, so maybe it's always like this. I wouldn't really consider it a problem, except that the overwhelming majority of those edits (about 90-95%) seem to be vandalism. It's nice that we want to make Wikipedia easier to edit, but we really don't need to make it any easier to vandalize. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same upsurge. Perhaps it was some change with the tagging that made it more noticeable or a change with the interface to make it more common.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about this also. A change in the tagging system makes sense. So far all the ones tagged this way on my watchlist have been vandalism. Hopefully that will change. MarnetteD | Talk 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I frequently browse WP on my Android phone, and in the last couple of days the UI has been updated to include edit links next to every section header. Previously I had to use en.wikipedia.org rather than en.m.wikipedia.org to edit. Now I can access the editing feature straight from the mobile site. I haven't tested it out yet, but I bet that new feature is why you're seeing an upsurge in mobile edits. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I bet that Cymru.lass has figured it out. I, too, often edit by Android and have never used the mobile site because I can't edit. I just pull up the standard site on my Droid RAZR. If the mobile site now accepts edits, it is logical that mobile editing has increased and will surge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the change on my droid device, but this would indeed make a difference. Editing on a mobile is very difficult--lengthy sections, tables, info boxes, other areas almost impossible. If you could access the mobile site and edit through that interface it would make it much easier. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you guys investigating that many IPs you rv? British Telecom seems to account for a large majority of the IPs I rv (this is a function of the times I patrol more than anything else) and they IP hop all the time... the verizon (I am guessing that's the vast majority of android users in NA) IPs I see are a very small piece of it. Just curious. Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just went back and checked and of the two from yesterday one was from Abingdon in the UK and the other was from Wisconsin in the US. MarnetteD | Talk 15:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, today there doesn't seem to be any mobile edits. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The devs have definitely been mucking about with the mobile version of the website over the past few months. For the longest time it was near impossible to make an edit with the mobile interface. In the last few weeks however, the edit buttons have re-appeared, as has a very prominent link to the talk page of each article. I endorse Cymru.lass's theory. p.s. if said devs are reading this, could they pretty please add an option to stay signed it? it's really irritating to sign in once a day on mobile Sailsbystars (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Slowking4

Resolved

 – indeffed NE Ent 09:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Slowking4

Would any other admin editor like to suggest (or action) the next step with this user? They are quite clearly stating that they are not going to follow our non-free image policies, or WP:NPA. I don't think I'm too involved, but more suggestions would be welcome. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Only admins? That's unfortunate cause I would have suggested a indef block until user agrees to follow both policies. NE Ent 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise. I have no idea why I wrote that. Fixed. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement of civility can be a sticky issue, and one that would likely wouldn't end up well. Our policy on non-free images on the other hand, is very enforceable. If they refuse to follow relevant policies on non-free images, enforce with escalating blocks until it's fully understood that it is unacceptable. His last block was for 48 hours on April 17, 2013 and after that there was about fifteen more notices about problems relating to images, so his uploads do need a look-through. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely remember seeing this username before, but I have no clue in what context; I'm definitely uninvolved, so I'll handle it. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; I made the NFCC issue the primary thing, but I made sure to reference NPA also. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent has the right idea and I fully endorse Nyttend's block. Slowking4 appears to be here for his own purposes, not for those of the project. --auburnpilot talk 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mary Hawkesworth

An article has been moved from User:Genandpoli1414 to the category namespace by mistake, and I can't move it to the right place. Can an admin please fix it. Thanks. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not possible; we don't get a move tab either. I'll just have to do a copy/paste move to Mary Hawkesworth, which will be much easier because there's only been one significant edit. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

Resolved

Can we get someone with RevDel permissions to fix up a few of these [[24]]. User is blocked not sure if I should notify still? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome Foursome

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.

---

Could someone review the recent postings of Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and perhaps explain to him why his behavior is inappropriate (and not helpful to his cause). Myself and a couple others have warned him about personal attacks ([25][26][27]) and he has toned it down some, but continues to accuse people of being stupid and/or lying. I am NOT requesting a block (like I said he has attempted to tone it down after being warned), rather I am hopefully that if someone uninvolved explains why he needs to calm down the message will get through. (He dismissed my advice because I apparently have no clue what I am talking about.)

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also a bit of a WP:DEADHORSE issue as well. For the record, I have supported the same thing he has, but when your edit history shows several dozen unique posts to the same thread, it's gone a bit off the deep end. There's no extra emphasis to be placed on one's opinion on the 25th post which wasn't clear at the 24th post, and adding additional comments to that particular thread has gone past the point where it is useful to helping anyone decide how to close the thread. It's just noise at this point. --Jayron32 05:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

please dont get too mad at him - from what i can see he is mostly trying to do good work and - if you look at his creation date - is a new user trying to learn just how things work - and yes a little over zelous sometimes--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few of GF's recent contributions. (All from WP:ITNC.) I'd love to know how any of them could be construed as 'trying to do good work':

"Gaelic football is irrelevant shite too, it should never be on ITN ever or even have an article at all, because it's crap and nobody understands it."

"Jesus fucking christ. Which part of "Leaving the vote count ... aside as no decisive criterion" was impenetrable to you? There can't be a single person here apart from you who read that post and interpreted it as an appeal to look at the vote count. Quite the contrary, it pointed out that the arguments made by opposers (like you) do not stand up against the support arguments. The fact you both missed that and chose to make it IN CAPITALS AND BOLD TEXT is utterly contemptible."

"Are you fucking kidding me? So anyone can come in here and talk absolute bollocks, and to you, their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's? You can't be that incompetent, surely."

"why do you think it's remotely acceptable to lie like this? Right here on this very page there are several detailed explanations of exactly what has happened today that would show a moron like you that his retirement was considered notable, on the assumption that you really were so lazy or incompetent that you couldn't have found it for yourself."

"You seriously cannot be this ignorant. Had you read even a single news story about this, you would have come across a sentence or paragraph that detailed just how 'amazing' it was that he stayed on in the job to that age, given that it's so rare. Since nobody can be this thick and still be able to type, I think you're simply being deliberately obtuse..."

". It's no word of a lie to say every oppose argument has either been total irrelevant bollocks ... or a weak throwaway point disproveable immediately using evidence on this page ... or just stuff that enters the territory of complete and utter lies disprovable by the simple truth... It's really a disgrace that anyone gets away with calling this even a borderline case or that the overseers of the process can even contemplate 'letting it die' rather than justify their claims that there are opposes here with merits. Opiners here should not be able to prevent a posting just because they're too ignorant, obtuse, or lazy to argue their case, or worse, that that their mothers didn't tell them it's not right to lie your fucking ass off just to get your own way on the interwebs."

"it could have been up by 11am, if the rest of the process wasn't so retarded. And yet it isn't. It apparently gives equal weight to every moron and liar in the place. And even after a whole day of that sort of shite, the flat refusal of ThaddeusB to point to a single oppose he finds compelling enough to stop this being posted is nothing short of a total disgrace. He is an utter disgrace."

That's not a complete assembly of every harsh, rude, confrontational or simply unpleasant or profane thing he's said in the past 24 hours, either. Of his past 32 edits, 30 have been to that page. WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT are relevant here, even leaving aside the confrontational language and repeated accusations of poor faith, stupidity, etc. I suggest this person should be suspended for a week to give them an opportunity to calm down. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

of the items you just posted i admit it is a little overbearing but it still appears to me to be one human beings attempt to persuade another - it just needs a little toning down - and certainley does not appear at least to me a block for one week in severeity--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Allowing editors to get away with flagrant incivility simply makes it impossible to enforce civility. Allowing editors to dominate discussions with multiple walls of text disrupts our decision-making process and thus the encyclopedia as a whole. It doesn't even matter if he's right on the subject matter (I'm inclined to strongly agree with his assertion that a story which is currently getting more media coverage than Thatcher's death is more notable than any random member of the public retiring): we have a framework for resolving these things and he's breaking it. We've ended up banning productive editors who couldn't control themselves before. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know about anyone else, but those statements from this editor listed above are awfully reminiscent of a well-known indefinitely-blocked editor ... Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have great difficulty identifying blocked editors by writing style. I do trust you mean the white-knighting IP, rather than Thumperward, when you say 'this editor listed above', though. In any case, I'm not sure the IP's opinions have contributed much. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the IP of course - I'm not saying they are that person, merely that they both share a particular writing style and vocabulary... Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't have clue #1 which former user you're talking about. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

'A little overbearing'? If a stranger talked to me or a friend like that in person, I'd leave the room so as not to be involved in the fight that would be about to break out. Online anonymity is a GIFT. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Just some context for the uninformed. The reporter, ThaddeusB, is the admin who claimed that there was only a weak consensus to support in that debate. When asked to point out even a single compelling oppose by way of explaining that position, he refused. He has since declined any and every subsequent query about why he thinks such worthless opinions as can be seen on that page should be listened to in any way, shape, or form. He has made claims such as nobody in that debate has lied, despite being given evidence of many blatant lies. And that brings me onto AlexTiefling, he is one of the opposers, and here is his vote in its entirety - "'71-year-old man retires' isn't news, it's business as usual. For big football news, I'm waiting for the Champions League final. I really don't see this as worth posting". For a start, the guy is 72, not 71. Second, this has been reported around the world and in depth, and it was top story on the evening TV news and all day in broadsheet websites like The Independent. So, is his claim that this "isn't news" an example of a valid opinion everyone should respect with equal merit? Clearly not. Similarly, the news prompted the BBC to put on a special programme on their prime channel that evening, and prompted reaction from the Prime Minister and the World and European heads of football. So, does that sound like he put any thought into the claim that in football terms, this retirement is "business as usual"? And finally, if he's waiting for big football news like the champions league final, fine, I'd only point out that the BBC Sport website has already dedicated more output to this news than it ever will for that final, and the final is being held in London!. I may have got a bit heated as it became obvious how little thought was going into that debate and how little that bothers people like Thaddeus, but as the IP points out, expecting "civility" in that sort of environment is not just unreasonable, it's downright counter-productive. If people can turn up at that venue and distort the truth so flagrantly for their own ends and not be challenged on it at all, then what's to stop people they can do the same to articles? What does more harm to the project, people seeing me be a bit 'rude' in that context (having had polite enquiries completely ignored by the propogators such as Alex and their defenders like Thaddeus), or people seeing me get ignored when challenging flagrant abuses of everything rational, intelligent and thoughtful in this world, in favour of people who clearly are either not reading sources, not acquainting themselves with the subject matter, or yes, simply lying their asses off, before giving an opinion there, and crying to mommy when pulled up on it. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not obliged to respond to your views of a story just because I've expressed my own! Whether something should be posted to ITN or not is a matter of opinion, not fact; which is why we agree it by consensus, not rigorous deduction. You're entitled to disagree with me, and there's no onus on me to answer that disagreement. If you don't like my reasons, so be it. If everyone responded as often as you (and several other editors) have done on that thread every discussion page would be an unreadable wall of text. I was much more concerned with Kiril's weird tangents than with your original !vote. Where did you make any polite enquiry of me at all, whether or not I ignored it? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Never have I seen someone misuse the term consensus so badly as you have just done. Just have a read of the actual page WP:CON, and see if you can see anything that remotely matches what you said. What you just described is about as far from the exercise of consensus building as, well, a simple vote count would be. The very idea that the process of consensus building has any time for people like you, who simply want to chuck in an uninformed opinion and leave, not caring whether that opinion flies in the face of logic or evidence, or whether other people in the debate challenged it or not, is utterly reprehensible. If Wikipedia was populated entirely by people who defined consensus in that fucked up way, well, it doesn't bear thinking about. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what consensus is. I think the consensus is in favour of posting the Alex Ferguson story; indeed, I suspect that (aside from reference problems in the article) the main obstacle to posting it has been the difficulty of reading the thread, as it is so littered with walls of text. I really think someone with the appropriate authority ought to get on and post it. But that doesn't change that my personal opinion was and is against posting it. And I expressed that opinion in a one-line posting because I honestly didn't feel the issue was worth more of my time and attention either way. I followed up with another short comment to the effect that Sir Alex's knighthood was not in and of itself reason to post. My other brief comments in the thread have to do with Kiril's remarks rather than the substantive issue. I don't think that shows I'm uninterested in building consensus; just that I don't feel the need to engage in long discussion on a topic that's of limited interest to me. I don't think that defending my position to the hilt would have shown any better commitment to consensus than what I actually did. Rather the contrary; a thread already filled with entrenched positions and mean-spirited tangents would not have been brought closer to consensus by me fanning the flames. And I ask again: you said "...having had polite enquiries completely ignored by the propogators such as Alex..." - where and when did I receive, much less ignore, any polite enquiry whatsoever from you? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gruesome, I'll admit: I headed over to your talkpage for the express reason of blocking you. In a discussion about your incivility in front of the community, continuing your incivility really serves as a final nail in a coffin. I'll be honest: IMHO, something about Ferguson's retirement rightly belongs as an ITN feature - as an individual, he's been one of the most important people in soccer/football, and his retirement is a big deal. However, on Wikipedia we have 5 key pillars. One is be civil at all times (note: this does not say "except for times that civility would be counterproductive"). Secondly, we go by determination of consensus after polite discourse. The best way to get your point ignored is to act like a jerk during the discussion - even those people who are supportive of you and your position will bail like rats from a sinking ship (note: I called nobody a dick, nor did I call anyone a rat). Look, maybe it was only a bunch of Americans who !voted on that ITN discussion - and we all know that Americans rank soccer somewhere below tiddlywinks for the most part, and often show as much understanding of the game as they do quantum physics. However, nobody is allowed to jump in, call people names, and get their way. Period. You either need to re-read the 5 pillars and straighten up to the rules that you agreed to when you started editing this site, or else your "career" on Wikipedia will be a short one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Civility is indeed a pillar alongside consensus building. Not above it, not more important than it. Expecting one before the other, or elevating one over the other, as you seem to be doing with this rather targeted comment, is foolish. There will never be any civility here if the starting point of every debate is that even the admins don't understand how to weigh up an unsubstantiated undefended illogical opinion against a polite fact based argument. It's a supreme irony that you made this post underneath the one by Alex where he explains what he thinks and believes consensus building is (ie, largely, say what you want, and ignore everyone else). It makes my point better then I myself have in this post. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the pure irony is that your post supports my - and everyone else's argument - far better. The fact that you're still lobbing insults really just proves it. I smell an indef happening (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Metaphorical rat here. The incivility reported here is blatant, and I'm in favour of enforcement in this and other cases. When civility is listed as a pillar editors should be entitled to a reasonable working environment. The reported user is not conductive to this. Conduct of this kind makes many content discussion unresolvable as it becomes a chore to discuss with such users. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• The pillars may technically be equal in standing, but there is a precedence. You can't judge consensus without civil debate. FWIW I'd be extremely surprised if this were not to be promoted and I reckon you're damaging your cause by creating so much drama over it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome Foursome has just made this post at ITN:

"Oh my god. Words fail me. First you want to see evidence that this retirement is notable, and now you dismiss at a stroke the only thing that Wikipedia uses to assess notability. And let me guess, the only person properly qualified to assess the true importance of this event is you, as you give unsubstantiated and factually incorrect views about the event? Brilliant."

It wasn't directed at me, so I'm not responding as someone personally attacked. But I don't find that a constructive contribution to the discussion. To post that while this discussion is underway displays something I can't really understand. HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

While strident, it's a) concise and b) within the bounds of what we would typically consider robust discussion. It could have occurred in a heated debate in a formal environment without anyone being fired or physically assaulted. I'd prefer if GF disengaged entirely from that for the time being, but his being taken to ANI should not immediately mean he's barred from participation in a discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was directed at you, in response to your "The reason for a lot of media coverage of this event is that there are a lot of fans of the game and the club he was involved with. That means readership and viewership for the media. it doesn't really reflect the true importance of the event." Whilst not condoning the IPs general conduct, you were frankly asking to be shot down there. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's assume that Gruesome now understands how to speak to other editors and won't resort to profanity again, lest he be blocked. ITN can be a very frustrating venue and it not the most civil place on Wikipedia. I can definitely empathize with a football (world) fan who shows up there trying to explain to a bunch of 'Muricans why a particular footballer's doings are significant. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately Gruesome's latest postings ([28], [29]) show the profanity and personal attacks have not yet stopped. To quote Kosebamse's law, "People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." Looks like it is pretty close to time for implementation of the inevitable results of Gruesome's efforts to defend his personal opinion? --Allen3 ^talk 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  I don't see anything majorly problematic there, the use of "fucked up" isn't aimed at anyone and the other one is exasperation at someone who, if that conversation was a fight with weapons based on knowledge of the subject, would be completely unarmed. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Notwithstanding, this editor has spent most of a full day making a mess of the discussion because they simply can't accept that other people may disagree with them. If nothing else, we are long past the point of WP:POINT and they really need to step away from the discussion - either voluntarily or by block. (and it would certainly be ironic if this story doesn't get posted because they trainwrecked the discussion.) Resolute 13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That last diff has just earned him a 24-hour cluebatting, after which the nomination in question will hopefully have been closed. Regardless of to whom his vitriol was being projected, it plainly wasn't helping in the slightest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And after this lovely prose, I have extended to indef and locked talkpage access. We "dickheads" and "fucktards" don't need to be reminded that we're "dickheads and fucktards" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

While that interesting outburst certainly validates the extension of the block, I have to be a bit of a procedural wonk here and say that there was no "abuse of the unblock process" as the template you added claims, since he hasn't actually submitted an appeal for unblocking.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little uneasy about blocking somebody who is essentially arguing a correct position, and becomes exasperated at polite trolls or obstinate ignoramuses who argue against the obvious. Blocking this chap may just result in him going underground with a new account. Better to get an agreement that he'll stop crossing the line and then unblock him. Meanwhile, we all ought to go over to the initial discussion and see if we can set it right. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There were many people in the discussion who argued the "correct position" without throwing a temper tantrum that would make a three-year-old proud. As we always say, indefinite is not infinite, and when they are prepared to behave like an adult, the block can certainly be lifted. Resolute 15:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I really disagree. His position wasn't 'essentially ... correct', it was purely a matter of opinion. Who, exactly, are you referring to as 'polite trolls or obstinate ignoramuses'? And even if he had been arguing that the sky is blue, Gruesome's method was so confrontational that his contributions were of diminishing usefulness. And what do you suppose any of us might set right by wading back in at the ITN discussion, which has now (sensibly enough) delivered the result he was pushing for? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether he was right or wrong. The issue is that he continued his behaviour despite warnings and actually seemed to think that incivility was the way to get his point across, judging from his comments here. I would have preferred to see him disengage from that discussion voluntarily and end this matter without a block. However, when someone simply refuses to step away and resorts to personal attacks, it's pretty clear we're past the point where such a solution is possible. Chamal ^T•C 16:55, 9 May 2013 (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.

Aryanism and other drivel

I don't want to deal with this anymore, and I figure I'll just get told to come here anyway if I try AIV. Correctionperson (talk · contribs) is raising red flags with me for reasons I'm sure anyone who takes the time to check his/her contributions will understand immediately (Aryan/white/"Adamic" nonsense changes to race-related articles, removal of the word "false" from Blood libel, unsourced statements that certain individuals were Jewish, etc.). He/she has hit 5RR at Christian identity. I do not intend to notify the user that I am posting here, per WP:DNFTT and WP:IAR. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that I reported the user for edit-warring[30] without realizing this was already at ANI. These edits are obviously problematic for a number of reasons. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 48 hours since this edit warring is way out of bounds; in the meantime you can sort out the rest and see if this needs to be an indefinite block for warring, original research, soapboxing, writing indigestible sentences, and tendentious editing. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User edit-warring at several articles concerning antipsychotic drugs

We currently have a new editor, Mandragua (talk · contribs), editing a number of articles on the "antipsychotic drugs are evil" theme. The articles concerned so far are psychosis, antipsychotic, thought disorder, and frontal lobe disorder. The edits are poorly sourced and blatantly non-neutral. When they are removed or modified by other editors, Mandragua either reverts back or makes a new edit that is equivalent to a revert. Attempts at discussion are blanked or met with hostility, including accusing another editor of terrorism. Numerous talk page warnings from multiple editors have been disregarded. The editor has also been doing numerous logged-out edits, and has created a duck sockpuppet, Momentarilylost (talk · contribs). I will notify Mandragua of this complaint. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Two accounts indef-blocked, am looking into IP edits. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. It looks like this is solved, for now at least. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have tagged a couple of the obvious IP socks too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Taivo continues to adress me as Anti-Christian

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.

---

Occurence: NPOV noticeboard

Warning issued at Talk:Dravidian languages

Request a block, that let's him rethink the words he uses.-- Dravidian  Hero  20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

He is saying that you are seemingly trying to discard a reliable source based on it not conforming to your own religious preference. And that seems to be correct from my own reading of the events. Your claims about ethnologues classification itself being religiously biased are incorrect and can be based either in bias or in ignorance of how the ethnologue is in fact elaborated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What has been reported here isn't even close to a blockable offence. I suggest someone close this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even religious. I had initial doubts on the neutrality, but that was long time ago. Taivo is just using that to discredit my stand on Ethnologue wherever he feels the need to defend it. I've gave him the warning for that behaviour and he continues to accuse me for a non-existing bias.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Observation from someone who's not involved at all: You don't have to be religious to have a view on religious things. You appear to have a view on Ethnologue as a religious thing, and it's in question whether that view is justified or needs to carry weight. Saying that you yourself are not religious is irrelevant, and looks misleading. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I said that to reduce the tention. Ethnologue is headed by a Christian NGO; i would be stupid to have no initial doubts. That was my point here.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from involved AndyTheGrump). Can you clarify what your 'stand on Ethnologue' is? I asked at WP:NPOVN (where I've been trying to help sort this dispute out - my only involvement) whether you were questioning its validity as a source - and suggested that if you did, you should raise it at WP:RSN. So far, I've seen no sign of any clear answer on this, and you appear not to have followed my suggestion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

My view is, it's a reliable source like any other, but not more reliable than mainstream experts.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you then clarify who you were referring to when you wrote of "the views of tiny minorities" here:[31] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I was refering to the origin and only source of the terms in the discussion: Ethnologue.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be self-evident at this point why other contributors are getting frustrated with DravidianHero. A source is reliable one minute, but only represents 'the views of tiny minorities' the next... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Both are true! Please try to follow me.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And your source for the assertion that the otherwise-reliable Ethnologue only represents the view of 'tiny minorities' regarding the issue at hand can be found where exactly? Please provide proper and complete citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur nothing blockable has been presented, however, it's not necessary for Tavio to describe DH as "anti-christian" (or as anything, actually) in order to discuss DH's contributions, and DH should endeavor to seek consensus in a more postive manner. NE Ent 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of Dravidianhero's links regarding Ethnologue and the people of SIL to illustrate his opinion: [32], [33], [34]. --Taivo (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing this as "hands slapped all around and please get back to the point". There's more than a trace of distaste for Ethnologue's American low Protestant connections in Dravidianhero's responses, so while I don't entirely condone Taivo's "you say that because" rejoinder, calling it a personal attack is something of an exaggeration. I'm not at all a participant but it's pretty clear which way the consensus is developing, and I'm not seeing anything that would make me want to overturn it; but I am seeing a patter of forum-shopping here. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like a second opinion on the goings-on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ethnologue appears to be not reliable for Dravidian languages. I'm about to blow my top... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see some forumshopping allegations, which should be clarified: Initially my request to move Talk:Sauria Paharia language was removed without Talk. I then came NPOVN to report it. Is this forumshopping? At NPOVN I get attacked as Anti-Christian, and I reported it at ANI. Is this forum shopping? And finally Andy directed me to open a case at RSN. Is this forum shopping? I want answers, thanks.-- Dravidian  Hero  05:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you were forum shopping or not, you have wasted a great deal of our time. I suggest that you let it drop, rather than attracting more attention to your behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Please complete a move

It is a mess. In the end, I'd like to have:

• page Template:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C with current content (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C
• page (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C to have content Template:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C plus content (to be provided)
• page List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C to be a redirect to (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C

Keep whatever history can be saved. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can do this by reverting CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C to my last edit version, once the template gets the content that is currently there. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear lord, this is so screwed up now. After editing by JPaestpreornJeolhlna, CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C now appears correct, but I actually cannot determine where the actual chart information is stored, since the transcluded template {{CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}} just redirects back to the article it's transcluded in. But somehow it contains the right content. Can an experienced please admin jump down the rabbit hole and figure out what the heck happened? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got the content sorted out, but attribution still needs to be checked. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have the same goals in mind—and was, indeed, trying to help. — |J~Pæst| 01:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

All the moving has made things really confused; I've fully protected it for the moment. Nobody's been editing in bad faith; this is purely to ensure that just one person is working on it, since edit conflicts and move conflicts right now might cause big problems. Please ping me instantly upon finding any mistakes or thinking of anything specific that I should do. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you've checked it out and we haven't managed to completely destroy attribution, then I think we're fine. I don't think that anyone was acting with any sort of bad faith; indeed, we were all trying to fix the same problem, but ended up getting caught up in the loop of all these stupid things. I'm going to start up a conversation at talk:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C about which templates and articles we actually need – the problem seems to be that we have about three extraneous locations for the content, so nobody actually knows where it's located. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitely understand; the only reason I protected was to ensure that we didn't accidentally make that loop even worse. Think of it as a good-faith edit war, with nobody at fault :-) I'm marginally confused about where we want things to end up, so I'll comment at the talk page you mention. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For consistency (see Category:Unicode charts), "List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D" must be moved to "Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension D" as soon as possible. DePiep has been messing with some of these should-be templates lately… — |J~Pæst| 02:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's worry about the Cs now and the Ds later. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I started the mess-up. Sorry I caused you all this trouble. Best thing I could think of afterwards is: don't touch the keyboard for a while. Thanks for cleaning up, sorry for starting it. -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do my kemetic.org links get deleted?

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.

---

Dear administrator, Why is my link to page http://kemetic.org/zenethouses.html repeatedly deleteed by this guy ihardlythinkso? I have written a book on this topic and studied Middle Egyptian at Leiden University. I also have a board games background, some of our software reached the World Computer Shogi Chmpships in Tokyo, &c. What is this guys qualifications? Steve Nichols (Member British Psychological Society) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunny5000 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The link you keep adding has been removed by 3 different editors. One of thos editors gave you a detailed explanation on your talk page, User talk:Bunny5000#Senet link. The way to move forward on this is to start a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Senet. Also I have notified ihardlythinkso for you. GB fan 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my User Talk before opening a thread at this cesspool venue. Oh! you forgot to discredit me, here, I'll help: "That user ihardlythinkso has been indef-blocked before. And Administrators report that there have been numerous chronic problems with him [35]." Ihardlythinkso His persistent deletes must be stopped, and Administrators might want to consider sanctioning this behavior as well. He deserves no apology since he is guilty for his own persistent deletion behavior as announced to everyone by the thread title, and probably deserves to be blocked as he has been dragged to ANI numerous times before, causing ongoing disruption to the Project. Perhaps a topic ban!? (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Let's keep this thread open!! Because it is a perfect case for ANI, it is clearly not a content dispute and attempts at discussion have failed, and demonstrates why ANI exists in the first place. And all the protocols have been met by the user opening the thread. (Other users can be turned down as coming to ANI inappropriately, but this user has clearly done his homework and should be encouraged to open threads like this in the future. A good example for other users to follow also, to see what ANI is for [incidents requiring immediate Administrator intervention] and how WP operates.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Steve, it looks like a question of reliable sources for that link. Also, as you are the author, you may want to also read WP:COI and WP:SPAM to get a further view of how wikipedia views these sort of things. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Steve, our external links policy page says that we shouldn't link Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. This definitely looks like such a situation; please don't restore it. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, while ANI is a dice roll, it is however in your best interest to bring the matter up as at WP:RSN and if so it could be cited in the article, but ELNO is fairly clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if he missed the messages on his talk page cause of the missing OBOD. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen many, many times on this board, Administrators explaining to users that ANI is not for content disputes, especially where no attempt at discussion resolution has taken place, and even closing threads on that basis. (Which I thought was consistent, with the doc at head of the ANI saying the page is for Administrator intervention only.) I've also seen many times Administrators explaining to users that ANI is for use after all other venues have been exhausted. Apparently, all of those statements by Administrators, e.g. by Admin Dennis Brown, were ... not right/wrong/misguided/confused/erroneous?

Here is what user ChrisGualtieri responded to me, when I questioned him on the appropriateness of using ANI on the basis of an undiscussed content dispute:

Content issues can, have and will been resolved at ANI despite it being for conduct matters.

Are we following any rules here? Is there any consistency here? Should the doc at the top of the ANI board be changed? Does anyone other than me think this is a little confusing, that both are right and we can "have it both ways"? I invite Dennis Brown and other Admins who have numerous times in past instructed users on the misuse of ANI venue, and sending users off to proper venue recommendations, and close threads on that basis, to chime in here. (Is WP *totally chaos*, *all the time*? Others don't think the conflicting statements what ANI is for doesn't lead to crazy-making for someone innocently trying to follow protocol? Huh?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have to link his name for him to get the notification; although he may read through this board on a fairly regular basis too: User:Dennis Brown — Ched :  ?  21:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not just Admin Dennis Brown making such statements at ANI. It is many other Admins as well. (So, those "Dennis Brown-like" Admins, who have in past rectified users' understanding when & how ANI is to be used, and when not.) As long as this thread is staying open, and I have been publicly falsely accused and my username put on an ANI thread title, I'd like to at least get a tee-shirt for it. I'd like to tell all you Administrators to find some consistency in your numerous statements when you espouse them thinking that you can preach what this board is for and what it is not for, when in fact you all contradict each other and are in conflict with your undrstandings, and never discuss the matter and reach some sort of agreement and consistency, to avoid confusion and crazy-making. (How about it?? Let's have some words about consistent expression what this board is for, and what it is not for. As if everyone knows! When practice and claims are 180 degrees divergent. A little consistency might be nice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On a totally different topic: Did anyone ever stop to think, that it might not feel good, to have an ANI opened with your name in the thread title claiming misconduct, which is totally false and misguided, has no basis in any facts, and doesn't even belong at ANI??? (And that it might not feel cool???) Oh let's not tell Bunny5000 he has falsely accused an editor, and unnecessarily and unfairly opened an ANI thread against a user, on a very public board. (That would never be uncivil, right?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read this thread until Ched linked my name. I generally avoid threads where you (Ihardlythinkso) are the primary topic as you've previously indicated a reluctance to consider me objective. That is fine and it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree, I just let others review those threads as it wouldn't be helpful if I involved myself unless asked. In general, I do stop threads that are really content disputes or over simple differences of opinions, but that is just how I do it, no one else is obligated to follow suit. That isn't even an admin thing, I did that before getting the bit. And to answer your question, it totally sucks to be the topic of an ANI report. I know because I have been a few times myself, typically over being "an abusive admin" by someone I've blocked. I could say "If you didn't do anything, don't sweat it and trust the system" but we both know it can turn into a drama-fest when you haven't done anything wrong. I get the feeling that the reason it hasn't closed is due to concerns over the reporting party and not you. That said, this looks like someone should just close this as "No admin intervention required." as I can't see anything you've done wrong here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to publicly thank User:Ched for taking my username off the thread title. (That helps. Thank you, Ched.) Meanwhile, the Bunny5000 user clearly has paid no attention, accusing me of "Why is my link [...] repeatedly deleteed by this guy ihardlythinkso?" when in fact I reverted his link *once*. (But, false accusations of misconduct on a public board are just the price one pays for being a member of WP, right??!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For some of us, sometimes, yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:21, 9 May 2013 (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.

Mass speedy image deletions without due process or rationale

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.

---

Seventeen PD images, all used in articles, were just mass deleted summarily over just 14 minutes, without tags, warnings, notices, or any rationale of substance. I have asked User talk:Denniss‎ to explain, without comment yet. All of the deleted images had clearly verified non-copyright status. Any review would be appreciated. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• mb 20:58 Walter_Matthau_-_1973.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:54 Dirk_Blocker_-_1974.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:54 Faye_Dunaway_-_1967_-_Bonnie.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:52 Woody_Allen_-_Diane_Keaton_-_1972.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)<br.
• mb 20:51 Woody_Allen_-_Kup.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:49 Shirley_MacLaine_-_Yves_Montand_-_Geisha.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:49 Tom_Selleck_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:49 Robert_Redford_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:48 Alan_Alda_-_Mash_-_1972.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:48 Loretta_Swit_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:47 Uri_Geller_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:47 Hal_Linden_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)<br.
• mb 20:46 David_Janssen_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:46 Jane_Olivor_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:46 Clint_Eastwood_-_1960s-hat.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:45 Richard_Chamberlain-publicity.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:44 Jack_Lemmon_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

Are they publicity stills? — raekyT 21:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, these are Commons images, you will need to broach the subject there. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Will take the time over the next few days to update Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1.Moxy (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2013 (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.

Off-wiki legal threat from blocked user User:Maxschweitzer

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

---

User:Maxschweitzer was recently indef. blocked by User:Bbb23, for personal attacks and harassment, aimed at me and others. I've since received an emailed legal threat from him: "you should get a lawyer and prepare for a discrimination lawsuit". It's laughable, but I thought I should mention it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look up higher, you'll see that Max made the same threat on-wiki using a sock puppet (User:CourtofLaw). The puppet was indeffed for the legal threat. I tagged Max and his puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, can someone please disable Maxschweitzer's email access? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. Also when something like this happens does someone notify the foundation or just keep the email and wait to see what happens? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2013 (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.

The CfD result regarding American women novelists ignored at Amanda Filipacchi

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
• Amanda Filipacchi
• Obiwankenobi and The Devil's Advocate

The above-linked CfD was closed as;

“ The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature. {{All included}} and/or {{Distinguished subcategory}} should be added to the latter so that this does not happen again. Can someone with AWB or a similar tool do this soon, given the frighteningly large amount of media coverage focused on these categories and related discussion? ”

I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" [36]. Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• There has been no decision against categorizing by century. People in Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:21st-century American novelists do not need to be in the overall Category:American novelists. There is absolutely no reason for such duplication. Anyway, Filipacchi is on List of American novelists, where if someone really wanted to marginzalize her they could fairly easily, as has been done in the past by removing Stephanie Meyer from that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • We've established loads of reasons for duplication, and who is that keeps claiming we can't have duplication? That's not true. Eventually, the duplication will be removed through technical means, but for now, stop diffusing the categories. This obsession with unhelpful tasks that piss people off needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on the matter at this point is entirely irrelevant. These BLPs are to be categorized back into Category:American novelists and Category:American women novelists, that's all there is to it. What you choose to do after the fact regarding 20th, 21st century or any other categorizes is academic. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, the decision is that we will not remove articles from Category:American novelists to place them in Category:American women novelists. There is no decision against moving them to Category:20th-century American novelists or Category:American historical novelists. Those are legitmate diffusing categories and there is absolutely no reason not to diffuse. If you think we should not have Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to take it to a CfD, but while it exists it is a 100% legitimate diffusion category, and there is no reason to fight diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Your interpretation of the matter is so divorced from reality that we're either in "I'm not listening" or "Just plain doesn't get it" territory. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Suggest you diffuse the other 4,000 American novelists into their respective century sub-categories first before you do Filipacchi. Otherwise the unavoidable impression is that you are unpleasantly and indefensibly obsessed with the category her biography is in. Walk away, drop the stick. Andreas JN466 10:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment(edit conflict):I've been watching this whole fiasco from the sidelines. Seeing this pop up at the bottom of the noticeboard made me think of a scene from a painting (or perhaps a movie, it was quite a while ago) I saw. Attila and his horde were advancing down a hill upon an unsuspecting settlement. With this huge debacle, and the following media storm, I can only imagine in horror the Chinese fire drill that will result. All while this plays in the background. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stop diffusing the goddamn categories. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."

We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.

Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.

That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:

1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?

a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.

b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!

Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.

1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)

A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.

1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.

So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon ^talk 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can have a category "Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the articles you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "TV miniseries", "People", Women or "US Presidents". Same goes for "World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon ^talk 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas raised his personal opinion that is unsupported by any consensus here as though it somehow has relevance. Adding sub-categories and removing parent categories is not suddenly prohibited. What this really amounts to is that the Amanda Filipacchi article is getting special attention because she was in the press on this issue. Even now this sort of category switch happening on another article generally would and does occur without incidence. No policy or consensus is actually being violated as replacing a broader gender-neutral category with a more specific gender-neutral category is not the same as "ghettoizing" novelists by gender. It is, in fact, a compromise measure that has not been rejected by any consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be prohibited when obsessive editors engage in disruptive category diffusion that brings the entire mainstream media down on us and instead of listening to their criticism, attacks them in response and continues on their merry, obsessive way. No, I'm sorry, but you guys need to stop this unusual obsession with category diffusion and find something useful to do. Wikipedia isn't therapy. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're pretty clear on your POV here. I will take your recommendation under consideration. That said, when the mainstream media gets it wrong, as they did in the main this time, I usually just feel free to ignore them - beaucoup de bruit pour rien. Is wikipedia's clunky categorization system really the front line of the sexism problem in the world? I mean, if we solve that, have we made a big dent in the problems that women face in the world? No.

In the meantime, do you have any actual violations that merit sanction here? I do note that JPL was proposed for a categories topic ban just a few days ago, and was closed in a pretty snowy fashion. Personally, I've probably categorized < 100 bios in the past week or so, so I'm not exactly an obsessive machine, and I'm almost positive I haven't ghettoized anyone. In fact, I de-ghettoized Maya Angelou, who was a feature article candidate but her categorization was besmirched in the media - I fixed that. :)

Also, since you seem to be a fan of an all-inclusive Category:American novelists category, can we count on you to volunteer to start bubbling the 3000 bios up the tree? I mean, do you actually care enough to do something about it, or are you more the rock-throwing type? (I kid :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they should all be upmerged to Category:Humans. Or perhaps that's discriminatory to some famous apes, so Category:Apes would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The only people who should be "bubbled up" are people who were excluded from a generic category based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. If American novelists end up being diffused from Category:American novelists to century categories, then I suggest Wikipedia would be wise to start with the men, as otherwise outside observers are very likely to get the wrong impression whenever the American novelists category is removed from a female writer's biography. You want to be able to point to hundreds of diffusing edits to male novelists' biographies (i.e. edits removing Category:American novelists from the article, and replacing it with a category like 20th-century American novelists) that were made under the exact same rationale. Andreas JN466 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you would not want to "start" with any specific gender as if the category becomes entirely female that could raise questions as well or if someone sees an editor in the process of depopulating an exclusively female version of the category they may only see an editor systematically removing women without catching on that the men are already gone. Perhaps we should avoid Filipacchi for some time until it becomes abundantly obvious that no gender or individual is being targeted. If people see her removed from the category and then notice or are told that the category is otherwise empty, it would make things a lot less contentious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, this isn't (on one level at least) all that hard. Given the outcome of the CFD, any solution to whatever categorization problem there is which takes the "women X" out of "X people" is going to be unsatisfactory. If the guideline says otherwise, then it's time to talk about changing it. And if we can't come to a consensus about that, it's time to rethink the whole categorization mechanism (and I'm personally betting that we'll get to that eventually). But however any of that goes, ostensibly mechanical application of anyone's interpretation of the guideline against the explicitly stated outcome of the CFD, at the article which is the locus of the original complaint, is a Reichstag-class level of WP:POINTy behavior. Taking the person's article who is rattling our cage in the media and making it an object example of one's defiance is deserving of a vacation, and a forced vacation if one doesn't back down. Right here don't need to discuss to the bitter end, or even any further, whatever solution needs to be worked out, but anyone who diffuses that particular article needs to be blocked if they go at it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There are nearly 4,000 novelists to diffuse from Category:American novelists (if that is indeed what is going to be done). Why anyone would want to start with Filipacchi beats me. You can diffuse her when the vast majority of men have been diffused, otherwise it will just look like more petty harassment and revenge editing. Andreas JN466 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but having diffused all the 17th 18th and 19th century American Novelists the 20th century list is going to be so much smaller and more manageable, and won't have anywhere near 4000 items. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the CFD ruling apply only to American novelists? What about Americans in other professions? What about novelists of other nationalities? Categorisation should be consistent across the entire system, having special rules just for Americans or Novelists is completely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dito women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The ruling is the ruling. Apply it with common sense either directly or by analogy when needed. There is an incredible lack of common sense on display by anyone advocating that Filapacchi need be an initial target of removal from Category:American novelists yet again.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The CFD ruling applies narrowly to the issue of American novelists, that being the set of categories under specific discussion here. But I think it serves as a useful precedent for other, similar categories - and that this issue shows in general that we need to revise the Category guidelines. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• My read of the consensus at the CFD is clear, and I'm having a hard time seeing how overrulling that consensus is not a prime example of Disruptive Editing. Could someone explain how a guideline trumps a specific CFD? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't even really pay much attention to the CfD when it was happening so I really didn't look at the result. Looking at it now, I don't read the consensus as being "no article can be removed from the parent category when moved to a gender-neutral sub-category" but more as "no article can be removed from the parent category just to be moved to a gendered sub-category" and I feel the changes being made were consistent with that principle. To Jayen's point above, I don't actually think anyone was "starting" with the Filipacchi article as many other articles for male and female novelists were getting moved to those gender-neutral sub-categories. It is instead that people only noticed the change on the Filipacchi article because more people were looking at the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The entire point of the debate was that removing female novelists from the main category was somehow interpreted as saying that they were not actual for-reals American novelists. The result of the discussion was that the articles removed from that main category should be put back into that category, while the articles for female novelists should remain at the subcategory as well. OK, so is the subject of this article an American novelist? Yup. Is the subject of this article a female American novelist? Yup. So now I'm asking you to please revert your edit here and restore the main category to the article, in conformance to the consensus at CFD of which you are now aware. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, the edit was already reverted. However, looking over the votes in the CfD, I would say the consensus was that the American women novelists category issue was a problem because women were removed from the parent category, while men remained. Most calls for a merge or restoring articles to the parent category specifically justified it on the basis of the parent category becoming exclusively male. As noted, moving men and women out of the parent category is not creating that issue. I do not think one should take the admin finding of consensus as indicative of the actual community perspective. To me it seems as though moving all articles in the American novelists category, without regard for gender, to gender-neutral sub-categories is perfectly respecting the major objections raised in the CfD, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the admin's closing statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both men and women should be upmerged to the parent. Equal opportunity categorization is the only solution. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Thanks to all above for their thoughtful comments - I've learned a lot, and I appreciate better why this has caused an uproar. To me, it seems to be an issue mostly of timing and scale, not of principle - e.g. I'm not sure people think Category:American novelists should *never* be diffused, just that we shouldn't start by diffusing to non-gendered cats women who have written articles about wikipedia. Fair enough. So that said, here is my proposed compromise:

• No more women can be diffused out of Category:American novelists to a non-gendered century-specific cat (e.g. Category:19th-century American novelists or to a non-gendered genre cat like Category:American romantic fiction writers) until there are at least 1000 men, including 10 Pulitzer prize winning men, that have been moved out of the head category first. I noted above that I've already moved Hemingway - I will go after Faulkner next. In addition, for Filipacchi specifically, we should keep her in the head cat for at least one month regardless of what happens - after which point she can be diffused as long as there are at least 3 (male or female) Nobel prize in literature winners in the same category as her. In this way, she will remain in the head cat at least until this all blows over. Finally, a (self-imposed) wet minnow to Obiwan as a way of helping him get a clue. I welcome your thoughts and modifications to the above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two issues. The consensus was that female American novelists should be in both the category for American novelists and the subcategory for female American novelists. All of the other issues surrounding century-specific categories, diffusion, etc, are subordinate to that consensus. Suggesting that we comply with that consensus "until this all blows over" is rubbish - have an RFC and come up with a better solution, then. But the CFD result should not just be handwaved away. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I totally appreciate where you're coming from. However, as noted above, if we take that specific interpretation of consensus to its logical conclusion, we end up with an odd result. (I note that the consensus never ruled on whether post-facto diffusion to non-gendered sub cats was allowable or not - the consensus was mum on that issue, so it's really an interpretation you're putting forth).

If it is allowed to diffuse men in Category:American novelists to century-or genre-specific sub-cats, but the women are untouchable, then the result after a few months will be that Category:American novelists will only contain women. That would be a rich irony indeed - and perhaps, frankly, deserved :) But do you understand why this is not desirable or logical? On the other hand, if it's also *not* allowed to diffuse men, then that means, logically, all cats under Category:American novelists have now become non-diffusing, and to be fair, we have to bubble up everyone who's not currently in the parent - around 3000 bios. My response here may be helpful in understanding why that is not desirable either ==> Category_talk:American_novelists#By_century_sub-cats. Best regards, and appreciate your contributions here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That compromise sounds eminently sensible to me. (At least, if there are subsequent arguments about whether diffusion is sensible or not, these arguments will be carried out on the backs of male writers.) Andreas JN466 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, uh, why is having a very big category a bad thing?

Let me first admit that I have not read all of discussion about this, but I will ask my question anyway and perhaps someone can point me to the answer - why is having 6700 (or 10000, or more) listings in a category a bad thing? If readers of WP see that a person is in the category "People from Earth" and in "People from Africa" (or "People from Mali" etc), what does it matter how many entries the main category has? I think it is clear from the media reports that readers have been confused and upset by the diffusion of categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only are readers upset, editors are too (well, I am). And the media has it right, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a great question - and I think it points to a fundamental flaw and confusion with the way the current system works. There are two ways of fixing what you're asking for:

1. Alternative 1: Put everyone in every category all the way up the chain. This would mean, all American politicians would be in Category:American politicians, as well as in any specific cats below, and in the more generic cats all the way up the tree, such as Category:American political people, Category:American people by occupation, Category:People_by_nationality_and_occupation, Category:People_by_nationality, Category:People, Category:Humans,Category:Hominina,Category:Homininae, Category:North_American_people, Category:People_of_the_Americas, Category:People_by_region, and so on. To implement this in a generic fashion, we'd literally have to add dozens or, depending on depth and complexity of parenting, hundreds of categories to every single page in the wiki.

Take a look at Category:People - can you see how easy it is to find those in need of better categorization? a few entries, sit there, waiting to be sub-catted. What would happen if People had 500,000 entries? How could you find the ones in need of a better cat?

Even if you went to the page Category:American politicians, there would literally be tens of thousands of entries competing for your attention. If you wanted to find someone who wasn't yet put into a more specific category, you'd have to read all of the bios, one by one. So it would basically be impossible to find articles in need of diffusing/sub-categorization.

It would also be extremely brittle. Suppose someone comes along and wants to create a new category, called Category:People from North Africa. In the current system, it would just mean adding the top level cats, Category:Algerian people and Category:Tunisian people and so on to Category:People from North Africa. But if you're not diffusing, you now have to edit every single bio, tens and tens of thousands of them, in order to get the full complete set visible in Category:People from North Africa. So a 5 minute edit today to create a potentially useful category would turn into weeks or months worth of work.

Finally for the reader, it would become meaningless - Category:People would have 500,000 entries, Category:Humans would have 500,000 entries - what would the point be?

1. Alternative 2: Don't put everyone in every category up the chain, continue to diffuse, but have the option, when needed, to "display" everyone in all sub-cats of a given cat recursively. I gave some examples of how to do this elsewhere, but go to Category:American novelists and click the link at the top for an example. I think #2 is the better option. It would be nice if they just built this into the wiki. May be you can try to make that happen? This isn't the forum, right here, though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, the problem with categories that have many listings is that there would be many listings in the categories? And that would be silly because readers would not want to see that someone is from the US, they would prefer to know that someone is from Queens (because Queens is such an important borough of New York city that it is globally recognized)? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that we put every article into every category "all the way up the chain", but I'm sure tools could be created to painlessly handle that situation if that were the case.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DC, I've tried to explain, and obviously failed. If you want to swing by my talk page I am willing to try again - but it's a waste of space to discuss the theory and practice of hierarchical categorization and taxonomies, the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and how this might influence a given search here any more. Sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First off, this discussion belongs somewhere other than ANI. Second, there are two answers to your titular question:

1. It isn't.
2. It depends on what the category is and how big it is. Once you get 10K articles, it's unnavigable or meaningless. I think a bigger question is, "why are articles in daughter categories automatically removed from mother categories" pbp 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept of a category being "unnavigable" is an odd one. Do readers go to categories to find things, or do they see categories at the bottom of the article they are reading? I suspect it is the latter. Even if a category is too large to conveniently browse, it can be used in searches. And those searches would return the results that I think our readers expect. If I am looking for the article on a novelist whose name I cannot recall, am I likely to know that Herman Melville is not an "American novelist", but is an "American male novelist" "American men novelist" or a "19th-century American novelist"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The author of Moby-Dick was actually categorized as both a "male writer" and a "men novelists". But not a straight novelist (pun not really intended). As though that's what people are looking for! This is now theatre of the absurd and if I were writing for the press would have a field day. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Herman Melville was an american who, among other things, wrote novels in the 19th century. So, he is in category Category:19th-century American novelists. What part of "19th-century American novelists" do you not understand? Try this - take your finger and cover up the word "19th-century" - see that? Wow - he now looks like an American novelist. Read WP:Categorization again please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, this discussion has got me at the point where I believe that anybody in any subcategory of American novelist should also be in the mother category! Just like Louis Armstrong isn't just a jazz cornetist, he's an American musician, and as such, he should be in the parent category pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - people who are depopulating categories without understanding that our best American novelists now are no longer categorized as novelists really need to step back and stop now. Please pick one centralized place to discuss and wait for consensus to develop. I feel very very strongly about this - am not happy to see the novelist taken out of Faulkener, Twain, Hemingway, Hathworne, etc (that's as far as I got on my watchlist). I'm willing to take a block or a ban for this - that's how strongly I feel. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree! There seems to be an insatiable need for some editors to somehow show they were "right" but emptying out a category that doesn't *have* to be emptied. Jumping in and taking Twain, Hemingway, etc., out of American novelists? Sheesh. It reminds me of the famous punk lyric "I want to be stereotyped. I want to be classified."[37] Please, someone in the press, if anyone is still writing about this, work that quote into your pithy observations. The Workhouse Category Editor isn't sexist or racist, they just crave order.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one was "taken out" - they were simply classified into a more specific categorization by century. We do this all over the wiki - just look at the Category:Poets tree. ==> Category:20th-century American novelists - most of the letters in that name spell A M E R I C A N N O V E L I S T S. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Hemingway is relegated as a mere writer and his achievement of writing novels has been removed. It's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. Please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

[38]. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

sigh. Did you scroll down, and look through the list of categories he is in? Even after my edit, he remained safely in Category:20th-century American novelists. Can you please stop with the bogus accusations???? I didn't remove a single bio from "American novelists", I just moved some to "X century american novelists" - which is again a rather humdrum thing called category diffusion that happens ALL THE TIME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, there is a 20th-century American novelists category that was added when the American novelists category was removed. However, it was added lower down where the American novelists category was originally so it is not as visible. I fixed that to keep the listing alphabetical and so that category is now more prominent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now that it's sorted I see what's been done. My diffs are set so as not to show the entire page - so, nope, didn't see it. It's really confusing though and still not being done consistently. The women are being kept in the American novelists category but the men not. I'd still like to see a centralized discussion brought to a wikiproject - either novels or literature - and see it mentioned there and garner input. Having discussions all over the place, on barely watched cat pages and on individual talk pages isn't helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi TruthKeeper. Like you, I am for consistency, and if you see an edit I've made which is not consistent, please let me know (on my talk plz) - I am actually quite careful about these, especially now. If you just read diffs, and don't look at the full category list, you may not understand the full reasoning/scope of the changes. Secondly, as to why are women being kept and men moved, I hope you realize that I and TDA have today been dragged before ANI - that's this thread - for the crime of moving our intrepid NY times columnist from Category:American novelists to Category:20th-century American novelists - I suppose one might say we "ghettoized" her by century. That is our crime, and we await judgement. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that as of now, I am no longer going to touch any women novelist bios, I'm just going to be fixing men going forward. I targeted a few big names though on purpose, per BRD - it gets a discussion going. You don't want to start with bios nobody knows, do all this work to diffuse, then find out consensus has moved in the other way. Better to go after whales, and deal with the fallout - that's why your watchlist is lighting up. Now, the question before you, given your reverts to date is (1) Do you like/don't like the by-century american novelist cats. If you don't like them, bring them to CFD, that's the centralized place, and the community can decide to delete them. If you're ok with them, you'd then have to find a way to either (a) accept that they are diffusing, which will mean that in a few months time, there will be ZERO bios in Category:American novelists (all having been diffused) - looks at Category:Poets for an example or (b) argue somehow that, like gender/ethnic categories, these by-century-cats should *also* be non-diffusing. But that will be a harder argument to make, as we have diffusing-by-century-writer-cats all over this tree, it's common practice, so I'm not sure why an exception would be made here. Finally, I would appreciate an apology for the bogus accusation, I'm a big fan of Papa and would never knowingly do him harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should serve as an illustration of the problem here. Was Ernest Hemingway removed from the category "American novelists"? A common sense answer would be yes, because Hemingway is no longer in that category (having been removed in this edit). Obiwankenobi says no, presumably because subcategories are logically included in parent categories. While I understand the reasoning, the fact remains that when a reader looks at the bottom of the page, they will not find "American novelists" (although they will find both "20th-centuy American novelists" and "20th-century American writers", even though "20th-centuy American novelists" is a subcategory of "20th-century American writers". Ask a Wikipedia reader if Hemingway is in the category "American novelists", what do you think they will say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Phew - finally someone gets it. Thanks DC. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and ask a reader if Obama is in the category "American politicians" - what will they say?? Or ask the same reader if Hemingway is in the category Category:Novelists or Category:Short story writers or Category:American writers - same answer! In almost all cases, we categorize based on the most specific category(ies) for that person. That's the system. If you want to change it, go for it - but you have to change the guidance first, not battle it out article by article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with having people in both general and specific categories? pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's take an example - Ernest Hemingway. He was a novelist, short story writer, etc. So we stick him in Category:American short story writers. But why not go more general - and stick him in Category:Short story writers. We can get more general, and stick him in Category:Writers, and then up and up and up till he's in Category:Human. The problem is recursion - where do you stop? How generic is generic enough? As you go up the tree, any parent category will likely be valid - so I could edit war and say "Hemingway wasn't just an American novelist, he was a novelist, so he deserves to be in Category:Novelists. Others could make the same argument for higher level categories. The result would be a mess. Now, there are certain exceptions - for example, Novelist is a special type of writer ,but we stick Papa in both cats because he was known and DEFINED as a novelist, and he was known and DEFINED as a writer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a sec there. If Hemingway is in Category:Novelists then he should not be placed in Category:Writers because Novelists is in Category:Fiction writers which is in Category:Writers by genre which is in Writers, so, by your logic above, Hemingway is already in Writers (because Novelists is a subcategory of a subcategory of Writers). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an area that's a bit wonky. For a moment, ignore the whole "american" thing - let's just deal in the abstract. Let's say he is in a specific sub-category of writers, as a novelist. If he only wrote novels, that would be fine - and if someone said "give me all the writers", I would also give you Hemingway, because he is a type-of-writer. Just like if someone said, give me a fruit, and you gave them an apple, because apple is a type-of-fruit. However, "writer" is not just a container - it is also a title that is applied to people - we have Category:Writers from New York for example - we don't have Category:Short story writers from New York or Category:Novelists from New York - so you end up putting him in some writers cats as well, because he was a journalist, short story writer, essayist, and so on. So, for various reasons, he ends up in some writers cats, some cats like short story cats, and two novelist cats - but they should all be siblings or cousins. This is a particularity of this writing tree, and the fact that writers is not fully diffusing - e.g. you can't always diffuse someone down, except by century, and there are lots of ancillary trees that only use the 'writer' moniker. It's the same with novelists - as currently structured, it's only partially diffusing, with the exception of the by-century cats, which do fully diffuse. I think that may be the crux of misunderstanding here - some of the genre categories do not fully diffuse based on the person (for example, if you wrote science fiction and romance and "general" novels, then you'd be placed in sci-fi, romance, + novelist - but then you'd be diffused from novelist to novelist-by-century. Perhaps we should rename the head cat to Category:American novelists not yet diffused, which would reflect a bit better the current setup. Anyway, if you want to discuss this particular point further, please come to my talk page... cheers,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've put Hemingway back as it was for many years and would like the page to be locked please until this resolved - where ever, whenever that happens. I'm tired of this; tired of being talked down to, tired of reading walls of text of why we have to diffuse, (we don't imo), sick of it all. I don't see that the edit warring will stop. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

General comments

Declaration to start with - I'm the one who used AWB to implement the outcome of the CFD. My interpretation was that all in Category:American women novelists should be added to Category:American novelists as a starting point but to be absolutely frank the CFD is a classic example of a very messy discussion because it's formally only actually about one individual category but many people were making points pertinent to either the broader tree and/or the entire category system as it's currently arranged. It certainly doesn't help when many contributors seem to have been under the impression that all American novelists were already directly in Category:American novelists and only women were diffused (not helped by some poor researched media articles). And this makes a mess if people aren't aware of what arrangements and categories they are and aren't reviewing. That particular discussion was only about Category:American women novelists - it didn't take in other categories and as they weren't tagged people either watching them or the relevant projects (and the media attention was not universal) so I'm not sure that has been decided beyond that women novelists should not solely be in that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "three-way intersection" categories even exist? "Category:Nationality Gender Occupation" or "Category:Ethnicity Occupation Location" etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well in the same sense that we go down the list in categorizations, the American novelist section should be the finite spot, but it is possible to go down to male and female novelists (as it seems was half-done), but you can keep categorizing down to state, province, town if you really wanted to. But where to draw the line, when it becomes an issue? Or do we have to re-think our entire system? What about Wikidata? Many things mean well, but it is impossible for every editor to be on the same page and due to the nature of Wikipedia, a single interested person can be unchallenged for even large moves in obscure editing spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Can this just be closed and policy discussion resume in appropriate location?

There's a pretty clear consensus that the removal of Filipacchi from the broader category was inappropriate. None of the related issues are suitable for resolution here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not convinced yet we have a consensus. Her presence, and the presence of all of the other bios in Category:American novelists needs resolution - are they ever allowed to be diffused, and if so to which categories? Or if not, why not? I proposed a compromise above. If they're *never* allowed to be moved, that causes other problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And that discussion is why I suggested an RFC - to clarify precisely that question. But until then, the articles in American Women Novelists need to also be in American Novelists. Period. Full Stop. Dispute the CFD consensus at DRV, or start an RFC to clarify the issue of diffusion in general, or as it relates to this category in particular, or send WP:CATEGORIES to MFD. All of that is out of scope for ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. we'll just diffuse all the men, and the women will be left in the head cat. Maybe a new article will be written about the irony of that result. :) I'm really not in the mood to open an RFC, I don't even know how to do it - if you open one, just let me know. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No! That makes no sense at all. If consensus is not to diffuse the women (which it is), then the men too should all be upmerged to American novelists instead of being shoved down a level - and this opinion from a woman. Recent edits to writers' biographies really are lacking in consistency and creating a bit of a mess; can we just leave them alone for a while? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, go to the relevant page, make an edit in your favor [39] and then argue for diffusion. This is wrong and frankly disruptive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, were you watching the media sh*tstorm that just happened? Do you know *why* it happened? It was because we had diffusing gendered cats that should have been non-diffusing. I have a feeling you need to take more time to read diffs, this is like the third time you've accused me of something that is completely false. That edit I made above was to clarify that our guidance and current consensus is that gendered/ethnic/religious/sexuality cats should almost always be NON-DIFFUSING - so I fail to see how that edit is an argument for diffusion. Please read your diffs more carefully going forward and ease up on the bogus and unfounded accusations. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it wrong. Bleary eyed. Struck. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Intent to continue to subvert community consensus

Attention should be drawn to this user talk page section, where the two named parties to this filing intend to "lie low", leave the Filipacchi article alone , and do this genre-fiddling that was rejected at the CfD elsewhere. to quote TDA, "Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. ".

I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate and Obi-Wan Kenobi from any gender/author-oriented categorization discussions. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks inspector gadget. You've uncovered our top secret plan, which is to leave the women novelist bios alone as requested, especially the high profile ones. Sheesh. I have yet to see a community consensus that any sort of diffusion is simply not allowed, but I have said there, and here, and elsewhere, that I'm going to avoid touching women's bios because of the current climate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are hell-bent on diffusing all the things, start an RFC and get consensus to do so. But you can't do that with these categories, and it is WP:POINTy in the extreme to assume that consensus against diffusing one gender equals consensus to diffuse the other. I don't think you are that ignorant of policies 'round here. I am strongly inclined to support Tarc's proposal - every time someone points to a very recent and well-discussed consensus, your response is essentially "nuh-uh". And it is tiresome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but could you explain more clearly what you mean by "consensus against diffusing one gender"? Where, exactly, in the CfD did you see a consensus that Category:American novelists was no longer a diffusing category - e.g. that moving a male mystery novelist from Category:American novelists to Category:American mystery writers was not permitted anymore? Please provide diffs. Again, my reading of consensus was that women were not to be shunted into a woman-only category, and they should always also be placed in a gender neutral category alongside their male peers. This is not new, this is in fact our guideline, per WP:EGRS. In every edit I've made, I believe I've abided by that consensus, and that guideline. Category:American mystery writers and Category:19th-century American novelists are gender neutral, so no-one is being ghettoized by being placed within. In any case, I've stated I wont touch the "special" bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women for the time being - tensions are too high right now... As for an RFC, do we really need an RFC to ask if we should abide by WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS? If you'd like to change that guideline, maybe you could open an RFC and make some suggestions? I think it's actually pretty good for now. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP: SNOW Common Sense Oppose Obviously not going to happen. The users violated no policy at all. Per this edit, TDA was already notified of the thread prior to Obi contacting him, thus the comment was not canvassing. More time should be spent trying to actually dicuss the topic at hand then attempting to drive productive editors out of a topic area. I think User: Tarc's increasingly hostile behavior (prime example) should be called into question, rather. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Um, how does one declare a "snow close" before any voting has actually begun? Or before an actual vote, straw poll, etc..has even been initiated? Did you read WP:SNOW before citing it, because I really do not think you know what it means. Tarc (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Please carefully read posts before commenting on them. I understand that the word "oppose" can appear similar to the word "close", but close was not said anywhere in my comment. However, I want this discussion to remain WP: CIVIL and without any WP: BATTLEGROUND actions. Therefore, do hope that you enjoy the cup of tea that I sent you. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw that; distinction without a difference. You wrongly cited a WP page that has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever, and quite frankly your "explanation" makes it appear even more unwise. Your input into this matter thus far has been a resounding net negative. Tarc (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  I've struck out WP: SNOW in favor of better wording, for personal reasons. I still have serious doubt in your judgement, and I will be happy to disregard your above comments. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 12:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support on a case by case basis. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Lock Filippachi until this whole argument blows over (which it frankly won't until she stops criticizing Wikipedia editors, but, eh, what can we do?) pbp 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  I hope she continues for the foreseeable future. Wikipedians are too insular, too resistant to change, too stubborn, and too narrow-minded. They only seem to do the right thing when they are forced to do it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tarc, I have very little interest in making hundreds to thousands of edits to clear out a major category. All I did was say what I think should happen. I have said basically that same thing several times including further up in this discussion. Several other people, including Andreas (you and I both know what his stance on the original issue has been), have talked about such an approach being acceptable. You are basically calling for a topic ban because I made a single revert and you don't like an opinion that other people do like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Obiwankenobi has now moved to novels categories by placing Category:Asian-American novels at CfD as a "test case" without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature; continues to edit war, [40]; has actively edited against consensus formed here as shown at the top of the thread. We will almost certainly need an RfC to settle this issue, but it's best to let the dust settle, move away from it for a while, give people time to give it some thought and figure out what to do going forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature" So, the people who started the CfD on the women's category didn't have an apparent understanding of Women's literature? You can't have it both ways. Either it is proper or not. Silverseren^C 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I'm saying. Amy Tan is an American, a novelist, Asian-American. I'd categorize her as an American novelist, and now that we have the category (though I think it's unnecessary and is rightfully being upmerged) as a woman novelist. Her novel The Bonesetter's Daughter is rightfully categorized as an American-Asian novel: a novel written by an American about an Asian theme. Deleting that category, and presumably others, will only cause more fuss and we don't need that right now do we? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what nomination of categories for deletion have to do with this ANI. I've nominated several cats for deletion before and after this mess, mostly in an attempt to clean them up and comply with our guidelines. Please AGF. In any case, this particular one on Asian literature I've withdrawn, pending further research to build a better case. Also, you have "edit-warred" as you say on the Hemingway article just as much as I have, so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. you even said you were willing to be banned in order to maintain your specific set of categories on Papa Hemingway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• RFC and Categorization freeze — With an attempt to diffuse Category:American novelists to Category:American women novelists blocked by community consensus, several editors are trying to create new categories. As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. The details of the categorization scheme to be applied, and which categories are diffusing or are not diffusing is not a matter for AN/I. However, we have some very active categorizers who can't seem to wait for consensus. This Incident appears to be an attempt to ask them to desist. I would suggest that (1) we have this conversation as a RFC on Category talk:American novelists; (2) preliminary conversation on the possible options begin immediately at Category talk:American novelists/Archive 2#Preparing an RFC; (3) No new categories should be created as subcategories of American novelists, and no members of Category talk:American novelists should be removed from the root category, until that discussion is complete; (4) (and here I lack an understanding of protocol for whether I may suggest this; I've edited in Wikipedia arenas where this kind of intervention is more common and hope I'm not overstepping boundaries:) An administrator formally warns all involved editors to not violate step 3, under penalty of a topic ban from American novelists.--Carwil (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you should, or even could with any degree of efficacy, bar people from creating new categories that are sub-categories of American novelists. You are right that ANI isn't for policy discussion and that is because you often can't get meaningful community involvement. Likewise we shouldn't impose such substantive restrictions because a handful of people complain at ANI. Most in the CfD only objected to the consequence of a parent category becoming an all-male category due to a gender-specific sub-cat being created just for women, not the idea of gender-specific cats as a whole, or sub-cats in general. It is wikilawyering to take a literal reading of the admin's close as representative of the community position and then accuse people of going against consensus when they pursue a compromise that honors the community's actual concerns just because it seems to go against the literal reading of the admin's closing comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Are you seriously complaining about the fact that I created American western novelists and American adventure novelists cats? Silverseren^C 05:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists." There has never been an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. Why do people not understand that? The full list of American novelists was NEVER Category:American novelists, any more than we would expect Category:American writers to have a full list of writers or Category:American politicians to have a full list of politicians. The *only* way to get all of them today is recursive enumeration, which, surprise surprise, is now available as a link at the top of Category:American novelists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

TDA, this is not about "winning" or just expanding the Admin's closing into some general law. It's about a pattern of pointless escalation. A subgcategory (Category:American women novelists) is critiqued in the media and brought to CfD, where it fails. Meanwhile, editors create new categories (like Category:American humor novelists, Category:American realism novelists) representing not so-clearly-delineated sets of novelts. Some are brought to CfD. Meanwhile, editors create new categories dividing American novelists by century. This all happens in less than two weeks, while there is vigorous debate about each, and some editors (not necessarily me) are vocally advocating a large root category. Now, these subcats may or may not be the right choice (I tend to think that they fail WP:DEFINING), but they are being rushed into, despite active conversations. What makes this relevant to AN/I is that there's way too much bold and absolutely no willingness to wait for discuss before going on to the next scheme. While active conversations are going on, we have over-eager categorizers moving hundreds of articles. If they would slow down voluntarily, that would also be lovely.

Seren, I'm inviting you to join the discussion. There are multiple ways to divide this category, some of which will diffuse everyone. Some of them involve lots of non-defining characteristics ("satire novelists," "realist novelists," imho) that won't fully diffuse the category anyway. If the scheme leaves behind a residue of novelists in Category:American novelists it will be interpreted by the world as "the real American novelists." That's the tricky problem for us to solve, and it requires discussion. I assume that your new cats, as well as JPL's and Obi-wan's are all in good faith, but the issue has been raised by many and should be discussed before we continue our editing.

Obi-wan, I know that from the experienced editor POV, Category:American novelists does not equate to Complete list of real American novelists. However, this controversy demonstrates very very clearly that (1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list. If the question is, who are you gonna believe, me or the next random reader who sees/reads about the page, the answer that should guide our development of the site is the random reader. Many people have told you this; stop saying, "I didn't hear that." Also, I think recursive enumeration could be a lovely solution, if we avoid the "residue of real novelists" problem, or explicitly disclaim the idea that the list is the list of all American novelists in providing the link. But again, that's what the RFC is for. Please be willing to put some of the energy you have for editing into crafting a consensus everyone is happy with.--Carwil (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about "winning"? I sure didn't. No one in the media was criticizing sub-categories in general so I don't see how it is escalation to create them so editors can move men and women out of the parent category and into those sub-categories. Editors are trying to boldly resolve the dispute in a way that should satisfy everyone's concerns. So far no one has given a substantive objection to the creation of these sub-categories or their replacement with the parent category on articles. It is basically invoking a misrepresented CfD or complaining about how it makes us look. Should the editors doing that recategorization actualize their intent then it will basically look to outsiders like editors responded to the controversy by pursuing a course of action with categorization that did not emphasize gender and I doubt many who commented in the CfD will see a problem with the result either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering" = adversarial use of wiki policies; thus my reference to "winning." | I think there's a productive conversation going on right now. Maybe it will result in subcategories that empty AmN's; maybe there will be some other solution.--Carwil (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carwil, You said "(1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list". Which is this "public" you are talking about - I assume the general population of people who come to the website? If so, is that "public" also interested in a all-inclusive list of British novelists? And Canadian novelists too? Did you ask them? Or does this public *only* care about American novelists - not journalists, non-fiction writers, chefs, politicians, or any other job under the sun - just this _one_ category, which is more special than ALL the rest. What do you think? Personally, I think consistency is the most important thing - so if we need to create a template that we stick ontop of EVERY CATEGORY that says "the articles below do not represent the complete set of XXX, if you want such a link, please click here", I'm totally fine with that. If Jimmy Wales will stand up and say "media wiki category display does not recursively enumerate categories", that is fine too. If you want to pressure WMF to develop an option to recursively display all sub-cat members on any given category page, FINE - do that. And finally, if you want to say "For certain categories, we don't want them to diffuse, like Category:Presidents of the United States - that is also fine with me. But none of those things have been proposed, and no-one is talking about generic solutions - they are still focused on one special snowflake category - instead of spending time de-ghettoizing, which is what we all should be doing instead of this discussion. Any appeals to "users" should fall on deaf ears if you're not talking about addressing issues in a generic fashion, and not just for this one special cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Obiwankenobi per this edit. There is too much WP:IDHT going on. Set up an RFC and confirm that your position has consensus, or stop disrupting articles in this fashion when that consensus is unclear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The outcome of the original CFD was not as sweeping as some seem to be assuming and it would be wrong to try to enforce anything but the actual close relating to the speciic category. A proper informed discussion is needed for the tree, not a confused mess where people are contributing without understanding what the arrangements and status quo antes are. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• comment I have already stated that I will not be further diffusing the bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women's novelists bios. I think, as Tim states, extending the definition of consensus wildly beyond the original CFD, and then punishing me for violating it, is not very fair. I also note that ~300 bios were diffused out of American novelists in the past few days, and I was not responsible for at least 299 of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Pitchforks down, please

• Given the amount of bickering between the two groups involved in this debate, I would like to kindly ask those involved to step away from the WP: DEADHORSE, have a nice cup of tea, and remember WP: CIVILITY. We're here to discuss the enforcement of a RFC, not to try and synthesize it's results. That's WP: DRN territory. This thread began with a simple call to restore order to this heavily disputed category, and now the debate has spiraled into politicking and ridiculous calls for a topic ban. With this terrible media assault, this is no time to be turning on our fellow editors. These are the kinds of threads that tend to blow up in everyone's face, and someone ends ends up blocked or banned, usually to the detriment of the 'pedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's definitely not a DEADHORSE, and blaming the media is equivalent to circling the wagons and encouraging groupthink. Yes, the media got the specifics all wrong, but the general problem is recognized as valid. Meanwhile, "our fellow editors" caused the problem, and it's probably time for a few topic bans to be awarded to the more obsessive, IDHT users in our midst. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Er, it isn't ridiculous at all, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting. We have two editors here who edit-warred against a clear consensus reached at a Categories for Discussion close, that is why I brought this here. Since filing last night, these two have done nothing but politick and browbeat everyone in this conversation, attempting to re-argue the debate that was already over and done with. A topic ban is more than appropriate to call for for otherwise productive editors who cannot seem to avoid disrupting a particular topic. And for the record, I did not weigh in at all in the CfD. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to us then, why issuing a TB to two editors in good standing because they wanted to step away from the project for a breather. What policy does that violate? This is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Making WP: POINTy edits like that only serve to dilute the topic. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

One point is that AN/I is not the place to be having a discussion about how we should be categorising articles - having a discussion/argument on policy here only inflames the issue and creates more behaviour problems. AN/I should stick to editor behaviour. And people really need to calm down so that a proper discussion on the policy can be had at the appropriate placedNigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right that it isn't the place for a policy discussion, but a policy discussion is essentially the basis for the filer and those supporting his complaint so it is pertinent. They claim the CfD consensus meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to gender-neutral sub-categories is against the CfD consensus. I would contend that it meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to a gender-specific sub-category is not to be done in a manner that makes the ostensibly gender-neutral category the de-facto category for a specific gender. So, by my estimation, the community consensus was being respected and thus there is no basis for the complaint.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, basically

We need to diffuse all the men first. Got it. I'll go help out with that then. Silverseren^C 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

By that, I mean diffuse them into their novelist specific cats, but not the gender ones. I'm not even touching the men novelists and women novelist cats, just the genre ones and the century ones. Silverseren^C 06:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as they all stay in "American novelists" as well, knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what diffusing means. It means putting them into the multiple specific cats they belong in and not the higher cats. There's absolutely no reason that the American novelists cat should get special treatment in this regard compared to all the other cats, especially since the question again is raised that, why stop there and not keep going higher? And then you run into the problem of having dozens of cats on an article, it looking extremely ugly and also being extremely useless. Silverseren^C 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful comparison: Category:American novels, which is fully diffused. User:Truthkeeper88 opposed diffusion there too, but ultimately consensus was to diffuse. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus appears against diffusion. Again, please stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

consensus is as consensus does. Today, there are over 3000 novelists not in the main cat. Thus up till now, consensus has been pretty clear that diffusion is aok. You've made assertions but have not backed them up. Can you point me to the rfc or other dicsussion that says diffusion - for novelists, or for anyone else - is now not allowed? If you like, start one - but then, i dont see a consensus against diffusion of this or any other cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am only diffusing men and I am not diffusing them into the American male novelists category (which may be deleted soon, from the CfD). So, basically, I am diffusing them the same exact way we have always done, via century and genre. And there is most certainly no current consensus against doing that. So, in short, no. Silverseren^C 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful way to determine whether or not to diffuse could be determined by this: is there literature discussing this diffusion? If there are books discussing as a topic American female novelists, by all means we should have a topic on that. If literature discusses American male novelists as American male novelists, then we should have one also. Sometimes literature about a topic puts more emphasis on one gender, and not another, and naturally Wikipedia would go by this. For instance "female incarceration" is treated as a special phenomenon. Most prisons house men and most prisoners are male, and so female prisons and prisoners are treated specially. Therefore I created the article incarceration of women. On this topic it is 100% acceptable to make a "women prisoners" category and devolve women to that category, and not devolve men as male prisoners. But this may not be the same for all topics. Examine the literature and see how it treats gender. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So a decision was reached as a result of wide discussion - "The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature" and this is interpreted to mean that "Category:American novelists" should be "diffused", ie emptied out so that there is nothing in it. I doubt that a single person who supported merging "Category:American women novelists" with ""Category:American novelists" had that in their mind, but the editors who deal with categories just insist that they are going to do what they want, because they understand the system and others do not. This is a ridiculous mess.Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smeat75. there are basically 2 interpretations I can see:

1) all women novelists should always be in American novelists. fine, but this is mum on the men. If men can be diffused, the eventual result is, only women in American novelists - thus absurd. If men can't be diffused, the result is, every single novelist should be in american novelists, meaning, bubble up not only American women novelists, but every single other sub-cat which has been diffused for years. this is also an absurd result from a ruling on a single category.

2) All women novelists should always be in American novelists *OR* a non-gendered sub-cat. This is much more in line with the rest of the tree, everywhere in the wiki, and that's the interpretation some of us have been following.

Note: no-one, anywhere in the CfD, ever challenged the general notion of diffusion - just the idea of diffusing only based on gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What I said above is that gender should be diffused based on the distinctions between gender made in literature. Study the literature about American novelists to see how the literature diffuses men and women. For instance, in articles about prisons, the subject of women is diffused from the general body, while the subject of men is not diffused, because men are the default in the prison systems in various countries (in terms of prisoners and guards). "Incarceration of women" is treated as a distinct topic while "incarceration of men" AFAIK is not. So prison-related categories should diffuse women and not diffuse men. However it may be different with novelists. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone has now decided to fight the dispersion of Raymond Chandler on the grounds that Filipacchi has not been dispersed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Someone" is me. Actually, I would describe the situation as "someone has decided to remove everyone from Category:American novelists except for Amanda Filipacchi" given the edit summary on this reversion. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• You gotta love this, people get all bent out of shape because someone was moving women out of the American novelists category and into a sub-category and not doing the same to men. So, people start moving men and women out of the American novelists category, but people object when one of the women was the person who pointed out the previous action. As a result people decide to just leave Filipacchi alone and focus on other novelists, yet people object that only she is being given special treatment. Do any of you realize that this is an absurd sequence of events?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

DA, you left out a teensy little element in that sequence of absurd, I quite agree, events - there was a wide discussion on the matter and the result was in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, not moving everything out of that category so there is nothing in it. The clear result of the community consensus is being flouted, I do not understand why an admin has not intervened. Smeat75 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

By "the categories" what was meant was Category:American women novelists, not all sub-categories of Category:American novelists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this. The community consensus was to not move the women out of American novelists and it is being flouted. Treating Filipacchi as sui generis is ridiculous. Thus people decided to start moving only men out. This looks just as stupid as moving only women out. Just imagine if the mens-rights press gets wind of this. There ought to be a moratorium on taking anyone out of American novelists until the policy is figured out. Moving women out of American novelists at this point goes against community consensus, so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done." You raise a good point - what discussion? Where? We need a proper RFC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one is treating Filipacchie as sui generis - I tried to edit her categories, was reverted and brought before ANI as a result. So if you have an issue with Filipacchi's bio, ask those like Tarc who are defending the sanctity of those categories. Finally, I really want to emphasize again, for the millionth time, that no-body is being classified as a "no-longer-an-american-novelist-but-something-much-worse" - most bios have been placed in Category:20th-century American novelists, which contains the words "American novelists" - so moving a woman (or man) to that cat, which is non-gendered, is a completely different affair than moving someone to Category:American women novelists and not putting them in any *other* cats. It is simply a more specific, by-time category, the sort of diffusion that happens by the thousands every day here on the wiki - anyone in there is still an American novelist, in both word and deed! Before this whole thing blew up, Category:American novelists was a diffusing category - it even had a big tag on the top labeling it as such.

If you think the by-century category should be non-diffusing, or deleted, then bring to CFD. If you want to start an RFC, please be my guest - but don't throw editors under the bus for failing to comply with the as-yet-to-be-determined consensus of an as-not-written RFC on a as-yet-to-be-determined scope! A sample RFC is being drafted at talk here Category:American novelists - I do note though, that the Category:American novels category was fully diffused a few years back, by consensus of the novels wikiproject. In any case, if we do an RFC, I think we have bigger fish to fry - like how do we clean up the endemic ghettoization, which is what the hoopla was about! - rather than worrying so much about whether X is an Category:American novelists or a Category:20th-century American novelists (which was *not* what the hoopla was about), and going on witch-hunts after editors who were in good faith trying to clean up a mess by following long-extant editing guidelines like WP:Categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the same wikilawyer logic giving priority to the admin close over the actual community perspective. You look over all the various votes and it is pretty clear that people weren't voting "no moving anything out of the American novelists category", but "we shouldn't move anything out of the American novelists category if it gives one group exclusive representation in the category." In other words, the consensus was against unequal diffusion, not against diffusion in general.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I was not treating Filipacchi differently. I was going through the categorystarting at A, and was partly through C. I was not where near F, that was several pages ahead of me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL - a little word to the wise - don't attempt any recategorization/diffusion on Filipacchi's page. I did a single edit, and was brought before ANI as a result. Let someone else deal with it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Now Koavf has added Upton Sinclair back to category American novelists, citing the CfD in his edit summary. Wouldn't it be better to call a halt to all this until the best course of action is decided upon? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffusing Evidently, Category:American novelists is going to be a container diffused by century, ethnic origin, genre, and sex. So nothing should be in there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you put him back into it? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems he added the cat at first to a bunch of articles, sometimes adding it to people who didn't even have it before this began, and then started removing them after a conversation on his talk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Admin intervention requested. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• I just thought I should point out the novelists by century cats are based on when the people had novels published, not when they were born. That is why we have a fairly substantial Category:21st-century American novelists, many of the people in that category are not in the related Category:20th-century American novelists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Viridatas that admin intervention is required to stop edit warring, discussions that go nowhere, and a group of eager editors who are now diffusing although consensus to do so hasn't been established. An RfC has been proposed here: [41], and until it's up and going (if that happens) would like to see all categorization stop until consensus is established. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

All categorization? Plz be specific: categorization of special snowflake American novelists? Categorization of other novelists? Novels? Writers? Books? Journalists? Basketball players? What is the scope of your hoped-for-freeze-of-categorization-efforts? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Categories like Category:20th-century American novelists have never been formally objected to in any way. They are legitimate diffusing candidates, and remove all sorts of problems with overlap isses and how to deal with people who write in multiple genres, some of which lack their own specific categories. Diffusing to these categories solves lots of problems. No one has ever even really put forth an argument against this diffusion. There is no reason not to diffuse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The only problem is that against consensus, showing an unwillingness to even consider the opposite argument, and making the argument for diffusion while simultaneously denigrating those who might have a legitimate reason to oppose, the diffusion and recategorization has continued. Not a single admin who willingly ran for RfA has said a thing here, but I think it would nice to see someone who's uninvolved, has some understanding of the issue, and can write a tightly focused RfC stand up and lend a hand. As obviously that won't happen, and I continue to find myself smeared on various talk pages, I see no reason to continue. In other words, congrats. You've won. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is no consensus this is against. There has never been a discussion of categorizing novelists by century. There is no consensus on the issue. The only consensus is that novelists should not be removed from gender neutral categories to be put in gender specific ones. That says absolutely nothing about the century categories. You are trying to force a discussion to be about an issue that was never even brought up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

American women painters

There is a list of American women painters. Please fix it. I don't have time. -Aerolit (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Add it here --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#List_of_categories_that_need_to_be_de-ghettoized. It may get fixed by someone. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about User Kaiser von Europa (sources from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals)

User Kaiser von Europa[42] (which means "Emperor of Europe" in German) has been repeatedly inserting publications from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals involved in plunder and ethnic cleansing into articles about Polish cities and history to support his claims about German presence in Polish cities. I discovered during the course of my interaction with him that he is already indefinitely blocked on German wikipedia after engaging in sockpuppetry, pov pushing, and edit warring[43], an there is in fact a whole list of sock-puppets noted on German wiki(including ones where he made claims that modern Germany has right to Polish territory)

Two examples of inserting publication from Nazi Germany into article about Polish city(more can be presented):

• introduction of Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
• Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935, p. 25

• Example of inserting publication by Nazi war criminals and ideologists supporting ethnic cleansing of Poles and extreme nationalisminsertion of source labeled Ernst Bahr, Wolfgang La Baume, Kurt Forstreuter et al. (1981), pp. 72–73.

The source in question is a reprint of a book from 1966 by former Nazis involved with ethnic cleansing, abuse of Jewish slave labor and war plunder. Kurt Forstreuter is a known Nazi who was responsible for war plunder in Poland, Other people in the book are Erich Keyser who was a Nazi racist ideologist connected with supporting and organizing ethnic cleansing in Central Europe during Second World War and trying to re-invent German nationalism post-War by exploiting Cold War conflict with Eastern Europe. Wolfgang La Baume was responsible for propaganda claiming that most of Poland is German territory. Do note that much more could be added on Nazi background of the authors if needed. Also this is basically a simple reprint of an earlier book by Nazi Erich Weise who was responsible for exploiting Jewish slave labor and plundering Polish archives.

I discovered the background of the authors and list of them by myself-user Kaiser von Europa repeatedly evaded questions to reveal their names when asked on his talk page, instead posting statements like " I strongly recommend that you buy the book(...) The price of the book is only about 15 $, and you would own a really good book from which you could learn quite a lot indeed"[44]

Other actions besides adding Nazi and nationalist literature as source to Polish related articles include for example:

• Inserting claim that Nazi Germany in 1939 "integrated" Polish territories to Germany and removing information that they were occupied by Nazi Germany[45]

• Removing information in the same edit that Polish minority was persectued in German Empire and changing it from "Polish population suffered from heavy Germanization" to the "Polish minority complained about Germanization"

[46]

• Inserting information from 18th century German Protestant source to claim that all inhabitants of a Polish city taken by Prussia were actually Germans even if they spoke Polish language[47]

I have repeatedly asked user to change his stance and use modern, reliable sources instead of Nazis25 April Request,30 April request,1st May request to which he refused and in fact went as far as calling them absolutely reliable sources[48], while restoring sources from Nazi Germany and by known nationalist and Nazi authors(one example[49])

I am afraid the user has so far refused several friendly attempts to cease using Nazi sources and publications on Wikipedia and repeats the behavior that led to his ban on German Wikipedia. I have notified the user about this discussion[50] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This has already gone to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, where claims by MyMoloboaccount were already addressed by Herkus Monte [51]. As of the moment of writing, this discussion is intentionally not linked to by the OP.

I know of Der Große Brockhaus and I believe so do most German speakers. It's the German equivalent for Britannica and of highest quality. The year of publication is certainly not perfect, but for legal reasons Google Books cannot make more recent versions accessible. Calling the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie a "Nazi source" is highly inappropriate! --walkee^talkee 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, actually at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, all the uninvolved users (all two of them) agreed with MyMoloboAccount/OP that this was not a reliable source. While the modern Der Große Brockhaus is a reliable encyclopedia, the editions from the Nazi era, which are the ones Kaiser von Europa used, are, obviously, not reliable.

More fundamentally, the User account Kaiser von Europe has been indefinetly banned from German Wikipedia for exactly this behavior. In particular [52] [53] for spamming unreliable sources and sources which are more than two hundred years old (in violation of WP:PRIMARY), for misrepresenting sources and for making POV claims and edits. Per the linked comment it apparently took quite a while to clean up after this editor. Subsequently Kaiser von Europa ran an extensive sock farm on de-wiki to evade the block with over forty sock puppets identified (in addition to IP addresses) [54].

The bottom line here is that the book edited by the Nazi archivist Erich Weise (who was also in charge of looting Polish archives during WWII and using Jewish slave labor) which Kaiser is spamming into dozens of articles is unreliable and this has been pointed out to Kaiser, here on en-Wiki.

Even more problematically, after Kaiser was questioned about the use of this source/requested not to use it, he began inserting the same source but without attributing it to Erich Weise, for example here [55] (lots more edits of this nature can be provided), in an apparent attempt to hide the association of the source with Erich Weise and make it harder to track down. And then it gets worse. When I asked him not to do this on this talk page he began inserting the same source but now attributing it to the historian Udo Alrnold, claiming that Arnold, not Weise, was the editor of the 1981 "edition" (in actuality, just a reprint of the 1966 work, not a new edition). This is false. Arnold merely wrote a very short blurb in the 1981 reprint stating that it's just an exact replication of the 1966 work. Neither Worldcat, nor google books, nor any library in the world lists Arnold as the editor of the volume. Kaiser willfully and deliberately began misrepresenting the source further (after attempting to obfuscate its origins by omitting Weise's editorship) by attributing it to Arnold. That actually gets us into WP:BLP issues, but nm.

So what we have here is a user pushing an extremist POV, obfuscating and deliberately mischaracterizing sources in pursuit of that objective and completely unwilling to change his behavior. The extensive sock puppetry and long term abuse at German Wikipedia don't exactly inspire hope either.Volunteer Marek 01:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise. Note how the German article makes no mentions of war crimes at all, and how the article here reduces Erich Weise to a war criminal. It sure looks like his historical work is widely used by other historicans. I can't form an opinion on this but this content dispute is not for ANI anyway. NPOV probably lies somewhere in between. Now look who is the author of Erich Weise. I have not looked at Kaisers edits but maybe Molobo et al. are on a mission... 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise - you mean the version that a sockpuppet of Kaiser's POVed [56]? And you are ...? Volunteer Marek 03:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the German version looks good to me. But neither does your version here. Do you agree that he is used as source by other historians ? 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

as I was asked i want to add some insights from de-WP.

The User Kaiser von Europa ist indefinitely baned on the German Wikipedia in january 2010. (see log.

He was appealing this ban see here without success.

He afterwards was (and is) using a large group of sock puppets.

It seems after having trouble editing on de he switched to en

(main) reason for the ban; POV-pushing. so it seems to be pretty much the same as here. He will not change that. After some talks he might pretend to change his mind or leave the topic alone; but he simply is waiting a while and probably hoping that the attention gos down.

if you have questions about the ban and actions on de please leave a not on my talk page on de. I'm not the admin who banned him first or had any influence on that ban, but I'm quite familar with him and banned a lot of his sock puppets

...Sicherlich ^Post 06:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously a concerted effort by Mymoloboaccount and Volunteer Marek, both identified as a group named WP:EEML. MyMoloboaccount was several times permanently banned in THIS project [57] and Volunteer Marek was topic banned for the WP:EEML scandal under the name Radeksz.

I see that Kaiser is involved in the Copernicus article too and I wonder if it's a coincidence Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount target him. Kaiser fixed the POV-pushing phrase that Copericus spoke Polish "with equal fluency".[58] Copernicus probably had some knowledge of Polish too but "with equal fluency" is an UNDUE opinion.[59] Volunteer Marek reverted it [60] with an edit summary like a threat. Had Volunteer Marek actually analyzed Kaiser's edit, he would have seen him also inserting a pro-Polish argument. On this Wikipedia Kaiser has to clean up after them like a one-eyed does among the blind.

As for the sources used, the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie is a highly reliable source. Calling it a "Nazi source" remains unacceptable. Volunteer Marek's use of sources from Poland under the Communists is happening on a larger scale... --walkee^talkee 12:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek 13:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that when Sicherlich above says "He will not change that." that seems to be the case. Kaiser has continued adding the sketchy source in question to multiple articles [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] (and many others) even during this discussion, and he continues to false present it as edited by another person rather than Erich Weise.Volunteer Marek 00:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. One more time:

• The modern Der Große Brockhaus is a reliable source. The Der Große Brockhaus from the Nazi era (1934 etc) which you insisted on using is not.
• "Handbuch der historischen Stätten" was NOT edited by Udo Arnold. You came up with this lie after it was pointed out that the actual editor, Erich Weise, was a Nazi war criminal. You came up with it because you thought that nobody else had access to that source. [67] As it happens Arnold only wrote a short blurb in the book stating that the 1981 reprint was an exact rendering of the 1966 edition edited by Weise.
• Your von Braun analogy is completely irrelevant.
• You were indef banned from German wikipedia, by German editors, with bona fide "Teutonic" credentials for pushing extremist POV, abusing and misrepresenting sources and making offensive nationalist statements. So your claims of "Teutonophobia" (wtf that's supposed to be) are nonsense.
• You have been engaging in exactly the same behavior on en-wiki that got you banned on de-wiki. And your statement about von Braun pretty much confirms that you are still sock-puppeting extensively in evasion of your ban on de-wiki [68].

Given that Kaiser is still spamming the source by a Nazi historian into multiple articles, as well as abusing WP:PRIMARY (with other sources) and edit warring to keep it there, can someone please deal with this? The longer this takes the longer will it take to clean up this mess (ask folks at German wikipedia about the time wasted cleaning up after Keiser and his socks there).

Volunteer Marek 13:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And now we have the user repeating Nazi propaganda about Polish borders being a crimethe establisment of the Polish Corridor itself could be called a crime, defending Nazi war criminal and Nazi plunder of PolandYou should also refrain from calling Weise a "war criminal"(...) are you unwilling to accept that Weise, when supervising Polish archives, had serious doubts that these documents actually were legal property of Poland? and insinuating that people researching Nazi war crimes have "low motives"If the full truth is told - I do have nothing against it - then the reader is not forced to speculate on possible low motives of the authors of the accusations --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This request has not received any attention in more than 36 hours. Which means it will be archived "as if nothing happened". Still, this is a very serious issue, at least for anyone who takes the "encyclopedia" part of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" seriously - you got a user who has been indef banned on another Wikipedia project (German Wikipedia) for pushing extremist POV, misrepresenting sources and extensive sock puppeting. After getting banned there he transferred his activities to en-wiki. And he is spamming a source by a Nazi author (that's not a violation of Goodwin's Law - it's an honest to goodness Nazi author we're talking about here) into multiple articles. Is there some reason none of you admins are capable of dealing with this?

Look, I know you guys don't give a shit about content and are only interested in fighting idiotic political Wiki battles and playing insider games and acquiring facebook barnstars but this is exactly the kind of issue that this board is supposed to address. And I understand that you are too lazy to read through a report, click on the diffs and look at it for yourself (and oh my god, it might involve looking up a source or two!!!). But that's not what this site is for. Get your off fucking ass and please somebody deal with this.Volunteer Marek 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Last week it was "Wikipedia puts woman writers into a sub-category ghetto" next week (maybe not, maybe it will take a bit longer) it's gonna be "Wikipedia articles are sources to Nazi authors". Have fun with that.Volunteer Marek 03:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That guy is certainly a problem. Maybe people are reluctant to remove him so you can skew it the other way around. 80.132.107.169 (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount has asked me as an uninvolved admin to look into this. My response here may be of use/interest to other admins. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thank you for your comment. I would like to point out that these are definitely sources from Nazi Germany and are not involved in RSN thread you pointed out

• Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
• Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935

Both are examples of publications used from Nazi Germany by KvE --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of references to soccerdatabase.eu website

• soccerdatabase.eu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• playerhistory.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello. I recently came across an anon editor repeatedly removing references to soccer stats website soccerdatabase.eu with the edit summary "Removed soccerdatabase.eu link. Site is a scam. Please don't add these links". I went to their talk page and suggested that if they had a problem with the site, they take it up with the owners or hosting company rather than disrupting Wikipedia, and also directing them to Wikipedia's help pages.[69] They replied that they owned the site playerhistory.com, of which the other site was a ripoff, and they would continue removing links to it.[70]

While I doubt that either site is a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, I don't think mass removal of links to one of them apparently by the owner of the other is a constructive approach to editing Wikipedia articles. Appreciate someone taking a look. Will go and notify anon of this thread. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to open a thread at WP:RSN. If the source does prove to be unreliable, but is used numerous times, then it can go into the Mass Cleanup section. Not that we have completed any of the previous Mass Cleanups, but we did make a start on all of them and there was a distinct improvement. I'm sure that WikiProject Football will have useful things to say. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

109.189.235.57 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I am the one removing the links. I have been in contact with Kevin Rutherford at Wikipedia and will continue the talks with him. Just to make a point. Have a look at the domain, it says soccerdatabase.eu, then look at the logos, all says playehistory.com, then look inside the donate button, it says my email haakon@playerhistory.com. send me an email and i'll answer you to proof it. So please stop adding these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.235.57 (talk • contribs)

So it does! I suggest we either delete these, or modify them to point to the original site. -- The Anome (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware, the IP is the owner of the defunct website 'playerhistory.com' (he has a registered account, Polarman (talk · contribs) as well) - and 'soccerdatabase.eu' is nothing more than a mirror site. I believe legal action is being taken against 'soccerdatabase.eu' by the owner of 'playerhistory.com'. GiantSnowman 09:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Then let's delete the lot of them. Perhaps replacing them by {{fact}}, if there are no other sources, might be better than outright removal? -- The Anome (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that approach, if it's clear that the site is one we shouldn't be using. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Any remaining links to both 'soccerdatabase.eu' and 'playerhistory.com' should be removed, probably easier to get a bot to do it, and then add to Blacklist to prevent them from being re-added by good-faith editors ignorant of the context. GiantSnowman 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, blacklisting them would be best to avoid editors using as a source, much like falling rain should have been, which sadly still hasn't been blacklisted and is even used to reference population data shown to be grossly inaccurate.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

This probably needs to move to the bot noticeboard so we can sort this out. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

11:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)109.189.235.57 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Because of this issue i have taken down the original site to sort all security problems, hopefully by the end of summer the original site will be available again. If a bot can remove both playerhistory links (since they are dead anyway) and soccerdatabase.eu links it's highly appreciated. Will this mean removed in all languages? From what i can see there are 151 links to soccerdatabase in French language.

No, this will apply to English-language Wikipedia only. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the IP should take the discussion to meta, to see if we can get a global action that matches the enwiki one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 54#Playerhistory.com and Soccerdatabase.eu. GiantSnowman 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#soccerdatabase.eu. GiantSnowman 18:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

109.189.235.57 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Lukeno94, what can i do to take this global?

Per WP:COPYLINK, we should not be linking to pages on external sites that violate copyright. If most, if not all of an external site is violating copyright, then I would suggest global blacklisting (i.e., on meta) of the whole site (otherwise blacklisting of the individual documents could be considered).

Is it established here that soccerdatabase.eu is a site that we simply should not be linking to because of such issues?

From an initial scan of the database of the last year-and-a-half, there have been many recorded additions (2418 to all wikis) of this site, some editors have added a huge number of them (one has 728 of them; but that is also true for playerhistory.com, added by someone 574 times) - I presume that the data is really useful and that some editors recognised that, unknowingly of any issues (i.e., I can not quickly identify any 'obvious' spammers - the big 'adder' above seems to be a regular on football pages on a foreign (cs) wiki). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• A note that a bot to remove all links to playerhistory.com/soccerdatabase.eu on the English Wikipedia is currently pending approval. Theopolisme (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User Erpert Harassing, Ownership, Canvasing and Policy Shopping Issues

User Erpert has continuously harassed me by posting rude comments, false accusations, erroneous warnings and multiple banning threats to me since my first edit, as well as continued to post about me on multiple pages/sections well after I have tried to end our debate and asked him to stop. He has policy-shopped and canvased his attacks all over, in order to justify his inaccurate and poorly-sourced article (one of several articles by him that have been proposed for deletion). He attacks anyone that disagrees with him and tries to own his original articles. This is not the first time that he's had issues with other contributors, or arguments on notice boards, and I've seen him make similar dismissive comments when other editors make changes to his articles.

It started with my corrections of his original article of Vanilla DeVille [71], which has several inaccuracies and is poorly sourced (it has since been deleted by consensus and then reverted to his user pages by his request). As a new contributor and at first unfamiliar with all policies, I admit that my initial corrections included some text that was too promotional and fell under COI. However, instead of working with me on those edits to make the article better, Erpert blanket deleted every change, including non-controversial edits allowed by COI such as grammatical changes, corrections of inaccuracies for BLPs and the addition of more reliable sources. I welcome feedback and thanked Erpert on his talk page for his original comments [72] and tried to correct my edits. Again, instead of assuming good faith and working with me, he accused me of not reading (on the Vanilla DeVille talk page that has since been deleted) and immediately took the matter to COIN (where he spent more time attacking sources and corrected information instead of COI) [73]. My issue was never with the COI portion of his comments (to which I have identified myself, had my identity confirmed, refrained from any further edits, requested feedback from other editors and offered any COI-compliant assistance I can provide). Besides his abrasive attitude and personal attacks, my problem was with his blanket reverts of all edits, including COI-allowed non-controversial edits, as well as his comments about sources when he was using similar sources (or in some cases the same exact sources) that I had cited. If my sources did not work under the guidelines, the same can be said for most of his sources (which was confirmed by comments from other editors in the article deletion discussion) [74].

Even after I addressed the COI issues, he continued to accuse me of breaking a ridiculous amount of policies and refused to admit any problems with his writing, sources or his actions overall. When the COIN discussion did not work to his liking, he took it to the Admin notice board (archived and cannot find reference), and when he didn't get the response he wanted there, he took the issue to the deletion discussion [75] and related talk pages (all well after I addressed the COI issue). After he brought me up again on the deletion discussion, he erroneously warned me again for responding to his comments [76]. I posted my first warning to him for his continued harassment [77], and asked him to stop posting about me, but instead he ignored the warning and threated and accused me again, this time with vandalism [78]. After chatting with other contributors, I decided to let things cool down, and left the discussion alone for a week or two. In that time he has posted accusations and false statements about me in more locations, simply reinstated his inaccurate text, and continues to use my COI as an excuse for his poorly written article. [79] [80] Overall, he has policy shopped and accused me of breaking policy every he could find ( Wikipedia:BOOMERANG ), denied any mistakes or wrong doing, and has continued to threaten me and post warning after warning on my pages. I have never started a conversation about him, but have only responded to his posts about me (I even tried to stay out of the article deletion discussion until he brought me into it).

As for examples of his civility during this situation:

• "Did you even READ the talk page?" (his second comment to me)
• "Sheesh, grow up."
• "...you're going a little crazy."
• "...I'll also have to conclude that maybe you're not mature enough for Wikipedia."
• "It seems more like you strategically added information in the article right near sources that were already there to give the impression that said information came from those sources."
• "...so you're the one that isn't paying attention."

I believe that Erpert has issues with working together with other contributors and despises anyone changing his work. It seems as if he believes that can write whatever he likes wherever he wishes, but anything I or others post is not allowed. I have admitted my fault with COI and have tried to make amends. I would be happy to put this to rest, but honestly don't think he sees any problem with his behavior. I believe that he should stop using me as an excuse for his mistakes, plus he possibly needs a topic ban, not just due to his continued attacks, but also since so many of his related pornography articles have been recommended for deletion. Stewiedv (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, my God; will you knock it off already? Other users have been explaining the same things I have said to you, and to them you say something like, "Okay, thanks for the help." You can't just say it's a problem when I say it. And for the record, just because I simply mention your name somewhere doesn't mean I'm canvassing or forum-shopping; in fact, considering you started this thread over a week after everything else was over, you're the one canvassing. And as for some of the articles I created in the past being deleted, that happened because I created them back when WP:PORNBIO had more lenient rules (for instance, scene-related nominations alone were allowed for performers in the past). I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but this goes far beyond the scope of your wanting to preserve an article about your wife. I understand you wanting to hype up info about her but you're going about it all wrong.
• One more thing: it's interesting that you claim to be a new editor yet you already know how to make such a thorough AIN report. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked you several times to stay away from me and stop using me to justify your mistakes. I dropped everything and stayed away from wiki for a several days to let this all calm down, and in that time you kept posting falsehoods against me (such as "The article seemed to be fine until the subject's husband showed up and added all the COI edits (and he was an obvious SPA because after he was told about it for the last time, he apparently left Wikipedia)" and you continue to try and use my COI as an excuse to revert to your inaccurate and poorly-sourced article. I'm not trying to save the article at all - I'd rather have it deleted than have it full of incorrect and out of date information. You didn't correct any inaccuracies or poor sources, but simply reverted back to your original text, removing some non-COI verifiable facts and sources. Plus, most of your text is based on a 9 year old interview that came from a user-generated message board. It's also not true that your articles were only deleted in the past. You've had several proposed for deletion in the past couple weeks, including one right now for Alyssa Reece. As for learning how to make a thorough AIN report, that was easy: I just read all of the polices you continuously quoted to me without justification ( Wikipedia:BOOMERANG ) and let your actions provide the rest. Stewiedv (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, your comment above about me politely thanking everyone but you proves my point about how you communicate. Of course I thanked the other contributors because they offered legitimate edits and constructive advice without malice. You have only tried to control, intimidate and threaten in your posts. Stewiedv (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"It's also not true that your articles were only deleted in the past."

• I clearly said "some of the articles I created in the past"...

"I asked you several times to stay away from me and stop using me to justify your mistakes."

• That's what I said to you. (An established user being harassed by a new user is probably pretty rare, but...)

"You have only tried to control, intimidate and threaten in your posts."

I don't recall controlling, intimidating or threating anyone ever, nor do I ever plan to. If that's what you think I am doing, maybe you're a little oversensitive.

Also, I can guarantee you that I will not get anything close to a topic ban. We may have a disagreement, but that doesn't mean I have done anything wrong; in fact, this discussion should signal to you that I am not the only person that had problems with the later version of the article -- and for the record, I didn't necessarily revert to my version of the article; I reverted to the last version before all your COI edits, which just happened to be the version I last edited (and yes, there is a difference). And on your talk page you said I won't leave you alone, well, all I did was mention the COI problem to people in the WikiProject who weren't aware of the discussion. You can't possibly expect me to walk on eggshells and not even make an unnamed referenced to you because you might get offended.

I'm not even going to comment in this discussion anymore because your behavior has gotten very tiresome. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again you avoid the glaring points against you, but I will respond to your comments in order:

"I clearly said "some of the articles I created in the past"..."

• You are correct, I misread your original statement, but that doesn't change the fact that you have had numerous articles for deletion, that you did nothing to correct them after the standards changed or that this is not your first issue with other contributors.

"That's what I said to you. (An established user being harassed by a new user is probably pretty rare, but...)"

• I will state again, up until this notice, I have never started a conversation about you but simply replied to your posts about me (or other users comments about this situation, which were mostly in response to your notice board and talk page posts). You continuously post about me and falsely accuse me of every violation you can think of so you can use me as a scapegoat for your poor work. I stayed away for almost two weeks while you continued to post about me.

"I don't recall controlling, intimidating or threating anyone ever, nor do I ever plan to. If that's what you think I am doing, maybe you're a little oversensitive."

• You have tried to control this document, as well as others that you created, since the very beginning, including your refusal to keep a single source or non-COI edit I provided, even when they validated your work. You have tried to threaten and intimidate with multiple bogus warnings, false accusations of breaking every policy that you could find, threats of banning and posts to multiple notice boards and talk pages. You can call me oversensitive if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the facts.

"Also, I can guarantee you that I will not get anything close to a topic ban. We may have a disagreement, but that doesn't mean I have done anything wrong; in fact, this discussion should signal to you that I am not the only person that had problems with the later version of the article -- and for the record, I didn't necessarily revert to my version of the article; I reverted to the last version before all your COI edits, which just happened to be the version I last edited (and yes, there is a difference). And on your talk page you said I won't leave you alone, well, all I did was mention the COI problem to people in the WikiProject who weren't aware of the discussion. You can't possibly expect me to walk on eggshells and not even make an unnamed referenced to you because you might get offended."

• Once again, you're acting like you're an admin. I don't know what the decision will be, but you will not be the one that makes it. True, there were several people that have issues with the article, and some of it were promotional changes that I made (remember, I stopped editing the article once I became aware of the COI issues, which was several weeks ago and before it went to COIN). However, many of the contributors in the discussions also had problems (and still do), with your portions of the article including grammar, facts and sourcing. Bottom line, COI was not the only issue with that document, but instead of trying to work things out and correct it, you hide behind COI and finger point. Plus, there is no difference between reverting to the last version before mine or your version of the article since you were the one that created the original text and were the only major editor prior to my changes. As for you "walking on eggshells" or "mentioning the COI problem to the people...", you seem to be trying to justify your actions. I wouldn't have had a problem If you had said "there were COI and promotional issues with the document", but you didn't. Instead, after I tried to leave the disagreement and asked you to leave me out of it, you said "The article seemed to be fine until the subject's husband showed up and added all the COI edits (and he was an obvious SPA because after he was told about it for the last time, he apparently left Wikipedia)". That doesn't sound like someone trying to stay out of a disagreement to me, but more accusations. Plus, everyone here can read the revisions and history of every page without your assistance.

"I'm not even going to comment in this discussion anymore because your behavior has gotten very tiresome."

• I agree that this has gotten very tiresome, but it is your behavior that is the problem. I hope you stop commenting about this, but unfortunately, you've said the same thing in the past, but some how you keep posting about me on more and more pages. None of this changes the fact that your writings are inaccurate, or that you've been harassing me and trying to use me as an excuse for your edits and actions. Stewiedv (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I referred Stewiedv to OTRS from the COIN dispute. Stewiedv has been confirmed as seen on the editors talk page. The experience of the editor does not matter anymore; Stewiedv is who he claims to be. Whatever the reason for the experience is moot. Moving on, Bbth of you are emotionally involved and need to step back and breathe. The issue as I mentioned before should go to the WP:BLPN and it will be out of BOTH your hands as to what happens. Stewiedv should explain the factual errors clearly, for the intention is for good. Does anyone else remember the Phillip Roth matter? While WP:ABOUTSELF covers self-disclosed material, if there is some evidence to the contrary we should be open about addressing it. No more fighting, Stewiedv should be allowed to be heard and raise the objections. The community (not just Erpert) will decide whether or not to act on those issues in accordance with policy. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisGualtieri for your input. I will review the BLPN board and procedures as you have suggested and respond accordingly. Stewiedv (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, I have requested assistance with the article on the BLPN board. [81] While it doesn't address Erpert's inappropriate behavior, I hope it will help end the situation with the document itself. Stewiedv (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Will any admin please do something to get this user to leave me alone? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly over the past several weeks to leave me alone and stop posting about me all over the place (hence the harassment notice above), yet you continue to do so. Even in the article discussion, you couldn't keep the conversation about the document, but again made it personal by attacking and bringing our argument into it. I have never posted in any of your other articles or in discussions outside the ones you started about me. I stepped away from our disagreement and took a break from wiki as a whole, but you still kept posting about it. For the last time, if you want me to stop replying to defend myself from your personal attacks, STOP POSTING ABOUT ME. Stewiedv (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:68.231.15.56

This is an extreme case at this stage. See here. I think "yesterday" would have been adequate. The user is engaged in long-term harassment, the merciless hounding of others for no apparent reason, typically involving the use of "puppet" in edit summaries to attack other editors, constantly reverting for the most pedantic of reasons. The deception, disruption and violation of community standards and policies as referred to in PUPPET actually describes their own conduct rather well. When told to stop they delete responses and warnings, shout, throw strops, call others liars, etc - it's completely ridiculous what they're allowed to get away with. Just look at the talk page - calling people vandals who aren't, advice to read CIVIL, completed with "Given the way you interact with others and the snide remarks you've made in your edit summaries, sooner or later, someone is going to take issue with it." Well I am. This person has only recently been reported. At that stage they were referred to NPA, to AGF, told about dynamic IPs, and to "Stop your personal attacks, or you risk being blocked by an admin." Well they've continued as before, as they've been doing all along. They were blocked for this in January. I can see no way of way of dealing with this person. To make matters worse they are an IP themselves, and make a complete mockery of HUMAN and give the rest of us a bad name. Quite frankly I would not want to meet them in the street. I certainly have no desire to contribute any further while they continue as they are. --86.40.192.203 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

the user above is a sockpuppet vandal whom endlessly changes his IP to avoid ban - this is as opposed to my own IP which I have used for over 5,000 edits - that he came over here to complain only proves that he will attempt to decieve endlessly - in 2 days from now his IP will vanish again and a new vandal IP will be created - thus 86.40.192.203 is just a ghost that wont exist in 2 days--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

his sentence above "the merciless hounding of others for no apparent reason" is at best laughable since he is the main vandal i see each day changing his IP each day to avoid ban - and "apparent reason" is he continues to vandalise wiki which he well knows he is doing--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

i like the laugh above how he says that "another?" user previously "quote - unquote" reported me as a bad user when it was 86.40.107.69 which traceroutes to the same guy = prove of sockpuppetry since he has made a statement that he is someone different but is just trying to create subterfuge of his real IP address--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

i see above that the bad user sockpuppet as tells of an incident where i go banned - it is true - another sockpuppet used multiple account IP's to create a war that an admin falsely believed - meanwhile that puppet continued to vandalize wiki will i was banned--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

and again i ask if you 86.40.192.203 - are you not all of these different puppets that traceroute to the same location

86.40.111.203
80.116.73.145
86.40.194.82
86.40.107.69

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: interesting how an IP doesn't realize another user may well be a dynamic IP... and from the evidence shown here, that seems to be the case. Also, didn't we have an IP on here a couple of weeks back, with the same modus operandi of calling another IP a sockpuppeter without any evidence whatsoever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

no we are the two from before - he came on here and tried to get me banned before - if you look back you will see that he says repeatedly that he IS NOT THE OTHER IPS that i listed thus it is not that he is a dynamic Ip that HE is saying - and yet i say it is a dynamic IP as a means of sockpuppetry - the this same dynamic Ip repeatedly vandalizes wiki and yet if you ask him if he is all those other IPs he says no he is not - yet they all trace to the same location--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've never seen anywhere any evidence of inappropriate conduct of the IP you say is "repeatedly" vandalizing Wikipedia. In fact, at least on this current IP, I can see some very good contributions. You, however, constantly make baseless allegations, some of which are ludicrous. Read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and stop making frivolous accusations against people here without evidence, backed up by diffs. People don't usually choose to have dynamic IPs, so bear that in mind. To the OP of this thread: I suggest you get an account, as it'll keep all your contributions in one place, and will stop this IP from being able to accuse you of socking without any evidence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have just reverted some outing here - revealing of personal information - try it again and you will be blocked immediately. GiantSnowman 09:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, it's me again. I've been compelled once more to respond to the most sickening of slurs this person can come up with. I see I have a different number now again so I suppose that's another crime. Well I haven't asked for that and don't know how to stop it. The place where I edit doesn't leave the computers on all night - that might have something to do with it. That and the likelihood of others using the same IPs. If I'm obliged to have an account you can remove "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" claim from your home page - sometimes it is not easy to have accounts and passwords for every website, what with everything going on around me. If it has to be that difficult I just won't bother. I also won't bother if this IP continues to fire these outrageous remarks at me about things I know nothing about and cannot have done. I have never been banned unless I've completely lost my memory. I don't go around deliberately provoking others. I don't make wild accusations or call others "liar", "vandal", "puppet", "ghost", the list just goes on and on. Sometimes I think it's possible I might be wrong - this person doesn't, they're always right. I have even had the decency to refer to them as "they" since, unlike them, I am not certain I am dealing with a male editor. And for what I hope is the last time - though it is like whispering into a gale force storm and expecting to be heard - I am not all the above. How can I be? I've checked one of them at random and it isn't even in the same country. I can't even see anything obviously "bad" in any of them. As for outing, quite a new low, but it sounds just like what this person would do so can't say I'm surprised. If it involved name and date of birth as they claim here I don't know who they've outed because I don't distribute these details and can't recall ever having done so. If I wanted Facebook I would have gone to Facebook. It is interesting that the user thinks they know all about sockpuppetry (when the evidence suggests they don't), yet claim in that same edit to another user to never have heard of outing. This is worrying, sad, dangerous, discouraging and sets off so many alarms regarding my ability to be an able contributor to Wikipedia, particularly as so much of what they do is so hostile to others. This is a clear case of an IP who, for some incomprehensible reason, wants to OWN various sections of Wikipedia, including Portal:Current events, and is prepared to scream murder until they've seen off any rival, either by scaring them away or having them banned. Either way this is bad for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not NOTBATTLEGROUND. How many more policies is this person going to be allowed to flout? --86.40.105.31 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• OK, that's a lot of words. At any rate, I have warned the other (static) IP: this has gone on for long enough and it's silly, disruptive, and insulting. Any next violation (I specified sock accusations and false claims of vandalism, but other violations may be added to the list) is sufficient reason for a block, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, one of the better solutions for this is for the 86 IP to get an account, as I stated earlier, to remove any chance of these socking allegations having any weight. I still don't understand why an IP user would attack another IP like this, it's quite ironic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Guy_Macon

I have some problems with Guy_Macon. I want my talk page edit back: [82] that he reverted before. I need my very long talk on WikiProject Electronics addressable with sub-sections. I don't want to start an edit-war.

He is also watching my edits [83][84] in which i tried to de-escalate the situation with an administrator. He done the there proposed edits partly himself, which is no problem, but reverted my trials to write a neutral call for a discussion. [85][86] I hope i get support.

He is also not stopping to accusing me [87] [88], although i tried to de-escalate the situation.

Please help. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:Toddst1 has already told you that his edits seemed fine, and now it looks like you are shopping this here. I don't see anything actionable in Guy's edits, what exactly are you claiming and what relief specifically are you asking for? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, what wrong with that, [89], and the neutral calls: [90][91], which were ok by User:Toddst1, can i re-revert all three?

No. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to ask you again: i read it and found nothing, but related to my first link: "Create subsections if helpful"[92], to both of the second, why should i not change it?Tagremover (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

'Subsections' might be helpful. New 'sections' for a single topic aren't. It is a normal talk page convention to keep discussions of a single topic in a single section, and your way will confuse people. Also, because of the way archiving works, you are liable to end up with some sections being archived before others, which will be even more confusing. As for not changing other people's comments, there are very few reasons to ever do this - and if someone objects, you should never make the same change again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This are subsections. [93] It is mostly that discussions are in a single section, but long edits have and are structured. Subsections are archived separately? I never noticed that in many years!

Subsections here make sense, the edit is very long. And he reverted my text, too. Tagremover (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You have already been told that no action is going to be taken against Guy Macon. I suggest that rather than arguing about talk page formatting, you concentrate on the actual issue being discussed on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon's behavior isn't good:

[94] Using a project page to call out an edit on user's talk page.

[95] Reference to one of least observed "policies" around here (use of preview button.) Many editors do serial editing, just looks like a "add-on" thing to complain about.

[96] Reposting a section on a user's talk page after then removed it.

[97] A totally lame pointless edit -- fighting over {'''Reply'' or ===Reply===} with misleading edit summary: Corrected improper use of section headers per WP:TPOC. Section headers must be neutral, descriptive, and are not to be used for editorializing or soapboxing

[98] Edit warring to keep editor's name in a link to a discussion which should be about content.

Chutzpah: [99] NE Ent 11:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

An error in judgement to presume that someone else's talk page was a sensibly place to permalink a discussion, but none of the rest of those are particularly troublesome. In particular, editing others' comments to remove one's own user name from them is pretty much always inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, In some cases politely asking someone to use the preview button can be a perfectly reasonable request. Take a look at this (make sure you scroll down - there is a lot of it) and tell me if you find it easy to figure out find where a particular edit was made. This user recently got a barnstar for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month". I think I might know why... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In many cases it is. This one, not so much. (wp-this and wp-that and wp-whatever ... and Didn't use the preview button!!!). Why would an editor getting a barnstar for editing be a bad thing or affect anyone else in any way? NE Ent 03:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Even using the preview button, it's very easy to miss mistakes you've made (speaking as someone who is often guilty of that, and often spots them after posting) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that happens to most of us, but most of us don't make 140 out of the last 146 edits to a page, and most of us don't hit the save button two or three times in less than a minute. At what point does it go beyond correcting mistakes and into saving multiple times to artificially inflate your edit count and let you put up another badge on your talk page for making lots of edits? I certainly wouldn't report it or expect any sanctions over it, but telling me that I am out of line for asking the user to preview more and save less seems a bit much. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Cresix

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

---

User:Cresix operated his sockpupped User:Dpanel to revert my edit to Hugh Jackman. See User:Dpanel contributions. This editor has 23 contribs, returned after Aug 2012 directly on Hugh Jackman article to revert my edit. Pls note that this sockpuppet had accidently edited his other account without changing log in, which prove that both accounts are operated by the same user. Thanks! neo (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally, reports like this go to SPI. However, I'll check into it. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. m.o.p 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here except I had a mild content dispute with neo about an image at Hugh Jackman and asked him to discuss on the article's talk page. I don't know if this is some sort of effort at retaliation by Neo, but I welcome a checkuser on this issue and will be happy to cooperate with that in any way. I still ask Neo to discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page, but this certainly is not worth me getting into an edit war. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A normal response would be to either admit or deny the use of a second account, rather than the vague "I welcome a checkuser" response. I also note both accounts interacted with User:SuperJew on 22/23 August 2012 involving an edit war, so I get the distinct impression that they are used to circumvent edit warring sanctions. The vague response here just makes me more suspicious.--Atlan (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2013 (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:ChrisGualtieri

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

---

The issue is over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RFC my complaint is a personal attack by User:ChrisGualtieri against another editor User:Lucia Black: "Lucia, it is not up for debate. That is final. You do not respect policy and have control issues. I try to be as nice as possible, but you continue to persist and be disruptive and disrepectful to any editor who disagrees with you. Being loud and having the last word does not mean you win, remember Wikipedia not a battleground. You have been warned about personal attacks and your behavior before. It is becoming as childish as your essay which is all bad-faith and attacking. Consider this the last warning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)" Saying someone has "control issues" and is acting "childish" really does not help a discussion. When I intervened and said drop the discussion I was given a level 3 warning about being disruptive for another thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack at all, that is a comment about behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll drop a word on the editor's page. m.o.p 19:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not great wording, but that's a pretty weak personal attack...and from my interactions with her, and reading over her recent essay, not really that off base either... Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The warning I got was: "This is for the repeated removals of tags from pages like Shotacon and Lolicon and your uncivil comments and disruption at WP:ANIME." I only made one comment towards Chris in defense of Lucia, calling someone "childish" with "control issues" is still a personal attack and there are better ways of going about it than doing that. As for Shotacon and Lolicon I removed project tags which I thought were not under the right scope that I did once for those. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a personal attack nonetheless, and, while I understand that everyone gets frustrated occasionally, it's on every editor to not let that frustration get the better off them. There are no justifications for personal attacks. m.o.p 19:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I admit I did not word it the best when I said the discussion was closed but I felt the whole thing was blown way out there than it needed to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those two (Chris and Lucia) have been arguing over issues for days/weeks, but much of it falls more under "time wasting bickering" than any breach of policy. I'm not against a warning or talking to or whatnot, I'm just saying that's such a weak breach of WP:NPA that its not worth anything further at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I clarified and have removed it now. The removal of the tags after I asked for it to stop is the problem, and I had warned at the project before, but not you personally. I let the behavior part slip in, out of my mindset it was bad context. The edits to the pages here and here occurred after over 100+ tags were reverted by Juhachi and yourself, mainly Juhachi. I had taken the issue to Juhachi and the WPP, but you didn't get a warning somehow, so I saw fit to make it formal. I've since removed it and I do apologize. The issue with Lucia is terrible, as Lucia made this essay in response to our dispute, but the issue with Lucia is her insertion of knowingly false information into a page. Such as this and even reinserting it by undoing my actionhere. The matter of Lucia is a big one, but I doubt we need to go over it again. I apologize again for the warning template and have removed it. We may disagree about things, but I do take considerable issue with the now successful drive to kill the budding project, but I don't intend for it to be personal. Even your filing report doesn't show your involvement in the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:4lpg=PA3415, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I accepted your apology for the record here and just want to say that I think you should have a talk one to one with Lucia, there is no reason for this bitter feud to continue on forever. As for the Hentai project I do not see it as a dead project you are pouring a lot into it and with time who knows what may happen. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's the problem??? If an editor called you "childish", or tells you to "grow up", or compares you to his toddler children, that is not a PA if it is an Administrator saying those things, because as we all know, Administrators are guided by conduct of a higher standard, which takes them *above* all those petty accusations of personal attacks and whatnot. *Also*, if you go to User talk:Gregbard, you'll see that user was informed by an Administrator that his use of phrase "that is not helpful" in a discussion is interpretable as a PA, and that he was threatened with sanction over his use of it. User:Knowledge, I quote you at the top of this thread: "Saying someone has 'control issues' and is acting 'childish' really does not help a discussion", so as you can see, you are equally guilty of using that naughty phrase -- "not helpful" -- indicative of making a personal attack, and therefore, WE HAVE A BOOMERANG HERE! BOOMERANG!, BOOMERANG!, BOOMERANG! (I said it first, aren't I the cleverest editor! My mirror on the wall told me so. My mirror never lies.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC) What is not helpful is your editorializing about admin at every opportunity. We get it, you think all admin are scum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC) So when an Administrator personally attacks an editor by telling him/her to "grow up", because he/she is a "child" and lacks the maturity of an adult, that is not a PA, and even if I thought it was, I shouldn't say anything to object, or anything to point out the hypocrisy of it, because WP is not about a comfortable editing environment for regular editors, it is really here for Adminsitrators and hall monitors, who want the freedom to make insults and violate PA policy, without any restriction, because they are Admins!? So I should forever zip my lip, because it interferes with Administrators' unfettered rights to make PAs without complaints from the peanut gallery!? (Good one! And thanks for sticking words in my mouth once again, that I never said or meant, and making me responsible for them. How civil! [Oh I forget, you are "universally regarded" as a model of civility. Silly me.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC) The parties involved here aren't admin. You came in and are using this as a soapbox to bash admin, when that has nothing to do with this thread. You just got through complaining about being the subject of an ANI, and yet it is this kind offtopic commenting that prolongs threads. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Dennis Brown, you do realize that your comment ("we get it, you think all admin are scum") is also very unhelpful, not to mention bad-mannered? Besides, how exactly is pointing out the double standard that is taking place in this very discussion "offtopic"? It isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not issue this report. However, long fueds should be discouraged. Meaning if an editor responds respectfully (regardless of history) the other editor must respond in a respectful manner. That said, most of the ANI reports get closed with no action, right? I noticed editor here don't want a block, but a third party to warn them. I'll be proposing something new so there can be more middleground for admins and editors.Lucia Black (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake and I apologize. I have been trying my best to work through the issues, but I will take leave of the matter with Lucia because I do not want any feuding to continue. For a week, I will avoid the subject of WP:ANIME and its editing areas, with the exception of the newly formed WP:HENTAI pages. Lucia, we do not agree, that much is clear, but I lack the ability and the experience to resolve this without a mediator of caliber who can take command of the situation and deal with it as it matters for Wikipedia. Lucia, continues to make matters very difficult for me. I dedicate myself to some tasks and not without reason, I respond respectfully yet receive none. It has worn on me, where mere existence of the Wikiproject is unthinkable for you, even if policy states otherwise. No one is perfect, but it seems clear that this grudge has affected me personally. I welcome assistance in solving our disputes, but I do not know where to turn at this point. I did something that I do not agree with, by templating him, he has forgiven me, but the shame for my action persists. It does not matter if this came to ANI or whether or not he had discussed it with me first; I should not have done it. The problem between us and this GITS matter has spilled into several areas, which is why my avoiding of that section is warranted at this point. Outside assistance in this matter is going to be required, and hopefully in a week or so, it can be addressed with some time spent apart. I am sorry for my boorish behavior, this is not who I am. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2013 (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.

Aries no Mur

Aries no Mur (talk · contribs): Columbus origin theories + Croats[100]. Can someone please remind me, is this Brunodam or Velebit territory? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not really in the right place for asking questions, you should try the reference desk. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol? I think what he meant is that this user is probably a sock, just not sure who of. —Soap— 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Just another reason I should never comment on anything... ever. *Head Desk*--Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a joke ? Brunodam or Velebit ? I'm not this person. I am a teacher in Rome. [101] (my name [102]) I simply expressed my point of view. This is a crime? I repeat. I do not know these two users... I do not know these two users.... I do not know these two users. I just wrote a comment. My first comment on the ""Croats"". I didn't do anything wrong. I am innocent. I wish you all a good day at work. My Apologies If I've "Offended" Anyone... --Aries no Mur (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how the sole diff posted here is actionable in any way. Paranoia afflicting an admin on the other hand... 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Long-term harrassment by User:Unscintillating

Unscintillating has been intermittently hassling me for the last two years and I want it to stop. He has apparently held a grudge against me ever since I reverted his edits of a long-closed AfD discussion, and has been trying to stir up trouble for me ever since. His latest tactic is to edit war over links to an essay that I have contributed to, not because he actually objects to its contents (he has flip-flopped repeatedly regarding his pretext), but because he imagines it annoys me. He's been asked to stop edit warring, but is still at it- this time he apparently thinks that stating his opinion on one page gives him consensus to do what he likes on another.

Unscintillating will frequently "flag" my edits and comments as being somehow inappropriate:

• application of a really petty home-brewed template. Edit wars to keep it there. Later the template is deleted amid much laughter as being grossly inappropriate.
• [103]- Let's play "hunt the adjective"
• [104]- takes great umbrage to my edit summary. His response when I object boils down to, essentially "I was talking about you, not to you".
• [105]- more obsessing over my edit summaries
• non-sequitur, and more flogging of the old "undermining or sabotage" WP:DEADHORSE

Not content to merely hassle me, he needs to nag and nag others to take action against me- which they never see as called for:

• Here Unscintillating complains about what another editor has posted to my talk, then complains about the way I archive my talk page. Nobody decides that but me. Then he flogs the old "banning policy" deadhorse again, gets told he's wrong, pretends to have asked a different question.
• On SarekOfVulcan's talkpage: "I want a third opinion!" "I want a third opinion!" "I want a third opinion!" "I don't like that third opinion!" "I still don't like it!"
• Lengthy discussion on EdJohnston's talkpage where Unscintillating dobs me in over discussions that involved neither him nor EdJohnston. This shows that Unscintillating follows my edits looking for things to object to. EJ repeatedly informs Unscintillating that there's nothing actionable in any of my conduct (even though EJ dislikes my forthright language), and Unscintillating steadfastly refuses to accept that.

I have repeatedly asked Unscintillating to stop following me around trying to pick fights with me. I am just not interested, but he refuses to leave me alone. I request that Unscintillating be topic banned from talking to or about me, and from commenting on WP:MUSTBESOURCES, broadly construed. Nothing useful has ever come out of his input on any of these matters. For my part, I will accept the current status quo regarding links to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and will voluntarily refrain from talking to or about Unscintillating. Since I do not follow him around from place to place like he does to me, this is not an issue for me at all. Reyk _YO! 04:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's about time to consider broader sanctions on Unscintillating. This is 2013, and I thought we'd left behind the sort of disruption present on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global James Bond Day after the majority of ARS's celebrities got themselves banned. This is about far more than his interaction with one particular editor. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with you two going back and forth at each other. And I do wish it would stop. A mutual interaction ban might be wise, but I suspect it will just end up in one or both of you being banned as you can't seem to be able to stay away from each other. In any case, the diff's you've picked are really horrible for making the point you are trying to make.

• • [106] is his response to your personal attacks (sense of entitlement, bluster, etc.) I feel you come off worse than he does there. No doubt your personal attacks were justified by something else, just as his response to your personal attacks were inappropriate. But really, this isn't you with clean hands.
  • [107] Your comments are boarderline personal attacks. Your edit summary is inappropriate. Neither probably sanctionable. He highlights your use of "bullshit" in your edit summary ("endorse close, and denounce bullshit personal comments"). Both of you are being uncivil, I'd say you more than he but it's close.

Those are the only two I took the time to look at, but really, these aren't great diffs to make a claim of harassment. You seem to be dishing it out as much or more than he. Admittedly I tend to agree with him more than you and that certainly colors my opinion (were I an admin, I'd take no action in a case like this). But at the least I see two people with a toxic relationship going at it rather than one-way harassment. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • You're entitled to your view regarding my strong language, and your description of the situation as "toxic" is completely accurate. But the point you're missing is that Unscintillating actively seeks me out, while I try to avoid him. I have attempted many times to withdraw from interaction with him, but he just won't have it. Reyk _YO! 23:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Taken individually most of that is just everyday unactionable incivility but taken as a whole there's a rather unpleasant pattern that rises to harassment or at the very least unreasonable hounding. I'd say Unscintillating needs a polite but firm warning that ANYTHING further on their part against Reyk will result in increasingly long blocks. At some point enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• My anonymous-coward opinion of Unscintillating--after some years of seeing him around the wiki--is that he is likely a returning user who was likely banned, sanctioned in some other way, or at least "left under a cloud" in their previous incarnation. A lot of his doings look like hounding and stalking to me, and not just against Reyk. One of the reasons I've not bothered with an account (or edited much) for a lengthy period of time is people like him being an increasing proportion of wiki editors in the latter years of Wikipedia. --AC 5.12.68.204 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reyk is a deletionist while Unscintillating is an inclusionist. When you analyse their interactions systematically, they seem to be just as one would expect - AFDs, associated noticeboards and policy pages. They seem to be struggling for control of the amusingly ironical arguments to avoid but this is Wikipedia and, per WP:LAME and WP:LIGHTBULB, such behaviour is to be expected. A change of scene might do them both good. As this is a storm in a teacup, perhaps a spell in the teahouse for a nice cup of tea and a sit down ... Warden (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not. I've already made it clear that I do not want strife and argument, by accepting the current status quo on WP:MUSTBESOURCES and links thereto, and voluntarily avoiding Unscintillating. I'm not sure what more can be demanded of me. Unfortunately, Unscintillating refuses to leave me alone; he enjoys needling me. I want to edit the encyclopedia in peace without him turning up every month or so to pick a fight over some abstruse point of order that exists only in his own mind, or badmouthing me to some admin behind my back. Unscintillating will never voluntarily agree to leave me alone, so here we are. Reyk _YO! 09:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• The current "incident", and, as confirmed by Reyk saying he wants the "current status quo on WP:MUSTBESOURCES", the reason Reyk is here begins with an edit by JamesBWatson in April 2011.  The history of this issue is listed at WT:ATA#History of TMBS.  While consensus was against adding this material, a few editors were not convinced, and on 1 May 2011 I set up a discussion structure that would allow a more thorough discussion.  On 2 May 2011, unable or unwilling to participate in the discussion, Reyk created an essay that was a content fork of the deleted material.  Occasionally over time, editors have confused this essay with policy/guideline based arguments, such as the IP editor at Template:Arguments.  I later removed this link, but Reyk argues in effect that since the link sat unnoticed for over a year, there is consensus to have the link there, and that no discussion is needed.  [108] shows that in the most recent edit Reyk reverted me without an edit comment and marked the edit as "minor" meaning that he marks my edit as vandalism.  Both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Edit warring say that discussion is required.  I took the revert to WP:AN3, but the case was closed saying that the discussion belonged elsewhere.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationalist edits

Webvip (talk · contribs), previously suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Acadēmica Orientālis has come to my attention recently for a couple of edits performed on Okinawa Prefecture and Ryukyu Islands. He added a sentence to each article with this as the citation with the claim that sovereignty over the islands is questioned ([109] [110]). I reverted on Ryukyu Islands yesterday, as his commentary was most definitely not supported by the text, and then I wrote a more accurate statement based on the news article. Today, after breaking the link to add the Chinese name of the disputed islands group to the article, he once again warped the text to a more nationalist view, which I reverted, and then also removed the article when it had been added to the Okinawa Prefecture page. It would seem that Webvip's edits have been problematic when he first began editing, but now he has been solely editing to bring this dispute between China and Japan onto the articles about Japan where they had not been prior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We're in luck -- he is not a subtle POV pusher but is kind of blatant, and can't be bothered to even find sources for his claims. He needs to refrain from further behavior like that. Shii (tock) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

deletion of my remarks

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.

---

thank you to User:Obiwan Kenobi for pointing out that female comments on this issue are being systematially deleted. the continuing outgrowth of WP's informal policy to squelch non-male, non-subculture remarks. -Aerolit (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What issue, where? Whose comments are being squealched? What are you talking about, and what admin action are you asking for? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-opening what in my opinion was a prematurely closed discussion. This issue here raised here is one of editor behaviour, and one that may require administrator attention. The merits of the issue should be discussed. Even if it should be rejected with no administrator action required with a discussion leading to that outcome, that discussion still needs to happen. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What? There's your context. A conversation you were involved in yourself half an hour beforehand. This isn't something that needed to be dragged back to ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:DIFFS or Help:Links would be really helpful to responding editors. NE Ent 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
@Aerolit. What evidence of "squelch non-male, non-subculture remarks" can you provide? What remedies would you suggest? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. See the thread on Aerolit's talk page. I saw a revision of Aerolit's being rev-deleted by an admin - I wasn't sure if it was because they had said something they shouldn't, or because they were caught up in a broader set of revdels that removed personal info - so I just notified them. I think they misinterpreted it as censorship. Just check the edit history of this page you'll see what happened. I really don't think there's anything here - IMHO this was just a misunderstanding, perhaps caused by my less-than-informative note to Aerolit. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. We I thought we had enough dramah without accidentally generating it. Although, Aerolit's response to a non-event is pretty poor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

How many times are we going to have a discussion about Beyond My Ken before some action is taken. He's a confrontational abusive editor and some action needs to be taken about his constant abuses of other editors. Every week we see a new thread in ANI or elsewhere. Enough is enough. Kumioko (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Beyond My Ken appears to be a redlink. If the evidence is so compelling (and pervasive) a RfC/U should be easy to populate. Start there (and document the multiple times he's been confrontational abusive editor) so that an attempt to resolve this by agreement can happen. Hasteur (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

He had one under a previous user name (on a different, and now mercifully resolved, matter), but seeing as he isn't the subject of this thread (and also seeing as Kumioko is his number one fan) I'd discount this particular sub-thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not deleted Special:Contributions/Aerolit shows only one recent ANI by Aerolit. It's right here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#American_women_painters. What occurred is GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) removed and revision deleted (revdel) an outing by an IP editor; every edit between the outing and the revdel contains the outing material and is therefore not "diffable" and appears in the ANI history as a strikethrough. It's confusing and should probably have a better interface but that's off topic here and now. NE Ent 13:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making it more clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You can still provide a link to the diff, but the text will only be viewable by Admins. If my RevDelling was over-zealous / if there is a better way to do it then please let me know, I'd be interested to learn for future. GiantSnowman 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a non-issue now - can an admin close it out? It was just a misunderstanding. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats (I think)

User:Mediolanum posted a legal threat on the talk page of Potential superpowers. I removed it and warned the editor about WP:NLT. Today he has posted what appears to be another legal threat on my talk page. Although the english is so broken it is difficult to tell. Would an admin please remind this editor of WP:NLT. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a credible legal threat. The only issue here is whether or not to delete all the trolling on the thread in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Credibility is not the criteria here. This is a clear attempt by the user in question to change the behavior of other Wikipedia users to his own liking by threatening to use legal action. Absolutely within the letter and spirit of WP:NLT, and I will be blocking presently. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not a legal threat, and not even chilling if it's illegible. Reporting to the postal police? Editor certainly needs education, but a block would be overkill (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it was meant to be a legal threat; in Italy, the polizia postale (postal police) is tasked with, among other things, investigating all crimes committed using a computer – and this guy's "direct offending" was probably "injury". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anon IP Special:Contributions/108.16.141.114

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.

---

newly editing, single purpose IP editor, repeatedly adding (Special:Contributions/108.16.141.114) a wordpress external link to highly controversial Gun violence in the United States article. Was automatically reverted by XLinkbot, by other user User:TomHarrison and myself. in spite of another un-involved editor chiming in that his link was inappropriate, and the other reverting editors, they have singled me out with bad faith censorship accusations Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Anti_gun_control_users_censoring_this_page and other personal attacks. Ironically additionally accuses me of bad faith by notifying the talk page of a new DOJ study, saying that that is an attempt to suppress information, because I didn't just directly add it to the article! Would appreciate a warning, trouting, or whatever other action admins feel is appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article yesterday, I believe in response to a report you filed at WP:RFPP. It's protected for only 3 days becuase there wasn't a great deal of disruption. However, if the disruption continues after the protection expires, feel free to ask me directly to re-protect the page, or if I'm not on-wiki, you can always file another report at RFPP. I wouldn't let the accusations of censorship and POV get to you. It's a controversial subject area, and there are bound to be editors, IPs and others, ranting at other editors. I'm not saying it's excusable, just that I don't see much point in lecturing a dynamic IP on the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2013 (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.

Wrongful Blocking By Administrator

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

---

User:Ymblanter blocked me for "disruptive editing" for opening the edit request at: Talk:Robert_B._Bell. I was told at this administrator noticeboard to use the edit request function because the edit filter was rendering false positives. Please inform this administrator to stop interfering with the discussion on that edit request. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole story is in real time is written on the IP talk page, including two unblock declines. I am afraid next attempt to reopen (for the sixth time?) the discussion may result in a longer block (which I hope someone else will take a labor to impose).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (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:4WhatMakesSense is trolling

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

---

This user seems to have a pattern of disruptive edits. He/she does not accept the WP:NOR policy, even when others tell him/her that it is an Wikipedia policy. From his/her article edits shown at Special:Contributions/4WhatMakesSense it seems that he/she is a troll. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you understand anything they are saying? It's like reading walls of gobbledygook, at least to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can understand what is being said when I am being compared to Judas Iscariot and told that my fate is death. That's rather easy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Help us out a bit with a diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2013 (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:1UPRep

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

---

This editor's name implies that he represents 1UP Reputation. If so, it is unsavory that his first action here was to nominate a competitor's article for deletion. Naturally, he botched our Byzantine AfD process; I could fix the nom, but unless someone without an obvious COI wants to advance the nomination, think it should be deleted instead. Kilopi (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2013 (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.

Autismal at Talk:Bloomex

Autismal (talk · contribs) insists upon keeping this talk page comment, which IMO is intentionally trolling as the proprieter of Bloomex is purported to have edited this page and is presumably a watcher as well. I have warned Autismal [111] but apparently that did not work. On a side note, I'm glad to see that I've joined the cabal of corrupt malicious editors scratching each other's back and I'm apparently about to fuck off. Would an admin kindly warn him that this behavior is not appropriate?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Autismal's behavior with repect to Bloomex and you is just the tip of the iceberg. They have 300 edits, of which a whopping 193 are to article talk pages. Their edits of those talk pages are egregious violations of guidelines and policy, including a continuing theme of anti-semitism, or at least preoccupation with Jews. I have just gone through removing a great deal of material from the talk pages edited by Autismal. As far as I can tell, they have made either no or almost no constructive contributions to Wikipedia since first editing last year. I have indeffed them (they have had plenty of warnings on their talk page, all of which they have removed).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection on Mau Mau article (second request)

Hello, back again. I have an IP address who just won't give up. None of his claims ever have sources. We've now got him trying to insert Jomo Kenyatta into the infobox as a leader of the anti-Mau Mau effort, a suggestion so absurd the IP should be embarrassed. The British had him in jail as a leader of Mau Mau!! See the Kapenguria Six ("I would submit that it is the most childishly weak case made against any man in any important trial in the history of the British Empire"), and this jail-time was despite British intelligence making clear Kenyatta was not involved with Mau Mau in any way, a fact advertised in a quote box (see the quote of MI5's Percy Sillitoe). Reverting his source-free raving is now very wearisome, and this IP address does not give up. I've had her/him trying to claim that Black-majority rule was guaranteed in Kenya before the Mau Mau Uprising—you ask for a source, nothing is presented, and the IP has repeatedly tried deleting sourced material that argues the contrary. The IP is such a transparent pro-British Empire POV-pusher it is embarrassing. The article is contentious, it has a litany of vandalism, please can some kind soul help me out? Thanks for your time. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Clear case of outing

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

---

Hello. Sherford (talk · contribs) has been outing two other users at Talk:Tom Waterhouse and article Tom Waterhouse: see the edit history. Their possible COI does not override prohibition on outing. PODULEXOR (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not outing if their usernames are clearly related to their actual names. See Gchinap (talk · contribs) and Angustommiepragnell (talk · contribs) (whose usernames obviously are tied to their real-life identities and are the people being outed) and Talk:Tom Waterhouse#Robbie Waterhouse Convictions (where the "outing" ostensibly takes place). If you don't wish your real-life name to be associated with a Wikipedia account, then don't use a handle that directly leads back to it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If you don't wear a mask you cannot expect people not to identify you. The editing of a group of editors is obviously intended to obscure the subject's misdeeds and invites curiosity into the identities of a group of WP:SPI editors with suggestive names. It seems obvious to me that User:Suzanne888 also has a connection to the subject which she has at least had the sense to conceal with a less informative user name, given that her only edits are to remove mention of the subject's legal troubles and then to make arguments that we are somehow obliged by law to not mention them (which I might add is surely untrue in US law). Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Usernames which are too easily parsed are not much of a means of disquise <g>. Meanwhile, there was some puff in the BLP, as well as UNDUE material about his father which is covered by WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Let us look at what the rules say. WP:COI says "Avoid outing" "policy gainst harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes" WP:OUTING says "Personal information includes ... work organisation ... " "The fact that a person edits under their own name ... is not an excuse for 'oppositional research'". PODULEXOR (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

'Oppositional research' is not what is happening here. When someone edits an article where they have a clear conflict of interest with Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view, they will be called out on it. Pointing out that the usernames in question bear a very striking similarity to employees of the article subject is merely pointing out the conflict of interest.

To put it another way, if I said "Podulexor's real name is Engelbert Humperdinck, and he lives at 123 Any Street in Sometown," that would be outing. The Potato Hose ↘ 07:45, 12 May 2013 (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.

Sheerly disruptive IP

99.129.112.89 (talk · contribs) has developed a reputation recently for abusiveness and troublemaking. It was blocked for 4 days on May 5. Shortly after that blocked ended, and despite pretending to be retired, it acquired a second block, this one for a week. Through its abusiveness, the IP has had its talk page access revoked. However, as one the editors being targeted by the IP, I think that the block should be extended, due to the grossly inappropriate name-calling. Furthermore, as the IP has claimed to have other accounts, including at least one with administrator privileges, I believe that this matter bears further investigating. AutomaticStrikeout  !  C  Sign AAPT  00:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

They were already blocked (full disclosure: by me) due to the grossly inappropriate name calling. You can probably dismiss out of hand any claims of having at least one admin account. The IP is currently blocked, and will be blocked again if there is more vandalism when the block expires. This does not appear to be a long term vandal (on the contrary). It's possible s/he will return to constructive editing, as the block message invites them to do. Of course it's possible they won't, but this seems like a judgment better made further down the line after the passage of time and the expiry of the block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Persistant copyvios by Bilaljshahid

An anonymous IP added the text:

• "makes sense for a country with limited nuclear resources and limited capability to fight a conventional war against a larger adversary not to renounce the option to use nuclear weapons first." to the Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction.

This text is clearly a WP:COPYVIO of:

• "makes sense for a country with limited nuclear resources and limited capability to fight a conventional war against a larger adversary not to renounce the option to use nuclear weapons first."

I removed the text with the explanation that it was a copyvio, but Bilaljshahid (talk · contribs) (who presumably is the user behind the IP) returned shortly thereafter and has been persistently restoring the content. By blindly reverting, the user is also changing the text of an unrelated quotation in the article, making it disagree with the linked source. I've tried to explain to the user why this content can't remain ([112] [113]) but the user insists that it isn't a copyvio. Perhaps some admin can try to emphasize to Bilaljshahid why this content can't remain in the article (and why quotations must faithfully represent what the source actually said)? TDL (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm an English teacher by day; I'm off the clock and Jimbo is not paying me nearly enough to explain at length. I left them a brief note after reverting; perhaps you all can explain further. Remember, admins aren't supposed to know anything about content. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• First it is claimed that the edit is copyrighted material and then you said "Direct quotes need to properly attributed, and changing direct quotes is unacceptable." The edit is a one sentence, exact quote and is linked directly to the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilaljshahid (talk • contribs)

• I vetted the source for the Feroz Khan quotation that Bilaljshahid is editing. It was correct before the edit; the changes altered the text so it no longer agreed with the source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• As for the text added to the article, it borrowed 31 words verbatim from a Daily Times news story without indicating the material as a direct quotation. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I assume that the changes to the Feroz Khan quotation are just a result of Bilaljshahid getting carried away with mashing the "undo" button. When I first reverted the addition of the plagiarised text, I simultaneously synced the quote with the source. Since then, Bilaljshahid has just been undoing that edit, so they might not be intending to make that change.

Bilaljshahid, I'm willing to try to explain the issues to you on the talk page, and help you restructure the sentence so that it gives proper attribution to the source, but you need to promise to stop reverting and start listening. Plagiarism is a very serious problem, so first and foremost it needs to be removed from the encyclopedia, then we can discuss what the problem is and how to fix it. TDL (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The source of the quote is the article published on dailytimes.com.pk by the author. There are no changes made to the quote. The author is atributed in the text added to the wiki and the article on dailytimes.com.pk is listed as a ref.
• This is the edit: "Taking part in debating the doctrine, Pakistani political scientist, <<author-name>> countered that the first use option <<31 word direct quote from the article>>." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilaljshahid (talk • contribs) 06:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the problem Bilaljshahid. There are two separate issues with your edit that you are mixing up:

• 1) If you don't use quotation marks to indicate that you've copied someone else's work word-for-word, then your aren't giving proper attribution to the original source. You either need to write it in your own words (ie paraphrase what the source says), or put any words that you've copy-and-pasted into quotations. If you don't use quotation marks, then you are claiming the work as your own, which is a copyvio.
• 2) In your reverts, you kept changing the text of the quote attributed to Feroz Khan. The source claims that he said one thing, but you changed it to claim that he said something else. As per WP:MOSQUOTE: "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." You can't just change the text of a quote if the person never actually said the words that you are attempting to put in their mouth. TDL (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

‎User:Matthewisaboss

Persistent (four times) recreation of Playtime Is Over (mixtape)‎ which was AfDed as redirect. The talk page discussion only became possible when I protected the redirect and did not bring anything. When the protection expired, the user continued recreating. We probably need salting and/or some personal measures.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have indef full-protected. If it ever meets notability, that can be reversed. I have reminded Matthew of his obligations regarding the rules he agreed to, and watchlisted his talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, it certainly should be sufficient at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing edit warring and ignorance of discussions. by 94.9.98.107/2.120.46.143

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

---

I would like to formally report the following IP editor who is ignoring discussions, editing disruptively and edit warring please see their edit history here and here and the discussion here which they are blatantly ignoring. I would like the editor at the very least warned, and forced to discuss before they continue this disruptive editing stream when a discussion is ongoing and they are fully aware is still ongoing. The discussion posts from them has contained threats they would just go ahead and make their changes which were disputed regardless, or have them blocked for disruptive editing using wikipeidia to make a point and acting in bad faith by ignoring the discussions, just because they don't like. Sport and politics (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to make the counterclaim to have Sport and politics'sedits examined also. I have been making constructive edits within wikipedia policy and Sport and politics has been disagreeing with what I am doing on the grounds that it is in breach with wikipedia policy. This simply is not the case. I have tried to engage in sensible discussion but I get told that I am giving prominance to local councillors (breach of policy) when in actual fact I have removed existing council leaders from info boxes in order to make them comply with policy. Please look through my history, you will find my edits constructive to these articles. I mainly do formatting and layout (having a few problems with Essex if anyone wants to help). I am not only adding info boxes, I am adding text. The idea is to make these local election articles compatible with ALL other election pages be that General elections, EU elections, local elections (main page) and By-elections etc. Like I say I feel I have tried to angage in discussion with Sport and politics. However, I have been met with obstanance, I have asked them to try and work with me but I keep getting told Im doing things I am not such as giving local councilors a space in the info box...all I have included is the party and number of seats...both of which are of national significance because they also appear in a national elections wiki article. I hope that this matter is investigated because I want to get on with improving these articles, if anyone wants to help then please be my guest. 94.9.98.107 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This morning for example 94.9.98.107 has gone around and made unilateral edits making changes to articles which are under dispute which is disruptive, edit warring and a sticking of two fingers up at wikipeidia policy on discussions and consensus building. the above comments by 94.9.98.107 are for the discussion. 94.9.98.107 actions are for this page 94.9.98.107 actions have been to ignore the discussion and do what 94.9.98.107 like regardless of the discussion ongoing, that is disruptive and bad faith.Sport and politics (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not done this with every article and there is a good reason for having done this....formatting. This was not to "stick 2 fingers up to wikipedia policy", you had undone other things that I had done in those edits and the only way I could make head or tail of what had been done was to revert the edit and make further alterations at the same time. Sport and politics clearly needs to get into the habit of checking exactly what they are undoing. You will notice on other articles that I have been editing such as West Sussex County Council election, 2013, I have not readded the info box to that article despite having made other edits to the article...why? Because Sport and politics hadn't undone my other edits in that article. I suggest that it is not me who needs disciplining, I have been trying to work with Sport and politics but all they seem to want to do is hit the undo button and leave aggressive comments, without checking what they're undoing. I will happily work with Sport and politics but their attitude and actions are making this impossible. 94.9.98.107 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You should attempt dispute resolution if you can't talk it out at the appropriate talk pages. Edit-warring claims belong at WP:3RRNB. This is not the next logical step for you two (yet)? What "disciplining" is actually being requested here? Doc talk 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is just one element, there are other elements involved with this beheaviour by this editor such as editing disruptively, such as posting the same large rambling comments on multiple talk pages and trying to have the discussion on multiple talk pages. Sport and politics (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Providing evidence in the form of diffs (maybe combined with convincing rhetoric) is the only way to make your case. For an EW report and for here. Doc talk 10:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do by the end of the day. Sport and politics (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I was merely covering my back so that anyone who read your comments could see my rebutal, I accepted your request to move the discussion to the Lincolnshire page and I followed you there. I wanted to make sure that I was not going to be taken out of context, this is what your are trying to do. You have decided you don't like me as an editor, you can't claim that my edits aren't constructive so you've played the edit warring card which has largely failed because it was entirely explainable and preempted by yourself....by the way I didn't add the Lincolnshire info box, it was already there, I merely amended it. You are the only person who wanted it removed and you removed it without consensus. So lets take a step back here and remember how this started...you didn't like something and removed it without consulting the talk page first, you then decided to accuse me of edit warring when all I had done was reverted an edit that had removed sourced material that complies with wikipedia policy. 94.9.98.107 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinions of 94.9.98.107 as an editor are irrelevant, and claims of liking or disliking of 94.9.98.107 as an editor as the above comments state show a demonstrate of personal bad faith being exhibited against myself by 94.9.98.107 as they are claiming I am acting in a way akin to a vendetta. I am also not sure what 94.9.98.107 means by the line "cover my back". The comments above by 94.9.98.107 regarding the content of the infobox and the content of the article are for the discussion they are ignoring and not engaging with. Please see below a demonstration of the editing beheaviour undertaken by 94.9.98.107 when they were fully ware that the addition of infoboxes to Local election articles was in dispute and did not have a consensus to be added.
Oxfordshire
Somerset
Worcestershire
North Yorkshire
East Sussex
[114]
The above are a sampling there are more which can be provided if needed. Below are the diffs for 94.9.98.107 adding the same text to multiple talk pages
Kent
Devon
Worcestershire
The above are a sample and more can be provided if required. finally here is the discussion being ignored by 94.9.98.107. Sport and politics (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can say exactly the same about you. May I point out that most of the articles you have cited do not so much as mention any of this on the talk page nor has there been any edit warring on a number of these pages. So really you have no argument here. Furthermore, I believe it is your behavior that has breached policy because of YOUR INITIAL DELETION of sourced material that was added by another editor way before I started all the format standardization. This means that someone else seemed to think that an info box was appropriate...indeed there have been numerous edits by many editors since the info box was put there, no one but yourself has even commented on the the comments page and Sport and politics seems to think he/she can accuse me of breaking concensus by reverting the deletion of sourced material. That is unreasonable. The argument for an info box have been made clear, every counterargument made by Sport and politics has been sufficiently rebutted. I take the silence of other editors and the fact that this discussion has been closed means that Sport and politics is on their own in their thoughts. I shall therefore assume that there is no case to answer to and will therefore put the articles back to the state they were before they were challenged by Sport and politics. 94.9.98.107 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I would like to formally complain about 94.9.98.107 for modifying the above discussion. 94.9.98.107 is demonstrating their disruptive nature and ignorance of Wikipeida procedure by editing the above discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

duck sock blocking and cleansing required

宇喜多家光 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) We have a duck sock of the vandal obsessed with that article and some edit summaries that need to be blanked. thanks-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

the user has been blocked, thanks materialscientist! If this edit summary [115] could be scrub, this incident can be closed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Done (I hope - don't use that very often). Peridon (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

suicide threat

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

---

We're handling it. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved - by User:Philippe (WMF) --Moxy (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Pls take a look ASAP at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#On the brink of suicide. -- Moxy (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Per WP:SUICIDE, I emailed the Wikimedia Foundation and received a response. Does any admin want to do steps 3 & 4? GoingBatty (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Now they have at least two notifications (mine was acknowledged as I expect yours was). I'm not an expert in this, but I don't think Steps #3 and 4 apply in the case of a threatened suicide. In any event, my acknowledgment was from someone who works for WMF but is also an admin. I'm sure it will be handled appropriately.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (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.

Constantly being reverted by article owner

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Chace Watson by Kww

I uploaded an image for the Chloë Grace Moretz infobox photographed this year, and was instantly reverted by Oz Steps for this reason: "Photo changes should be dicussed first on the talk". I understand this situation on, maybe, a featured article, but on a C-class article, where the lead image was already heavily damaged by oversharpening and is not that flattering of an image, I see no problem in doing what most editors do on Wikipedia: improve the article, move the article forward, keep it updated. He did start a discussion on the talk page, which is great: but my image should have remained in the infobox which would have helped (possibly) draw people to the discussion on which image is more suited as lead image. There is absolutely no rush in removing my image since it doesn't break any BLP protocol. I responded to the discussion on the talk page and waited a day. No one else participated in the discussion; so I re-added my image to the lead, someone else came along and moved images around which goes to show (to me, at any rate) that the lead image was not problematic and not even worthy of discussing on the talk page as controversial. Oz Steps returns today and reverts my edit. Ok, if I was vandalizing a page, then I would understand this constant harassment. Why am I using that word? Because this is not the first time. In the last example, I took my allowances of up to two reverts (I was not going to push three). But this user is hindering my editing; it's crampin' my style. I want it to stop and I am now convinced that a third image I am waiting to upload would be reverted yet again by Oz Steps. So I'm simply not going to add it at this time. Please note that on Oz Steps's talk page, User_talk:Oz_Steps#Dakota, a user named User:Mareklug basically agreed that Oz Steps is owning articles. I have no idea what to do; I'm coming here for advice. Both Oz Steps and Mareklug will be notified of this discussion (Mareklug only because he or she was mentioned; they do not need to participate in this discussion). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mareklug is a happy he, as in Marek Lugowski. :) I confirm and reaffirm what talk:Keraunoscopia is complaining about. Furthermore, I had exactly this run-in with Oz Steps on Liv Tyler, see talk:Liv Tyler#New Image for more substantive assessment; I care not to repeat myself. Naturally, I, too, will notify Oz Steps of this discussion independently of Keraunoscopia's notification, to fulfill notification requirements. --Mareklug ^talk 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This certainly seems endemic with the user, who I note does this so often that he frequently copy-pastes his revert summary ("Undid revision 552671906 by XXXX (talk), This picture since YYYY, please, do not change infobox image, before opening a discuss on talk page"). I'm also, well, sceptical regarding the babelbox on Oz Steps's user page where he claims to be a native English speaker right across from an assertion that he frequently "retrieves vandalism" from pages. This is well-intentioned, but he really shouldn't ever be re-reverting after someone has engaged him on the talk page. I'll wait to see if he responds here; otherwise I'll leave him a note to that effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I only brought up two examples (or "run-ins") in my opening discussion, but this has happened three times—I'm including this so to prove I'm not jumping the gun too much. The very first time, on 22 April, was on Rachel McAdams's article here. This time, I was the one who started the discussion on the talk page and someone even spoke up saying the newer image should be in the infobox, but I didn't know Oz Steps at the time or his habitual pattern. The McAdams article is GA and I was very willing to back-down in this case. I noticed his userbox about being a native speaker of English and it's more than obvious this is not the case, but I didn't think it important to mention. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from some talk page edits, it seems as if the vast majority of this user's edits are reverts. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm sorry for what happened here, My interests here in Wikipedia, Is the appearance images Infobox in article, I am not alone in doing for this, there are many users do this. Like what is written here next to the picture, Written: DO NOT CHANGE IMAGE WITHOUT A WP:CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE; POLICY FORBIDS CHANGING IT WITHOUT ONE.

And My interests also retrieve vandalism in article, There are a lot of anonymous users, they are vandalism in article, such as what happened here. And I've retrieves it. Thank you for this talk. I'm sorry again. --Oz Steps (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Oz Steps to the best of my knowledge there is no policy that mandates consensus prior to replacing/updating an image or information in an article see Be Bold and WP:DRNC (while not a policy it is a great essay in the subject) --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This no policy, was used from others users, before I register in Wikipedia. Well then, I'll just add free image from Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia. Thank you for this information. --Oz Steps (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That was added rather recently, in fact. Total fabrication of "policy", apparently meant to scare off younger editors who wouldn't know any better; and in this case, the misinformation spread. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oz steps assistance is often useful. [116] Even necessary with photo issues caused by IPs. [117] Though other edits do not make sense, like this one which removed her father from the parents section of the infobox. [118] Which is correct and was cited and this removal was done by manual editing. This photo matter is a concern. Even bad pictures were replaced with likely more controversial ones as seen here. Or this matter. [119] Though this all caps attempt to control the images are not alone as the same text was inserted at Dwayne Johnson page. [120] But I think a pressing concern to inform the user of proper vandalism reverts are necessary as it took 3 edits to undo this simple mess. [121] [122] [123] Even personally re-adding vandalism back in before undoing the rest of the changes. First undo, second. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if it is consensus across the WP:BLP space, but it is certainly common practice that new images must be discussed before changing them in the infobox. It is fine to add images elsewhere in the article, but the infobox demands a consistency and high quality that can only be maintained if people are courteous enough to establish consensus for a new image before it is changed. The old image represents existing consensus. A revert shows that you do not have consensus. Per WP:BRD then you are bound to bring up your issue on the talk page thereafter and establish that you have a right to your revision. This demand for discussion is simply a courteous way to head off WP:BRD's need for a B-R cycle first. What I see in my work on BLPs is that frequently a redlinked or IP user will come in and change the image to one that is either a blatant copyvio, or very poor quality, or both, or even some kind of malformed link to a random web image, and they get reverted. Sometimes, the submitter is a regular, who has taken the image legitimately, and wants the vanity points of having "HIS" image in the infobox. It may be good quality or it may not. It seems that courtesy of an advance discussion would enable other users to evaluate the image for copyright status, quality, and appropriateness for the infobox. If this procedure is not already consensus, then it should be. But we should not be having this conversation here, because it is essentially a content dispute. Perhaps it is time to bring it up on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or something, for a centralized discussion to build consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome to bring up this topic as a general discussion on the BLP/Notceboard, but please don't hijack this thread: We are here to gently though firmly influence the user in question to cease owning infobox pictures in every article he touches, especially in the name of chucking the best ones we have for the latest ones chronologically. Failing that, we are here to have him blocked indefinitely as a disruptive editor. Yes, it is that serious, and there is no improvement as of this writing. --Mareklug ^talk 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Side question. Oz says xhe "retrieves vandalism". Does that mean xhe "rescues vandalism", or, as I suspect, "reverts vandalism".--Auric talk 20:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The user is obviously not a native English speaker, and his usage is downright broken English. Yet his babel infobox insists he is en-n. This, too, needs addressing. --Mareklug ^talk 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Vague Legal Threat by TheRealJKO

A post to Wikipedia:Help Desk by User:TheRealJKO accuses User:Demiurge1000 of threats and in turn contains a legal threat. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WHY WILL NOBODY DO SOMETHING TO HELP? WHY DO YOU ALLOW THIS ABUSE TO CONTINUE AND KEEP THREATENING THE PERSON BEING ABUSED? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS SITE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a chill pill dude. What's going on? This is a board where you can discuss this and get a bit of help but SHOUTING will only harm you. If you have made a legal threat as per WP:NLT please withdraw it and maybe we can solve the issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do something to help Dude. Continuing to insult me isn't helping. I have sent emails to all the places wiki instructs you to send them and while they are being ignored, the threats and insults continue. Pickette has now added defammation. Stop the comments and nobody will feel the need to take any legal action. It's quite simple. And perhaps before jumping in with a sarcastic comment, dude, it would be better if you acquainted yourself with the facts and then commented. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok the problem there is that if you don't discuss it here civilly, it won't get solved. Right now you are on the short side of stick by making a legal threat. You may be riled but nothing in what I said was sarcastic dude. The thread here was created specifically for the legal threat but if there is issue behind it we can tackle that WP:BOOMERANG style. It happens quite a bit, your choice though you can briefly summarize and get helped or in the end be blocked for a legal threat. Only trying to help ya bro. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Then go back and read my original posting. Dude. Then read the replies and remarks. Dude. Then when you're educated on my original comment and the post I made, feel free to comment. Dude. Until then, it appears you know nothing about the subject and thus have nothing to contribute. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The posting shows you asking what is wrong with the site and the people on it. I was asking for you to give your side. You see the way wikipedia works and especially on this board works is you link the people to the issue you are having. This only benefits you dude, if more people can see the problem you are having without having to play Sherlock Holmes you will have a much better result. If you want the help meet us halfway bro. Like I said your choice but it's clear that you have made a legal threat and unless it is retracted will likely be blocked until that is complete, it's a lot cheaper to take a few minutes and write out what you are saying is defamatory. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify "You see the way wikipedia works and especially on this board works is you link the people to the issue you are having." is literally only because you're newer to the site. Don't take offense cause none is needed but this is a callaboritve process and I can and will help you if take a minute to tell me what's happening. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013#John Kennedy O'Connor as San Marino commentator Heiro 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wrote a really long response, but it did not post. I really don't think I have the energy to write it again. I asked for a debate to be removed. It wasn't. As a result of trying to resolve it, I have been threatened, abused and defamed. I have had enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by that conversation I linked to above, you have not been threatened, abused or defamed. Someone was trying to clarify a reference per our policies on WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. You do not get to blank discussion you do not like. And you had better withdraw any and all suggestions of legal action per WP:No legal threats or you will be blocked by an admin until you do or until all legal actions are concluded. This is not a threat, it is policy here. Heiro 16:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not think that what Pickette has written is defamatory and that another user described me as "claiming" to be who I am, then you have misread the situation entirely. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have had some involvement via the discussion thread that Heiro has highlighted. From what I gather, User:TheRealJKO deleted an entire thread because they stated the thread was an "insulting debate" against him. The user also states that he is John Kennedy O'Connor, although I'm not disputing whether that fact is true or false. The discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013, was regarding sources that were vague on whether Mr Kennedy O'Conner was providing live commentary for San Marino at next week's Eurovision Song Contest. It was pointed out during the discussion that neither of the sources used verified this fact, and thus we agreed any details about JKO being a commentator should be omitted from the article until we could verify this with a reliable source. However, TheRealJKO appears to have taken some upset and distress at what has been written, and I can see partially why one would be distressed when they are being discussed about openly. Although in my opinion, it may appear that the wrong end of the stick has been grasped here. There have been a few people trying to advise these points to The RealJKO in a civil manner, but it baffles me as to why things have blown way out of control. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifically how were you defamed? You are no longer dead, the article shows that but I'm not understanding where anyone has defamed you? we do have policies that relate to the biographies of living people but right now frmo the outside I don't see anyone insulting you or otherwise defaming. I do show that the commentator stuff was removed due to lack of verified sources but that can be rectified when it is reported for the news or in a news article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this: "I think that the TheRealJKO account and their previous unregistered IP edits on this page are related to a banned account (TVArchivistUK) because the IP address used to add similar information to the 2012 contest article has since been blocked for sockpuppetry of this account. The tone this user employs in discussions is very similar to all of exchanges this user has had and is currently having with this account and their other unregistered IP accounts. Here is the edit from the 2012 page. Pickette (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)" I don't even know what this person is talking about. To acuse me in this manner is defamatory and potentially libellous. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you also missed this: "In a related issue TheRealJKO (talk · contribs) removed this entire talk page section, after claiming to actually be O'Connor. I have since warned this user and restored the text. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)" Someone bragging about making threats. In their own words. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That does not give you the right to remove talk page discussions whether you disagree or not. WP:TPO --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

But you apparently have the right to say anything you like in a discussion about a living person and refute that persons request for it to cease? I think you've just summed up wikimedia perfectly.TheRealJKO (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing that is wrong with discussing a living person, which millions of people do everyday, you simply have put information into the article without a reliable source, which was the main reason for the discussion on the ESC 2013 talk page was started. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok but those aren't defamation or slander. We do routinely have problems with users who are blocked and banned and make another account and we call those sockpuppets. That's not libel, leaving wikipedia warnings are not libel. Have you admitted your real life identity? If you have not and they can not come up with a diff showing that you did then they are guilty of WP:OUTING. That is a serious issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It states "TheRealJKO account and their previous unregistered IP edits on this page are related to a banned account". I have not made any other edits. I removed an edit with said I was dead and I asked for a debate to be removed that was a slanging match about my professional roles, which was ignored. So whether I "had the right" to so or not, the threats and the above slander are not valid responses. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused here, as I cannot see anything in the discussion that that would indicate any form of slanging match whatsoever. What I have noticed are editors defending the professional work of John Kennedy O'Conner, by discussing whether you will be providing live commentary via San Marino Television for the Sanmarinese viewers. An IP user (not yourself of course) had added falsified and inaccurate evidence in regards to this, and all the editors who took part in the debate were trying to establish whether or not you would be providing commentary. As neither editor could find any evidence to verify these facts, but they did agree that news reports had confirmed you would be reading out the votes on behalf of San Marino. And so it was agreed that such details regarding commentary should not be included into the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 article, so that we were avoiding the publication of incorrect details - which I sincerely appreciate that any living person would appreciate to have correct information written about them, rather than something which may be incorrect. I can wholeheartedly understand if parts of the debate may have been misinterpreted, but in all admiration to Mr Kenndy O'Conner, the editors involved in the peaceful debate were only doing there best to respect your work and only detail 100% accurate information in terms of your role at the Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have indeffed TheRealJKO for making a legal threat. I don't believe the edit to the Help desk rose to the level of a legal threat ([124]). (Whatever happened to diffs when coming to ANI?) However, this comment at WP:DRN did (" I have said I will pursue this legally if it is not"). There is no outing here. The editor has said who he is. Nor has anyone said he was dead as he claims. The article just used the past tense for his occupation (the birth year with no death date was/is in the article). Finally, his claim that he is being slandered because he is accused of sock puppetry is silly. Arguably, it is a personal attack, but it is hardly defamatory. If he really had a legitimate beef, I might not have acted, but his claims and edits are purely disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Death date in article. [125] Nick (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A death date was added and then deleted in an earlier revision also. [126] --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous now. Bbb23 has already warned the user that they will revoke talk page access if they continue posting accusations, and yet they still continue to do so. Also one the diffs that Bbb23 has provided in which the user states they sent emails to everyone on the talk page. I have just checked my inbox, and no email from TheRealJKO has been received. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, HIAB also pointed this out on my talk page. It was the first edit by TheRealJKO back in November 2012. Then there were no edits until May 2013. I didn't notice the date of that first edit. I also looked at the diff and all I saw was the change from "was" to "is". The death date itself, as AxG states, was added by a vandal and then removed by another editor. TheRealJKO completed the clean-up by changing was back to is. It doesn't change my opinion about the block, but I appreciate the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The editor also appeared to take objection (here) to being addressed as "dude". (Disliking this form of address is not unusual, for example Salvatore Rivieri disapproved of it.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the "threats" about which this user was complaining were warnings that he could be blocked for disruptive editing, which consisted of deleting a large amount of talk page content that he disliked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The entry of a death date for a living person was a severe violation of policy on living persons but appears to have been done six months ago. Is a late warning appropriate? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The user who added the death date has made only two edits to Wikipedia, that one and one other in January 2013, which I don't believe was vandalism. It would be pointless, in my view, to warn the editor of a 6-month-old edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and I have done so, with extra big red triangle for emphasis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The legal threat should be withdrawn for sure, I just think we have someone who doesn't understand policy here. I think that they aren't being disruptive for the sake of disruption it's because they don't understand the way the encyclopedia is ran. Sock puppetry accusations mean zilch here other then if you get caught you get blocked. I think the death thing is what set this off, it caused a sore tooth and then otherwise regular edits to the encyclopedia are looked at wholly negative. A little WP:AGF in this by all sides would help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: ticket:2013051110005682 if anyone's interested. I make no comment either way. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 05:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and refusal to come to the talk page by 75.74.143.185

Please see the talk page for Kaitlyn Maher at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaitlyn_Maher&action=edit&section=4. I will be once again placing my edit into the article thereby reverting theirs. I will also be giving notice today on their talk page.1archie99 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring has ceased.[127] Apteva (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to talk page

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.

---

A discussion regarding SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to this talk page was started today by User:Raeky who is not generally active on that talk page. The rationale was that although the topic ban from February 2013 on user:SuzanneOlsson allowed access to that talk page, no benefit from it can be detected, and it may in fact need to be viewed in the liability column given the cyclic nature of the discussion. I agreed with that assessment, and another user observed on that thread that since the ban Ms Olsson has not "supplied a single useful piece of information which would improve the article". And I agree with that statement too. In fact, as I stated there, we have not seen one WP:RS source from Ms Olsson. Not one. All we continue to get are statements like:

• Promotion of the movie trailer for her book

• Continued defense of original research as a strategy when blogs are questioned as sources

• Repeated source free discussion of the same inscriptions

And I again had to joke today that I was tempted to suggest a reading of WP:RS. I said that because as stated on the ban discussion before, back in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and was told to only use reliable sources by User:Paul Barlow and told about self-published items by user:Dougweller, etc. Now, it is just too ironic for me to weigh if I should suggest a reading of WP:RS again. We have all recommended that more times than I can remember.

The situation in February was this:

• The ban was put in place due to her clear conflict of interest on the page because she has self-published a book on it and it was agreed that she is just too close to the topic and treats it with a personal element.
• The idea of allowing talk page access was to obtain the benefit of information she may have which would help that page of the encyclopedia.

As user:In ictu oculi stated on the talk there, we have seen no benefit at all from anything Ms Olsson has typed since February, and none seems likely. Not "one piece of information" that can be used has been provided. Not one.

And I have come to see her closeness to the topic as a reflection of the fact that she believes the article is about her "private family tomb", as I mentioned on the talk there. I think Ms Olsson genuinely believes that she is the 59th descendant of Jesus of Nazareth, and according to The Times of India has even attempted to excavate his body in India to compare its DNA with her own to prove it. So it would be an understatement to say that she is too attached to the topic.

I think User:Raeky's suggestion that the topic ban should extend to the few related talk pages is a good idea. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Full topic ban extended to all pages including user space. — raekyT 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with this. It's hardly ever good to leave article talkpages as the only outlet for the energies of a topic banned SPA. If those energies are considerable, we're likely to get what we have here: the user owns the talkpage through insistence, repetitiousness, and passive resistance to Wikipedia's rules and principles. And, I'm sorry to be blunt, but please let's do it right this time, so the editor's agenda doesn't resurface at, say, Talk: Unknown years of Jesus and we have to open another thread about that in a month. This kind of attrition is very bad for talkpages and for productive editors. So, I support a topic ban from Roza Bal, related articles, and related talkpages. (Not sure about user space, though. Why, really? Have there been problems in user space?) Bishonen | talk 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

I am not aware of any issues in user space. I agree with your characterization, and wording of the ban extension. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support The editor needs to gain experience with other areas on Wikipedia to understand that relentless POV pushing on any page is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Bishonen is always very friendly, but I fail to see why leaving any wiggle room would be desirable, unless user space blogging on the topic is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• She does only one thing here. What's the point of keeping her around? Why is she not simply banned for self promotion, disruption, not getting the point, et cetera? Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - It's no secret that I've had some fairly in-depth discussions with Ms Olsson over a lengthy period of time and was jointly responsible for publishing her BLP at Suzanne M. Olsson. I know she has certainly been frustrated with the terms of her topic ban (having begrudgingly agreed to them in the first place) but has, as far as I can tell, complied with those conditions entirely. She has not edited the Roza Bal article directly, nor has she edited her own biography directly since it was moved to article space (though she has posted what is effectively an edit request on another user's talk page and on her own talk page). In both cases she has attempted to clarify why she made the claims she did and what she was attempting to do by making them. She has been given some advice about providing sources to balance the claims. It would be unfair, I think, to ignore her multiple clarifications and continue to claim that she "genuinely believes" something she has clearly disputed. I would urge editors to assume good faith and acknowledge that while her talk page contributions might not be particularly valuable, the editor in question is complying with the conditions of her topic bans and is contributing material that she believes is worthwhile. I think it would also be worth noting that during the period outlined above, Ms Olsson struggled with some major personal events that she fully disclosed to editors here. I've worked with History2007 in a number of contexts and I have faith that he wouldn't have brought this here except as a final resort. I totally understand his frustration and I'm certainly not suggesting this be swept under the carpet, so to speak. I only ask that editors and admins tread lightly and be conscious of past history. Stalwart111 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe she even remotely meets WP:GNG, and although she's kept to her topic ban, shes been nothing but disruptive to the Roza Bal talk page with 70 edits to it since the ban and nothing helpful or aimed at improving the article to our standards. — raekyT 02:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The question of her meeting WP:GNG was briefly discussed when the draft article was put up for deletion. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, GNG hasn't really be questioned with any depth. I've been keeping an eye on Talk:Roza Bal and while I can certainly see content there that would be frustrating, there are a number of editors making all sorts of claims and providing all sorts of commentary, balanced out by the ever-calm clarifications of a few. Certainly I would agree that the talk page has somewhat strayed from its primary purpose of improving the article rather than discussing the subject. But those extensive discussions, useful or not, have produced a fairly balanced and well-written article that deals fairly analytically with a subject about which a good many people get very emotional. Given she is obviously not contributing directly to the article (per her topic ban), would it not be a better option to simply ignore her posts/threads and deal with those from others that you believe to be worth your time? If there's "nothing helpful" in her suggests/requests/comments why not ignore them? Change the timing/counter on the archive bot and if nobody responds within a few days, the thread will disappear. Stalwart111 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The AFD was for a non-article space page Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson, and therefore was a XfD, so not nearly as well looked at as an AfD would of. The sources stem from a single event as best I can tell, where she got herself thrown out of a country for trying to dig up some tomb to prove it was Jesus or something, hardly "in depth" coverage that meets WP:GNG. Theres a reason why we don't let people continuously disrupt talk pages see: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:HERE, WP:COMPETENCE, etc... — raekyT 02:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, as I say, it was briefly discussed, but certainly not in depth. The articles are a bit broader than just that one event and cover a number of visits, to different countries and at different times, and some are more about her books, from memory. Anyway, that's not really the point of this discussion but I'm more than happy to have that discussion with you elsewhere. As I said, I can certainly agree that the talk page has strayed from its purpose, but I don't think it is entirely the fault of one person and I'm not convinced that good faith attempts (even misguided or mistaken ones) should be considered disruptive. Stalwart111 03:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the BLP issues about Ms Olsson's own Wiki-page Suzanne M. Olsson have no impact on this ANI thread. A user may meet WP:GNG and not be active on Wikipedia, or not meet GNG and be active. So I think the GNG issues are probably not part of this thread which discusses the Wikipedia editor as an editor not as the subject of an article. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed; a bit of a side-track from my commentary in response to your thread but I don't think that was User:Raeky's intention in raising it. I've had my say about the issues raised here and am more than happy to discuss the other stuff somewhere else. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, but regarding the statement that she genuinely believes she is the 59th descendant of Jesus, I read her last response from today on the Roza Bal talk page now, and in one place she admits that she wrote a letter to claim that she was the descendant of Jesus in order to get into the tomb, then that she recanted it later. Is that really so? If it is, then it will look even more confusing if that turns out to be a fake claim admission. Or is it the recant that should not be believed now? Pretty confusing overall, I should say... History2007 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, confusing perhaps, but I think that is exactly what she has said in a number of places. She made certain claims in the past to gain access to a site she believed was under threat. Those claims were published in reliable sources and so have been mentioned in her BLP here. She has since suggested that such claims were only made to gain access to the site and to give her efforts to protect it some legitimacy. I know she is working on publishing a full account somewhere to correct the record and has, in the meantime, attempted to explain it for the benefit of fellow WP editors and has apparently given a partial account in her most recent book (which I have not read). Stalwart111 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, now the situation is that the claim was made up, and she has now retracted it. Between you and me "the end does not justify the means" in my book, but that is another story. And this whole real/fake claim issue may be beside the point here anyway, and may relate to her BLP not this thread. The way I see it is that user:Drmies summarized the situation pretty well in just 2 lines above here. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, I understand that. I suppose my original point was in response to the suggestions (including the one you highlighted) that this was a matter of WP:COI/WP:PROMO rather than WP:NOBLECAUSE/WP:GREATWRONGS. That doesn't justify anything, but I think that Ms Olsson genuinely believes she is contributing productively and her contributions come from a place of good faith and misunderstanding rather than disruption and malice. The community still needs to deal with everything as it sees fit, I'm only asking that they take some of the context into account. We're talking about someone who retired 20+ years ago and who (despite lengthy discussions) still doesn't understand how WP works. Her responses to this thread in various places should be proof-positive of that. Competence is required and a lack of it is very frustrating. But let's please deal with it in that context, rather than suggesting a overly passionate retiree is here to break WP. Stalwart111 03:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think we agree on the "someone who despite lengthy discussions still doesn't understand how WP works" part. The long and short of it is that this editor provides no benefit to the encyclopedia, as user:Drmies summarized. She just repeats the same source-free statements again and again and again. This editor still thinks "she is the source". How can anyone deal with an editor who after 5 years still thinks they are the source? The only way to deal with that is a ban. That is all. History2007 (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Response - I am deeply saddened to see that all this is the direct result of harassment by History007. He has followed me relentlessly, always making negative comments to or about me or anything I contribute... and he undermines every contribution to Roza Bal page because apparently this is not in accordance with his personal religious beliefs. Just recently he is editing at least 14 pages on Christianity, a topic which he seems to regard himself as an "expert" whose opinion must prevail. Further, in his long rant above, he refers to my belief that "I am 59th descendant from Jesus"- knowing full well that I explained this in careful detail- why I made the statement in kashmir, and why I retracted it as soon as I left Kashmir... In other words,,,he is misleading all of you and not including all information. About my not contributing "anything valuable" on the Roza Bal page, that too is untrue..as seen by the comments from other editors. I have made several attempts to contribute valuable info, much of which History 2007 shoots down...I dont see this from any of the other editors there...I submit that History2007 has an agenda...a personal dislike of me that makes it impossible for him to be fair or impartial. Please ignore him. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 2:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Please ignore him"? Judging from some of the above comments, it doesn't seem like a simple one-sided attempt at smearing you. Doc talk 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When I was in Kashmir seeking the DNA, it took many months of planning and meeting with many officials. The final permission came after I had four meetings in the Cheif Minister's office, Farooq Abdullah. It was nothing we approached lightly or carelessly. Great thought and careful planning went into every phase. It was only due to the indidscetion of one local chowkidar who thought he was left out of backsheesh that the negative versions started being fed to the newspapers by him and him alone. He can also be seen in various documentary films bashing me, bashing Ahmadaddis..and generally ranting for fundamentalism to prevail. That was the time the letter was written to try and regain the tomb from his influence...however he had a lot of local relatives, young males who would then back him up and threaten anyone who approached the tomb. This is the same man who was selling off tomb artifacts to Pakistani agents. Holger Kersten bought a piece of carved wood relic from this same man..who began regarding Roza Bal as his own personal ATM machine. .had there been no intervention, the entire tomb would be destroyed by now. There's a big difference in the way these events are portrayed here through ignorance, and what the truth is. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well at least thank you for not suggesting that I am the person in Kashmir who asked for undue amounts of backsheesh. But I did not know that your claim to be the 59h descendant of Jesus was fake. If it was fake, my apologies for assuming it was genuine. But in any case, as you can see on the talk page there I did not start the thread that suggested the ban extension and I was not the only person to say that we have not seen one piece of useable information. And as can be seen from the lengthy new discussions there which started after this ANI post and have taken place without my participation, other users are still asking you for sources. Given that after these 5 years of discussion on sourcing in Wikipedia your last response today starts with "I am the source" when you are asked about a source, I will have to leave it at that. I do not really see the point in asking for a reading of WP:RS again. History2007 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for action due to lack of opposition It seems that the suggestion for ban extension is not getting any opposition to speak of. From what I see, myself, Raeky, Bishonen, Johnuniq and Drmies are in favor of extending the ban and no one (excluding the user in question) has actually opposed it. Stalwart111 has been sympathetic about her intentions, but even he agrees that after 5 years of policy explanations, Ms Olsson still does not know how WP:RS works. This became clear again today, after all this, when we had to explain that Wikipedia "needs sources" and we can not operate by emailing people to ask their opinions. After 5 years of explanations, and repeated discussions, we have had to explain WP:RS again today, more than once. I hope this will be the last time I have to suggest a reading of WP:RS in this case. The fact that this is user is far too close to this topic to be involved in it, and the lack of familiarity with basic policies such as WP:V and WP:RS after 5 years is obvious. I suggest action should be taken to extend the ban as suggested, given that there is no opposition to it to speak of after 2 days on the noticeboard. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support extension of topic ban to all pages per Bishonen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ...excepting her own talk page is OK with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but leave access to Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson and own Talk page - with regret Suzanne just doesn't seem capable of relating to the most basic concepts of sourcing, though it's the libelous attacks on an Indian government official that are a more immediate concern. Any utility Suzanne might early have had in identifying (I use the term very loosely) leads and clues has been made redundant by the appearance of a capable Urdu-speaking Ahmadi believer User:Dr Ali on the article talk pages. However I believe Suzanne should retain access to her own talk page because of the BLP. And yes the BLP passes GNG, just as Suzanne's German and Spanish esoterist equivalents do... ironically more GNG than the sober German and Swedish academics pouring scorn on the wild misuse of Arabic and Persian sources. But that's how GNG works. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Weak oppose, but with an understanding of the frustration felt by supporters of the extension. She is frustrating, absolutely, and you only have to go back and read some of my earlier conversations with her to see that I, too, have been incredibly frustrated with her at times. I supported the original topic ban, but I'm a bit at a loss as to what it is we're trying to prevent here, given the point of sanctions is to prevent damage to WP, not to simply punish those we're frustrated with. I get it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway, H2007 and I had a good chat about it above and I think people know where I'm coming from, so I'll leave it at that. Stalwart111 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that other editors such as myself get so frustrated with having to deal with "policy free" and "source free" discussions for ever that they just say: "Forget it. Just forget it. This website is too frustrating to use, there is no point in wasting my life here when policy means nothing, sources mean nothing and the value of time means nothing. Let me move on." Then the web site will be inherited by those who do not understand, or follow policy. That is the problem. History2007 (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I'm not quite convinced that the semi-religious ranting of a retiree that most people have ignored anyway, will be enough to drive good editors away from WP, but hey... And as much as those discussions might have been "policy free" and "source free", the article those discussions have produced is pretty good, well-sourced and policy-compliant. So that long and frustrating road has arrived at a productive destination. But as I said, I get where you're coming from, it's just not my first-choice course of action. Stalwart111 09:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my view/note above. I wasn't excited about extending a topic ban to protect a talk page or quell the frustrations of a few experienced editors. But the edit-warring in article space is a step too far, even for me. Stalwart111 21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Molon labe!

• Support extension of topic ban to main space talk pages - as the Admin who first implemented the topic ban back in February 2013. I thought that allowing talk page access would be constructive - I was wrong. GiantSnowman 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support extended ban. The diffs show substantial problems, GiantSnowman's demonstrating the failure of a previous effort, and Suzanne has turned into Randy in Boise apparently, judging by History2007's statement. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per Nyttend and the picture on the right. The last thing we need is more WP: RANDYs trying to insert this kind of problematic material. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a problem with extending the topic ban for Roza Bal and related articles, but I just wanted to clarify that this should not include the Suzanne M. Olsson, should it remain. It was raised at WP:BLPN that this topic ban would extend to commenting on the BLP about here, including at the noticeboard [128]. This is something I'd strongly oppose, as banning a subject from raising concerns about an article about them on-wiki, especially at appropriate noticeboards, isn't something we should make the mistake of doing. That said, I don't have any issue with extending the topic ban in other areas. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case, and as I stated on the Afd for that page, WP:ABOUTSELF maybe her best avenue for pointing out things about her own entry. So it would make sense for the extended ban to include all Roza Bal related topic and talk pages, but allow for comments about her own bio on her talk page. History2007 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support extension of topic ban to all of wikipedia Someone said: "Suzanne just doesn't seem capable of relating to the most basic concepts of sourcing", so why just the topic ban exactly? It looks like this editor is a completely time sink, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, the initial topic ban was just on the topic partly because no one expected the user to work on anything else anyway, and it seems unlikely that the user is going to go and work on the article on the Louvre anytime soon, so it has the same effect from a pragmatic standpoint. History2007 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

She's now starting to edit war over blanking her biography page because there's reliable sources that don't portray her in a positive light. So... either extend a topic ban to also include a page on her, or blocking may be in order.. She really doesn't get sourcing. — raekyT 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you just had to yet explain WP:RS again in response to the "wrong is wrong" comment suggests that the extended ban plus some block may be called for. The user is told that she has breached the ban, and that the source is WP:RS and still says "wrong is wrong". In the original ban discussion, user:KillerChihuahua said that the ban was all about WP:GREATWRONGS and I think she was pretty observant early on. There is no hope for a remedy or rehabilitation here. However, given that this proposal was for an extended ban, I think it is better to keep it as such, for it will have the same effect as an indef, but will have been done through a community decision by consensus. And consensus is uniform and unopposed now that Stalwart111 changed his vote. So I suggest a closure with an extended ban based on consensus now to cut back on drama. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Should also point out that she in the past used User:Kashmir2 to edit from 31 December 2005 to 5 July 2010, she created User:SuzanneOlsson on 21 May 2008 and made her first edit then too, so she effectively broke WP:SOCK and was contributing to the same articles at the same time with two separate accounts. — raekyT 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In fairness that was before she knew what sockpuppets are, and had other accounts it seems - NewYork-something. But that is old news. But let us face it, there is clear consensus for an extended ban here. So that is the easiest way to end the drama that has now erupted on her talk page and own article. This is just eating up life... And we all know where it is going to go. History2007 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea some more info at: User_talk:Katchu2. Just saying, I found it when I was digging up the old AFD's for her bio page to add to the talk page list. — raekyT 22:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To add that discussion was in 2008, she continued editing on both accounts until 2010, even though in 2008 she was warned about sock puppets..... just to point out that slight discrepancy there with "not knowing" — raekyT 23:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right... There seem to be more skeletons buried there than I realized... pun intended... But then no recent sock puppet activity has taken place. And I told her about WP:MEAT sometime in the recent past, so I think that aspect may not be as prominent as the need for the extended ban (including talk pages) else the drama on her own bio talk page will persist as long as that Times of India article is mentioned anywhere. And I think she may not yet know that the same link exists as item 7 in the lede of the Roza Bal page. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this was all raised previously - I remember there being a discussion. WP:COIN I think, but I'm trying to find it. The claim, I think, was that one of the accounts was registered by her grand-daughter, then taken over by her when the grand-daughter stopped editing, then she started her own. So one of them was a joint account then it was explained that shared accounts was a no-no and she has stuck to her named account since. But yeah, pointless drama years after the fact. Time for someone to close this. Stalwart111 23:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, except I do not know why you need to spend effort digging up her old accounts. Unless you want DNA of course... But I agree that this aspect is not important now and it is time for the whole thread to close with an extended topic ban based on the clear consensus. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha. I don't think anyone is digging, just that Raeky found something that had previously been raised. I'm just looking for the discussion to recall what people had to say about it at the time. But there's probably not much point. Stalwart111 23:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. Interesting to see how your minds work when making decisions. History2007, You made misleading and untrue statements above- to persuade others to join you in this ban. Example one: You said I did not use sources and you reprimanded me for emails as a source. You made that accusation on the Roza Bal page, knowing full well that I sent an email to Joe Cribbs asking where the published sources were for use of the word Asaph. It was highly relevant to that discussion. But you preferred to blow it off and demean me again. There are other examples, but is this about getting to the truth or about supporting your own POV? Yes, I am the source. How dumb is it to write a page about me yet say that I cannot be the source? I told you the man who contributed to TOI was not being truthful. You say the TOI takes precedence over the truth- knowing full well that newspaper articles are only as good as the source. I am not the source of that information. Mr. Amin is. You damage not only me, but those who would come in the future to Roza Bal for research and perhaps for DNA. That's why I fight so hard and risk so much. It's not about me, nor my book. Is Wiki about the truth? I haven't seen much of that when History2007 comments about me- follows me around Wiki to make disparaging remarks no matter what I say or do. History2007, You have not portrayed the facts honestly, nor even the conversations between us. You have belittled me and discredited me at every opportunity. I have placed this issue up for resolution at one of Wiki's resources for Biographies- I trust we can expect their response soon.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised how long some of these threads on this board stay open without any admin action being taken, this one should have been dealt with a day or more ago as it just keeps getting worse. Ms Olsson has now used her user talk page to call someone named in the Times of India article about herself "a liar and a thief".[129] There needs to be some admin intervention!Smeat75 (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And now she is making apparent legal threats "if I am blocked from correcting it or commenting on the talk pages then I will pursue this further'.[130]Smeat75 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea that's clearly a legal threat... — raekyT 03:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ms Olsson is leaving messages in various places begging, demanding that the article about herself, Suzanne M. Olsson, be deleted immediately. I put an "admin assistance needed" template on her talk page for her, as she was not sure how to, but I do not know if that will actually get an admin to pay any attention to this. I do think an admin should try to deal with this situation.Smeat75 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's only a legal threat if she intends to pursue it through legal means. That is not a legal threat if she intends to use OTRS or another, similar, avenue. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that she hasn't taken the time to learn the basics of how wikipedia works from her own statements, it's HIGHLY unlikely she meant OTRS... but still.. it's a vague legal threat, but still can easily be construed as one. — raekyT 04:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And unless this entire thread is concluded soon, there is a serious chance that the person buried at Roza Bal (whoever he may be) is going to dig himself out, walk to the WMF chapter office in Delhi and make demands of his own... History2007 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked on AN for an admin to take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, and also think a decision here is due. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure based on consensus

This thread started on May 6, 2013, i.e. one week ago and has seen no activity to speak of in the past 2 days. The 12 users who have expressed opinions have clear consensus, with no opposition now. Admin action for the conclusion of this thread based on user consensus will be appreciated. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on Help Desk

See [131]. Not sure of best response here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is already blocked indef. 3 months ----Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Specific legal threat from IP claiming to be subject

• Susan J. Elliott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 108.6.182.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

She claims that since the article was created by a couple of her fans, and she and her publicist are just "improving" it by smarming it up with lots of glurge about her charitable work and fluff about appearing on TV, there is no COI and she is not committing autobiography. She makes much of the fact that she's a lawyer. Oooohh, I'm so scared! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The thread above this is actually about the same user... Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a minute. The IP makes a legal threat against Orangemike, so Orangemike blocks for 3 months? Is this even remotely appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure but For someone who says they are not threatening legal action they sure use the words libel and legal action a lot. Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is ok, it's not like his actions were against policy they line up with "No legal threats" Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that a legal threat was made. I'm not disputing that a block might be appropriate (though I personally think it might have been better to try and calm the situation down a little first). I am however suggesting that since Orangemike was the recipient of the threats, he shouldn't have done the blocking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The not making legal threats thing wasn't aimed at you it was a reference to the ip's talk page (they keep saying they aren't threatening legal action but then define the legal definition of libel) sorry! But I do agree perhaps a different admin should have done the block but his actions weren't erroneous so I'm gonna AGF --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:INVOLVED ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP specifically mentioned Orangemike in the legal threat. How much more involved could he get? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to abide by the community's consensus in cases like this. I thought the basic WP:DOLT more than outweighed any trivial violation of the letter of WP:INVOLVED; but if most other editors agree with Andy (who's not as much of a grump as he pretends), I will follow your collective judgement in the future. (And if somebody really wants to remove my lblock and substitute one of their own, I won't consider myself wronged in the slightest.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Being the target of threats doesn't make you involved, in the Wikipedia sense. If it did, anyone could challenge any block by threatening the blocking admin. I could see why OrangeMike's actions here might be a bit questionable...he edited the article in a non-admin capacity prior to semi-protecting it and blocking the IP. But I wouldn't overturn the block if I had the capability to do so. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's generally inadvisable to do the block unless it's clearly and unambiguously a legal threat. "I will sue you" type obvious IRWolfie- (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I think this is such a case, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to state, all the major IP contributors to the article are NY based IP's... which her IP is one too... User:68.197.57.102 , User:216.223.171.102, User:216.6.129.115... might throw a kink into her not autobiography story if indeed all those was her too. — raekyT 19:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering she is based in that area, it's not inconceivable that her fans are in that area. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone with some experience at handling issues with BLP subjects in a tactful fashion—perhaps someone with OTRS access—please intervene here and help to defuse this situation? Unfortunately, I can't do much myself right now as I'll be offline for much of the weekend. The subject's references to legal action are obviously inappropriate, but the way this has been handled on our end is clearly suboptimal and is not doing much to deescalate or resolve the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we can work anything out with a person who is screaming threats of legal action and then screaming that they didn't just make a legal threat. I don't know what was done different here than in every other case of WP:NLT, blocking unless and until they retract the threat, which says "PLEASE REMOVE THE PAGE OR ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT IT IS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL OR I WILL TAKE LEGAL ACTION." It is long established that standard operating procedure in any case of a unambiguous legal threat like that we block. Why they now are trying to act like they never said that when we have diffs showing it is not our problem to solve, if they refuse to retract the legal threat or even admit that they made one then they are going to have to remain blocked. It's not as if it would require some great effort on their part to switch from lying to just saying "I will not take legal action". Nobody wants or expects an apology and a boquet of flowers, just a retraction of the threat. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It has come to my attention, not to mention much of Great Britain, that OrangeMike also reverted another person removing a flagrant BLP-violating statement from her own article (his reversion [132]). This reversion was utterly out of line; nobody has to ask permission to remove an uncited negative claim from their biography. Period. It seems to me that OrangeMike needs to rein in his instincts to defend against autobiographical editing, lest he see his name in the Daily Mail again. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If the editor requests that the words "OR I WILL ..." are deleted, (no need to repeat them) that should be sufficient, and hopefully the advice to make suggestions on their article talk page instead of editing the article directly (other than obvious typos) will be taken, and they are of course welcome and encouraged to edit other articles than their own. I do agree that we have inflamed rather than defused the situation, but hopefully the flames and the shouting are over. Apteva (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:UConnSam and Wayne Worcester

In fall of 2012, User:UConnSam added significant misinformation into the Wikipedia article on Wayne Worcester as did an IP editor who is possibly the same person. See [133] and [[134] for diffs. According to [135] Worcester complained about the misinformation during his ceremonial retirement lecture. I fixed the info, but should anything else be done? Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to notify UConnSam (talk · contribs) of this discussion, I have done so for you here --Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Um... if it was an edit from 2012, don't you think it's just a teensy bit stale? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it was just reported a couple days ago that this article was wrong. And the professor voiced complaints himself. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I apologize for being snarky above, but the point still stands. Fair enough for correcting it, but if the edit was that long ago, no action can be taken. Discuss it with the user if they're still around. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by user HiLo48 after several requests to stop. Requesting action

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

---

I don't have much experience in admin processes, but I've decided to give it a shot because I am having difficulty dealing with User HiLo48. This user seems more interested in attacking and mocking than discussing improvements to the article. See comments here: [136] and here [137] in particular, though I could present other cases. I warned the user - the request and the reply can be seem here. [138] I am suggesting an WP:IBAN to prevent HiLo48 from interacting with me. I fully intend to ignore anything this user writes in the future (except for dealing with any future personal attacks made against me), which will be much easier if they can no longer interact with me. If I don't ignore this user in the future, I'll accept an IBAN against me without argument. Thanks for considering my request. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I almost sent this same user to ANI after his conduct at the April Fools' Day RFC. He was continuing to be disruptive and combat virtually all oppose votes for his proposal. TCN7JM 02:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree when Hilo is accused of civility violations but I am not seeing it in this case, a diff would help since maybe I just missed it. But either way I think he is right wrt to WP:BLP and attribution in that first link. Sædon^talk 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Can this please become some sort of WP:BOOMERANG? User:Legacypac doesn't like what I post. That's because I believe that WP:BLP and "Innocent until proven guilty" actually mean something. Almost every time I have interacted with him it's been to point out that his attitude to those two principles is simply wrong. He pretty much ignores them. And if anyone has been abusive, and threatening, and destructive to the article, it's him. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Innocent until proven guilty" is the best argument you could be making. It's certainly something I believe in but it's less relevant than, at least according to what I've read, the argument that we cannot possibly *know* what happened because it's based on eyewitness accounts (viz. the victim). This isn't like science when you can say point to a scientific consensus and thus feel comfortable in calling evolution a fact - this is unverifiable by any of us and possibly anyone else. But I don't think it's a boomerang so much as a misunderstanding .Sædon^talk 03:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, isn't "innocent until proven guilty" a guideline on Wikipedia? I remember reading about it on a policy or guideline page a few weeks ago. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If User:Legacypac misunderstands WP:BLP, it's not my fault. Several of us have been persistently correcting his breaches of that policy, and copping abuse and rather silly responses in return. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I see a lot of back-and-forth, unhelpful bickering which needs to stop from all sides in all of these disputes, but I don't see any name-calling or insults or other forms of personal attacks. Doesn't mean that anyone is in the right here. In fact, I see that no one is behaving in a way that they should. No one wins. You should all be happy with that. --Jayron32 03:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• HiLo has an established record and this report, unfortunately, comes as no surprise. The only surprise is that it comes from Legacypac, who is not a very courteous editor, to put it mildly. In other words, pot and kettle. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if you paid a little attention to "Innocent until proven guilty" too. That post says "I don't like HiLo, and I assume he is in the wrong." Not nice, nor helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Note that I didn't say anything about your edits, in this case or elsewhere, and don't see any reason yet for any kind of action toward you. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

While discussing HiLo48's contributions on Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio, it would be entirely remiss to not also look at the way Legacypac has routinely violated WP:BLP policy there. This sort of thing [139] seems to be the norm for Legacypac, who utterly refuses to even pretend to abide by 'innocent until proven guilty' norms, and instead proclaims the suspect's guilt at every opportunity - I'll not bother with more diffs, the talk page is littered with Legacypac's WP:BLP violations. Note too that Legacypac's response to having the obligations of WP:BLP policy pointed out is to accuse those referring to at as making 'personal attacks': See the posts at Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio#Daughter's age and Unborn Victims following the initial one I link (from 06:13, 11 May 2013). I can see very little reason why someone who shows such contempt for core Wikipedia policy should be permitted to edit any BLP-related article at all, and am seriously considering proposing that Legacypac be topic-banned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, take a look at AndytheGrump's and HiLo48's posts on this sectionstarting with Support for this is irrelevant before putting too much stock in their assessment of my alleged incorrect understanding of BLP policy and their alleged expertise in it. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to post in this discussion any more unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Wikipedia's discipline processes are a disaster, allowing anyone with a beef to write anything they like about an accused, with no chance that that person can defend themselves effectively. We already have User:Drmies and User:Saedon dragging up alleged (and obviously completely irrelevant even if they did happen to be true) sins of mine from the past. Never a helpful approach. So, I retire for now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to retire. Stop acting like a diva. You may choose to ignore your past (and how others perceive you), but retiring "for now"? Come on. Doc talk 04:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, Given the context, I think by retiring he means he's going to stop posting in this discussion for now. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Doc9871 has misread HiLo48's statement. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not misread the first post on HILo's user page. YMMV... Doc talk 04:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That was added a month and a half ago so I don't see how it proves that mentioning retiring in this instance meant leaving Wikipedia.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Look: I understand that "retiring" means different things in our common language that separates us. "Pissed" means "drunk" everywhere in the English-speaking world except America, where it means "angry". I apologize for my mistake. A month and a half is not exactly "ancient history". I know HiLo better than I do you, so we'll just continue on with the premise that I simply misread what he said. Doc talk 04:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• And HiLo completely misread what I wrote, but that's by-the-by. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• No personal attack None of the supplied diffs shows anything like a PA, but one of them points to Daughter's age and Unborn Victims where Legacypac states "HiLo48 kindly stop with the personal attacks". Yet in that section all we see is that Legacypac is misguided about how an article on a crime should be written, and declines all advice offered. It is almost certain that a known person will be found guilty of severe crimes, yet articles still need to be written in the correct manner, and Wikipedia's voice should not be used to say things like "X imprisoned Y" until that is a finding in a court. If the same lack of clue is evident in other BLPs, AndyTheGrump's suggestion that Legacypac should be restricted with a topic ban is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, Legacypac is a serious disruptor in BLP cases with only a limited grasp of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. This became clear to me on the talk page of the Boston Marathon bombing article, where they were constantly present, didn't give a **** about the BLP (and I doubt they had even read it at the time), and were among those who are the Wikipedia equivalent of rubberneckers and want to stick every single thing in an article, without consideration for relevance or BLP applicability. Moreover, they were routinely badgering their opponents (not just me) and gave evidence of some serious battleground mentality, which is why I've been avoiding them. So if HiLo defends the BLP guidelines or a BLP in heated language toward this editor, I understand, and Legacypac running to ANI is par for the course. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• From what I can see, no personal attack was made; and HiLo48 is quite right about the presumption innocence until proven guilty. Extra care should be exercised when editing articles on legal cases that are currently still being disputed in court. Incorrect or bias information here can have significant real world effects, which can result in mistrials in court, depending on the severity of the bias. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I think Legacypac's attitude towards BLP absolutely needs to be taken into account when considering HiLo48's alleged personal attacks. (They've both been a bit uncivil, but "personal attack" is a stretch.) HiLo48's interactions with Legacypac on the talk page in question have, in large part, been to address BLP violations and to attempt to help Legacypac understand BLP; it's easy to see how said violations and continued misunderstanding of BLP could make it difficult to interact with Legacypac while maintaining complete civility. (That's not to excuse incivility, but I'd rather see slightly uncivil behavior than see BLP issues go ignored.)

Even after the lengthy BLP discussion at Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio#BLP disaster again, Legacypac continues to misunderstand BLP ([140] [141] [142] for example, and that's just since the long talk page discussion.) Frankly, I don't blame HiLo48 for being a bit uncivil when another editor continues to create BLP issues even after repeated discussion. Both editors could stand to be a bit more civil, but Legacypac's misunderstanding of BLP is greatly contributing to incivility towards himself/herself. (Edit: To clarify, I refer to incivility in the mildest of terms; nothing that rises to the level of needing to be on AN/I itself. But BLP contributing to it is what concerns me.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not start this thread to debate who understands BLP better. I started it because I got tired of having uncivil things said about me and an WP:IBAN seems to me an appropriate way to help the other editor away from focusing on criticizing me and my understanding of policy and back to improving articles. At the beginning I also said I will be essentially self imposing an IBAN vs them to keep things on track. If Admin's determine that an IBAN is not appropriate - no problem. I'm a big boy and I'll deal with the situation in other ways to avoid further conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Well, we need to discuss the entirety of the situation...and what I see as repeated failure to understand BLP certainly seems to be a factor here. The long "BLP disaster" thread and related discussions would not have led to this AN/I thread if that was not the case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Even in this discussion HiLo48 is all over attacking me and my understanding of policy instead of addressing the validity of an IBAN. I do find it ironic that in allegedly defending BLP an editor proceeds to make bold negative assertions about another editor (a real living person just trying to contribute to WP). If there is a specific concern about a specific edit concerning a BLP let's talk about that in the appropriate talk page. Consider this section starting with Support for this is irrelevant before judging who may grasp BLP correctly - a whole line up of editors are saying that AndytheGrump and HiLo48 are incorrectly interpreting BLP and this unusual interpretation of BLP applied to other parts of the article is the source of some of my comments in other sections. Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"If I don't ignore this user in the future, I'll accept an IBAN against me without argument." Are you asking for a temporary one-way IBAN in the meantime? They don't generally get approved. An IBAN means you both cease and desist the bickering and mentioning each other equally, period. Doc talk 07:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, Legacypac is on extremely thin ice after receiving a last warning from me for restoring poorly-sourced material onto a BLP after one warning. I don't want to be heavy-handed here but I encourage any admin to block if he fails to acquire a clue pretty soon while continuing to work on highly controversial and visible articles. --John (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Even as an editor who has previously expressed concern with HiLo's conduct, and one who lacks the sanguine attitude of some towards editors who are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, I'm seeing very little actionable here regarding HiLo in those diffs. He's stridently defending BLP without overstepping the line. If Legacypac wishes to be treated less scornfully, perhaps he should stop editing in ways that are firmly proscribed by BLP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2013 (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.

Yet another questionable BLP edit by Legacypac

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

---

In [143], a sentence is changed so it is unclear whether the rape was reported as part of the allegation, or whether the rape is an independent fact used to clarify the first part of the sentence. The sentence can be read either way in the modified version due to the use of "despite". Legacypac's rationale and my response are here: [144]. I think this needs to be addressed, given the above discussion and previous warning. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just banned Legacypac from making any edits about living people for a year under WP:BLPBAN. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac has just made another edit to 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio: [145]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Before taking this hasty did you look at the discussion here where the edit was clearly explained. The line as it stood could be BLP violation against DeJesus (and it just read wrong). I was not trying to make the rape a fact, only that it is a fact she said she was raped, not she said she was allegedly raped. The diff pointed too is not the whole story. I request that another Admin look at this too. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't believe anyone thinks you were trying to make it a fact; but that doesn't excuse you from inadvertently doing so, which is the actual problem. That edit alone would normally be trivial, something to be further copyedited without note. But I brought it up on AN/I since the matter of you violating BLP was already an open issue here in respect to the discussion above. You can ask Salvio to clarify his rationale for the ban; but the fact is, you were warned about being careful in respect to BLP, yet made several more questionable BLP edits after that warning, so I imagine the decision was made on that overall basis, not because of any single edit. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban, with regret. Even now the editor is justifying themselves rather than learning and improving their edits. BLP on high-profile articles is too important to leave to those with scant understanding of what constitutes acceptable sourcing or where to draw the line between reporting a crime v. an alleged crime. --John (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

John's warning was based only on his disapproval of a source (the Daily Mail). Others restored the information into the article using other sources, and the lines he did not like are still in the article last I looked. It seems unreasonable to suggest that I can't present evidence to oppose a 1 year topic ban. Perhaps innocent until proven guilty and assume good faith do not apply to WP. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the warning isn't even relevant. What seems more important was that even after lengthy talk page discussion, you continued to violate BLP several times, including an egregious violation on the talk page itself [146] (which I just removed; I am not certain you have fully read WP:BLP to realize it applies to talk pages too.) In the talk page and WP:AN/I discussions, you replied not by trying to understand why basically everyone was insisting you were violating BLP and wrong about the policy, but by insisting you must be correct with no reasonable justification for such. You need to read WP:BLP more carefully, and understand why these were BLP violations. You may have luck with an unblock request if you can explain why your BLP violations were such, to show that you understand the policy. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First it was not "everyone". Second, the reason for the warning is relevant if it is a reason for further action. Third the section you just removed on the talk page was very clearly a discussion about how to improve the article and 100% couched as opinion about how the case might proceed and how we should reflect the sources. I don't care if it is there or not.

The alleged edit that you called a BLP issue was to a sentence that can be read several ways as per the talk discussion. Your reading essentially said it stated that with my edit, a rape occurred (maybe a BPL violation against Castro). Once you explained how you read it, I can only concur that it is possible to read it that way. My reading was it misquoted DeJesus by saying she said she was "allegedly raped". (maybe a BPL violation against DeJesus) The answer is to clarify the sentence, not to run to get me banned for an alleged BPL violation. If my edit was a BPL violation, than so is your edit. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly weren't banned for a single edit. If you wish the ban to be lifted, you'd do a lot better to provide evidence that you understand WP:BLP policy and are willing to abide by it, rather than quibbling over details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't see a problem with your last sentence in that diff? (The only part I removed. [147]) Vocally stating as fact that a suspect is guilty of a crime, and that no possible sentence will be sufficient? If you cannot see the problem with such statements, you do not understand WP:BLP. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly weren't banned for a single edit. Indeed. I topic banned you because you have repeatedly violated BLP both in mainspace and on talk pages; you were informed, counselled and warned that your edits violated policy and yet you persevered. So, now, you are restricted from making edits about living people across all namespaces, until you show you have a full grasp of BLP. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban, I've seen Legacypac get away with these sorts of things far too often. They should consider themselves lucky it's not a lengthy block, to be honest. And the irony of their above comment is astounding. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And than we have this interesting Talk page contribution [148] Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• This thread is not about HiLo48. HiLo48 had not even contributed to this thread at that point. Although their comment is not exactly appropriate, it has absolutely no relevance to this thread and bringing it up here is also completely inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• support the topic ban (non admin). Legacypac undid edits that had been made on BLP issues, and were being discussed on the talk page, and broke the 3RR to do this. When I gave Legacypac a 3RR warning about this, he said he was replacing { cn} notes. Legacypac does not seem willing to discuss matters like this, and has claimed other editors are making personal attacks, whilst using similar language about other editors himself/herself.Martin451 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• I too support the topic ban. I don't recall any interaction with Legacypac before the Cleaveland article, but he has repeatedly violated BLP there and repeatedly failed to understand why his actions were violations. That imho is the core of the issue, he doesn't deliberately set out to violate BLP he just has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the policy is and why it is important. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• It's worse than that. He has been repeatedly told by many editors what the policy is and why it is important. He either doesn't like it and thus chooses to ignore it, or is displaying incompetence. And when he reports other editors here for doing the telling, he is really disrupting the project. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2013 (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.

Aryanism and other drivel redux

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.

---

Correctionperson (talk · contribs) (not a very promising username to begin with) is at it again. Can I get some help, please? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as diffs go, just scroll through the contribs and click one at random. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you specifically point out the problematic diffs? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Like he said, all of them. Anyway I think it's all been reverted now, though honestly, accounts like that should just be indeffed (and what's up with so many of these showing up lately?) Volunteer Marek 23:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing in the recent edits that warranted a block. It appears to be a content dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There was plenty.Volunteer Marek 23:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Plenty worthy of an immediate indef. If it was worthy of a 48-hour block 49 hours ago, it deserves an indef now. And now we're all scum. Should I really have to break out Robert's Rules and deliver an address to parliament to have this dealt with? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely after the personal attack here (which has already been removed). --Kinu ^t/_c 00:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kinu, I was about to do the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And here I didn't even know I had power to abuse! Thanks, guys. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 13 May 2013 (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.

List of Doctor Who planets vandalized

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

---

Can some admin look at the above article? The page has been replaced by the text (can post screenshot if needed): <trolling redacted> Other Doctor Who related articles may also be worth checking. Thanks. 50.148.126.15 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, {{Doctor Who}} was vandalized. The vandalism has been reverted, the accounts responsible have been blocked, and the template has been protected. Thanks for letting us know! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 06:12, 13 May 2013 (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:Dananmohammad

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

---

User:Dananmohammad has for some time been engaged in edit-waring at the article Muhammad in the Bible. There have been repeated attempts to engage him in discussion at his talk page, at the article talk page, and at the fringe theories board page (Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Muhammad_in_the_Bible_redux). Danamohammad simply interprets every objection to his unreadable version of the article as evidence of anti-Islamic bias. Yesterday I attempted to change tack by demonstrating that we can create a workable NPOV article on this topic using legitimate sources. I hoped this would show him that we were not just attempting to suppress the "facts" he claims to be presenting, and would stop him edit-warring. User:Stenen Bijl and I created a new version of the article incorporating useable aspects of Dananmohammad's version. It had no effect. He just plonked his old version on top of the new text [149] yet again. On his talk page, he added another long rant culminating in a legal threat aimed at User:Mangoe: "I remind you are responsible of your actions and I could sue you even if u are in the north pole." [150]. He also appears to be saying he will continue to edit war indefinitely [151]. It has proven impossible to engage this user in useful discussion, despite continued efforts, so action is, I think, now required. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally have done little editing to the article, other than rendering one passage in a more neutral voice and reverting another addition which didn't make a whole lot of sense in context. I also, however, reverted him wholesale once. I'm not that strong on scholarly work on Islam, so I have warned Dananmohammad several times that his straight-from-scripture exegesis wasn't going to be acceptable, and pleaded with him to find scholarly sources. His response to this has been to state that the primary sources are scholarly and various other statements indicating that he is utterly unwilling, for whatever reason, to replace his analyses with secondary research. Statements on his talk page indicate (I'm afraid I have to be blunt about this) utter incompetence in working with the biblical materials; for example one edit was justified with a claim that ancient Greek lacked vowels. Various people tried ignoring his useless version and laboriously pieced together something fit for an encyclopedia, but he has simply overwritten this with his own version eleven times, by my count. I don't care about his childish legal threat, but his absolute lack of cooperation and his apparent inability to do the kind of work needed for this have been given far more toleration than he ever deserved. We still need an Islamic expert to help on this article, but he surely is not that person, and he needs to be prevented from editing that article. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just ran across this - I blocked Dananmohammad several hours ago, for the aforementioned edit warring and legal threats (which I stumbled over independently). It's an indef until he retracts the legal threat, after that, I'm happy for any other admin to reduce it to the usual 24-hour edit warring block, or do away with it altogether if they see fit. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:52, 13 May 2013 (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.

Montessori education

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

---

There is some edit-warring going on at Montessori education.

I have tried to get Rrvishewar to discuss the change that he/she wants to make to the article but my post on the article talk page has been ignored and my post on the user talk page has been reverted. Other messages on the user talk page have also been reverted.

The latest revert by Rrvishewar has undone some unrelated changes by other users.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Too late! I went to {{subst:ANI-notice}} the user talk page and found the user has now been blocked. Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also blocked the recent obvious sock User:Edupreschool. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

173.160.102.113

173.160.102.113 (talk · contribs) already has a uw-vandalism4 on his talk page, and has vandalized Some Like It Hot here: [152]. I haven't done this before, but since uw-vandalism4 is a "last warning," does that mean a block is next? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The "last warning" was two months ago, and there is no reason to expect that this is the same editor. Apteva (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, even a week ago a proper change was done with the reason given in the edit summary. [153] It appears dynamic so I see little since in doing anything other then re-warning for the current edit and moving on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"sense". Apteva (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Viriditas

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.

---

Literally this user has been reverting every single edit that I've made on Wikipedia. And that's not including the fact that the user is lacking basic civility, such as labelling my edits as, "not an improvement." and unfounded and unproven accusation of sockpuppetry...would be great if any administrator on Wikipedia would be willing to look into this. Gobbleygook (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The report filed by Viriditas at WP:ANEW was declined by User:King of Hearts pending the report filed by Viriditas at WP:SPI. I see no point in continuing this counter-report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Bbb23. If the SPI closes as "Not guilty", then this thread may have a place. Until then, it doesn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then you might as well block me now, because I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the user is a sock, and the results of the SPI won't change my mind one way or the other. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• You heard it from the user and I'll leave it up to the admin's to take care of this. :)Gobbleygook (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPI ended. Similar editing, apparently not a sock. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do we have a templated warning for abuse of the word "literally"? Drmies (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Talk Page Unblanking by Warned IP Address 201.76.115.245

Administrator User:Bongwarrior blocked User:Marcos Infeliz as a vandalism-only account and blanked his talk page. IP address 201.76.115.245, who had been given a final warning for vandalism, unblanked the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcos_Infeliz&curid=39371177&diff=554937550&oldid=554936164 Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP is blocked. It's clearly the same user, and probably one of a recent string of them you can find by following the edits. I've just been considering whether it's an open proxy or not, probably methinks. No matter, he gone now. Not much else to do. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

I proposed the article on Amiram Goldblum for deletion because there is substantial evidence to prove that the article is an autobiography. The user who created the article has been accused of sockpuppetry. It seems like mostly very partisan people edit the article. I'd like to hear the opinion of experienced users. If I'm wrong in proposing the article, I would like to know why. Thank you very much. Nataev (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was created by Soosim; I have heard no suggestion that s/he is a sockpuppet. Please remove that unfounded allegation. Further, the creation of an autobiographical article, or editing of an article about oneself, is not forbidden, and is certainly not grounds for deletion of an article edited by many editors about a prominent individual. And if you think that "partisan" people should not be editing the article, I presume that you will also be recusing yourself from it. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

At best, Nataev was not wrong in prodding the article once -- but he was certainly wrong in restoring the prod once it had been removed and in trying to insist that only an admin could determine its outcome. Not hard to see how this ANI section will turn out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would also suggest that this edit summary is a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, OK, he is a "prominent person"! I'm not willing to spend any more time discussing the article on this "prominent" juvenile who wrote an article about himself. Best, Nataev (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Juvenile"?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's a rather odd characterisation. According to the article, the person is in his 60s. That's not an age considered juvenile in probably 99.99% of the world. If the OP is calling the person 'juvenile' for reasons other than age, that's likely a BLP violation and/or a personal attack. Or does the OP not know what 'juvenile' means or did the OP either fail to read the article they kept trying to PROD? Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article subject and other editors

The edit summary linked above [154], shows Nataev referring to Golblum as an "idiot". There is now an edit on the talk page where Nataev refers to Goldblum as a "pseudo-scientist". In addition Nataev is attacking other editors, calling one of them "pathetic" and "a joke" [155]. I don't think this editor should be editing in this particular topic area and in fact should spend a brief period not editing at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nataev thinks he is entitled to his own opinion. He is pretty sure that only an idiot would write an article about himself on Wikipedia. He is not interested in "this particular topic" at all. He is just amused by Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Nataev called Goldbum himself "pathetic" and "a joke." Let's not forget that it is Goldbum himself who has written the article on Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

...and calling the subject of the article names would be a WP:BLP violation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Nataev didn't know that! You see, he is a new user! Well, not really, he is just kidding. But he is making progress. Goldbum has taught him to talk about himself in the third person. Nataev (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So, talking about yourself in 3rd person is ridiculous; calling an editor names is a violation of WP:NPA; calling the subject of an article names is a WP:BLP violation; creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb ... between the lot of you, you all need to go away and fix things. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with this: "creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb." So, a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb. That's my whole point! Seriously though, I don't want to spend any more time on this stupid matter. Nataev (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong and warped logic. Very smart people (PhD's for example) do stupid things all the time (like drive while drunk). To say "a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb" is, well, dumb. On Wikipedia we comment on edits, NEVER on the contributor - period. Nor do we ascribe traits the way you're trying to, because that's just plain dumb (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thank you for sharing with us your ingenious philosophy. You're indeed very smart. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Goldbum taught me new words like "lier", "vandalizer" and many others. You taught me to use the apostrophe when forming the plurals of capital letters used as nouns. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Offtopic comment about Bwilkins. Take to his talk page or file a new WP:ANI report on Bwilkins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BWilkins, you yourself keep commenting on the contributors. Just now you indirectly called Nataev "dumb", twice. (Faz o que eu digo, não faças o que eu faço.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC) It seems clear BWilkins is referring to the behaviour rather then the person. Perhaps not the best way to handle things, but they do have a point that there's been a lot of silly behaviour all around. In any case, this thread is likely best closed. The behaviour I've seen while poor does not rise to the level requiring admin attention (even more so since Nataev has said they intend to withdraw). As others have said, once the PROD has been removed, it can't be re-added, and there's no need for an admins involvement (well unless someone keeps trying to readd the PROD). Take if to AFD if needed although as also pointed out, whatever the merits of the article, you should have more than it being created by a user with a COI. And stop the personal attacks of BLP violations, or this will rise to a level requiring administrative attention. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Nil Einne, if I say that your "behavior" is (e.g.) immoral, then I am suggesting that you are immoral. It's just a simple logical step. You see, that is something BWilkins has done in the past, and keeps doing. As an admin, he should have learned to be more respectful by now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC) No. It is not a logical step; it is an assumption, which may or may not be baseless. Because we assume good faith, such an assumption is assumed to be baseless, and therefore in need of proof, if made at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Except that it wasn't "offtopic". See the title? "Personal attacks on article subject and other editors". (Sounds very on-topic to me.) Anyway, it seems that pointing out double standards is always very uncomfortable (for admins); Please revert this after you read it, Dennis, thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• This post by Nataev (which was deleted by a subsequent edit to ANI) and the others in this section do not suggest that Nataev intends to stop making personal attacks or to edit I/P related articles (particularly BLPs) with the appropriate attitude. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In that edit I clarified what I had written before. I have no idea why Robert McClenon deleted it. It's fine if with me if the Goldbum article is kept. It's not the end of the world. Goldbum is such a trivial person that not that many people read about him anyway. Nomoskedasticity, I have far more interesting and important things to do than discuss an article about some (personal attack again removed) scholar. Nataev (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So apparently it's not enough that Nataev wants to post personal attacks on BLP subjects on ANI itself. Someone else removed the phrase "obscure, semi-literate scholar" from the post immediately above (consistent with WP:TPO -- and Nataev then restored it. Again I suggest that there's no sign of improvement here, rather the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators: Please note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Administrator_instructions which helps you leave templates on users pages. If they ignore you evidently you can advance to tougher sanctions. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update. Black Kite blocked Nataev for two days and I have indefinitely topic banned him from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum under WP:BLPBAN. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops guess I spoke too soon, for the record I support both actions mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've declined the third unblock request from this editor, who has threatened to retire. I urged him to take some time off, but also to dive back into something non-BLP and non-drama. Obviously, the topic-ban remains in place, even as the block expires in a day or so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor has objected to my characterization of their comment as "threatening to retire". The editor indicated, in their unblock request, that they were considering retirement. I regret the error. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice regarding handling offensive user page

Please see the user page of St.HocusPocus (talk · contribs). I'm pretty certain that it is both offensive and out of line, but I wanted to ask for advice on how to handle this, what to cite, etc, as I haven't really addressed an issue like this before.

(I know ANI prerequisites are usually notifying the user, and trying to work it out beforehand, but I haven't done this because I figured this topic was more about me wanting advice on policy and enforcing it rather than needing actual intervention. I plan on handling it myself, outside of ANI, once I know what to say. If this is wrong, I'll gladly notify him though. Thanks!) Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to notify. Whether or not it was okay to come here before a direct approach, you have to notify the user now that you've started a discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing anything particularly actionable here. Can you point at which section of WP:UP#NOT you think it meets and why you think it needs "immdediate" intervention by a Administrator? It's relatively tame compared to some of the "It makes the eyes bleed" user pages I've seen. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think it was especially appropriate to be calling a group of people "self-righteous racists". It kind of goes against the entire second paragraph of what you just linked to, if you ask me. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:UP#POLEMIC. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, compared to some of the of the truly polemic comments and content and referring to it in such an oblique manner I personally (even though I'm not an admin) don't see anything actionable. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur. Compared to what I've seen pop up at MfD at times, this page is particularly meh... If you feel strongly that it should go, my advice would be to talk to the guy or nominate it for deletion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I guess I haven't seen any bad ones in my time here then. It stuck me as rather offensive, and not conducive to creating an encyclopedia. This certainly isn't my area of Admin expertise though. My approach probably would have been something along the lines of "Hey, people find this offensive, and its frowned upon per WP:UP#POLEMIC, so I was wondering if you would remove it." but it looks like thus far that's not in fact people's reaction to it, so I suppose I won't bother, unless someone says otherwise. At least I know what to cite for the future. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You find it offensive that I took offense at being called a "hilljack”? Really now, I'm 'out of line' for calling a 'goth' a racist for using a racist slur? But calling someone a ‘hilljack’ for liking a genre of music a ‘goth’ doesn’t like isn’t out of line?

Your views are warped, mate.

To clarify this, the term ‘hilljack’ didn’t offend me on a personal level, as I am not a southerner in any way shape or form. If I must clarify further, for the sake of this explanation, I am a white collar northerner who happens to be extremely liberal and socially progressive. What I found offensive was the self-righteous attitude of most self proclaimed ‘goths’ that I’ve had the displeasure of communicating with whether online or in real life…that they are somehow superior do to their taste in music and their taste in clothing.

The person in question who originally tossed the ‘hilljack’ term at me, was someone with a limited understanding of music, who was under the impression that the band “HIM” is a metal band, and who views anyone who listens to “metal” as a redneck, and because I added the band “HIM” to the “List of gothic rock bands” page (with a wealth of reliable sources to back it up) he/she got upset and couldn’t see past his/her self-perceived social superiority and called me a hilljack for it.

That was the issue. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't believe I've ever heard of the term "hilljack" before. It must not be something people say where I come from. I had no idea it was such an offensive word; without knowing the background, that sounded like it had all of the offensive edge of calling someone a "jerk face" or something. That being said, the point still stands. Its not like "two wrongs make a right". Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something? Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So you find my finding of somebody’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive? You’re not making sense. - What ‘still stands’? For one, this is really none of your business, though you’ve taken the liberty to make it yours, and unrightfully so.

“Its not like "two wrongs make a right".

This isn’t a moral objectivity lecture. Refer to the above paragraph. I am in no way, shape, or form ‘in the wrong’ for taking outspoken issue with stupidity.

“Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something?”

You can’t be serious. I don’t need a defense because there is nothing to defend. Do you honestly think you are putting me on the spot here by questioning my moral compass in an issue you have nothing to do with?

Again, refer to the first paragraph. You seriously take offense to my taking offense to someone’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive?

Your main goal here seems to be to make a mountain out of a molehill. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My problem is that your wording gives a blanket accusation for an entire group/subsection of people as racist. Your userpage says What wonderful people those “Goths” are, huh? Sad to say my real life encounters with these self-righteous racists haven’t been much different. Why you've chosen this to define your identity here is beyond me, but regardless, my problem is that you've chosen to label "Goths" as a whole as racist. (Full disclosure: I'm not a goth, don't know any, dont especially like goth music. I just figured that policies like Wikipedia is not a soapbox and no personal attacks would apply in situations like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and fully acknowledge that, yes, the text on my userpage is a generalization and that I've displayed a double standard here by 'being pissed' that someone would generalize all 'metal' listeners as rednecks, yet appear, by my wording, to generalize all 'goths' as racists. I realize this and will acknowledge the rules in the links you provided. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize, I did not mean for this to be such a big deal. I had originally intended only to get advice on how to talk to you, and then just talk to you privately about it, but I was instructed that, once I had mentioned you by name, I had to bring you into things. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Editor's Possibly Threatening Others over AfD

I have started a few AfD's on some non-notable pages. One of the editors of the page, who is the subject of the article himself took to one of the AfD discussions and issues at minimum a somewhat untoward remark and at most a threat. You can read the discussion here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undertow Music, specifically, "your attempted deletion is motivated by personal vendetta. looking forward to seeing your next show at bentley's" (Bentley's is a local establishment in Champaign). I thought admins should be aware that the discussion of that AfD has gotten heated due to the subject of the article being involved. Other related AfD's are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Andrews (artist manager) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard. Jamminjimmy (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no threat issued or implied against Jamminjimmy. I found out he is a local musician who plays somewhat regularly in my town. i enjoy music. It was nothing more than a friendly gesture hoping to diffuse the situation. But this user does not tell the whole story on why he is choosing to target these articles for AfD. User fails to mention that he has personal and legal issues with the subject of one of his AfD requests. He joined wiki the same day he lost a court case against the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard and began editing and then requested speedy deletion of that article. I disagreed and undid some of his previous edits. He then turned his attentions towards me and issued AfD request on the other two articles mentioned above. One of which I am the subject, the other is the record label where I work. He also opened a sockpuppet investigation against me that was closed after finding no abuse on my part. And now he is complaining about me here in this section. He's trying to harm my reputation because I disagreed with his edits. His only Wiki contribs are issuing these AfDs, the unfounded sockpuppet investigation against me and now the complaint here. Is vendetta the wrong word? Revenge? I'm not sure what else to call what he is doing here? If there's a better word or phrase for his actions I'd be happy to revise my comments. I don't know this person in real life. I never heard of him until all this wiki nonsense started and then I read about him on the local newspaper website. That's how I found out about the court case and his legal issues with the original subject of his wiki attentions. Should i post a link to that news story for context? i'm not sure of the policy on that. If you look at his contribs you'll find this user is clearly abusing wikipidea and using resources here to seek revenge. He should be banned or at least be blocked from editing the articles mentioned here. I would like no further contact or interactions with him. Please look at my wiki history going back to 2009. I have no previous conflicts or controversy until this user began harassing me a few days ago. Thanks for taking the time and I'm sorry you have to deal with stuff like this. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What you're looking for is conflict of interest. I'd be more interested in how a 5 day old account knows the meaning of speedy deletions, PRODs, SPIs, let alone raise them. Blackmane (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Something else he should be checking out is WP:OUTING. How many pages does Bob get to identify Jamminjimmy on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what is interesting is that the only "bothering" of Bob I can see here is asking for his page and company page for deletion via AfD as WP:AUTOBIO. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

bothering me by opening unfounded sockpuppet investigation against me, adding this frivolous complaint here, revenge AfD on articles only after i disagreed with his edits on the don gerard article. All of this is explained above. Noted that Hackwayinteresting is a new user and the only activity has been targeting these 3 articles and is now under SPI as being connected with Jamminjimmy Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

i didn't know what WP:OUTING was until i just read that link. i'm not that familiar with how wiki works on stuff like that. any sort of conflict like this is new to me. i'm not trying to make an excuse. thanks for pointing that out. now i know. i'd be happy to edit whatever i posted that's considered outing. i'm not trying to break the rules or cause this user harm. i just want this person to stop bothering me. It should be noted that his username is also the name he's known by around town. which leads me to believe he wants the people he's hassling to know it's him. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Hackwayinteresting is blocked for being sockpuppet of Jamminjimmy--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

An Jamminjimmy has been blocked for socking. So perhaps this is worth closing until there is a repeat performance? Blackmane (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

STEFF1995S/Innano1

WP:INVOLVED is certainly applicable enough here that I'm not going to proceed with a block without consensus. When I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013, I thought I was dealing with a routine case of a good-faith editor using a bad source.

As I have dug into it, though, I have found that Innano1 is actually evading one of my old blocks. He admits at User:Innano1 that he is a resurrection of STEF1995S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I blocked 28 Dec 2010. Innano1 simply picked up four days later. His use of bad charts has been better, with one notable exception: he has started a blog at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro/ (see http://www.blogger.com/profile/02260736934288394777 for the details of the blog owner: clearly the same person) where he creates his own version of a defunct chart and then uses it as a source in Wikipedia articles.

I'm inclined to reinstate his indefinite block, but am concerned that other might see that as vindictiveness on my part. Thus, I invite someone else to do the honors.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to invoke WP:SILENCE to say that no one finds this a case where my level of involvement would interfere. I'll give it a few hours, but if no one comments, I will proceed.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would be a good block. User admits to being a block-evading sock, has deliberately manipulated external links to try and keep their dodgy edits in place, and I don't see how WP:INVOLVED should stop you from blocking someone who is this clearly evading an existing indef (and has done so for two and a half years) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of objection, his block has been reinstated.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good job. I've added the sockpuppetry template to both users' user pages, hope that wasn't too bad a thing to do as a non-admin! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing by user:Casprings

user:Casprings Is canvassing editors in an RFC/U against me. While the audience is not completely biased, the tone of the message clearly is.

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U.Casprings (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings writes the messages in a very negative tone against me and in a manner that I should be topic banned. I believe this to be in retaliation to my objections to a FA submission of theirs. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings has been notified. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CANVASS is explicit that the wording must be absolutely neutral. I agree that this absolute requirement was not met in the many posts made, including non-neutral posts on ArbCom pages. In addition, the behavioural guideline states: More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. Collect (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Collect's excellent comments. This is, without question, a canvassing violation by Casprings. Ironically, Caspring's failed in his apparently clever attempt to word his message in a way that would prevent a canvassing complaint. Because here we are. Please take note of how he said, "You are invited to endorse this..." but did not invite the editors to oppose. Not to mention of course his preface of "There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban". Overall, his invitation - to about 20 editors, no less (see his May 12 contributions log between about 18:00 and 18:20) - was not even close to neutral and I feel that a sanction of some type is certainly warranted. For the record, I do not know Arzel or Casprings at all; I have never crossed paths with either of them in any articles or discussions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree that it is blatant canvassing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I directed a single statement to every person that was involved in the discussion on user:Arzel, which took place here. My audience was not picked by me and was the audience that took part in the discussion. The message is simply a summery of the events and the course of action of the arbitration committee.Casprings (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is there some argument that the words "clear consensus" do not fully describe the results of the discussion on user:arzel? The number of editors involved that voted for a topic ban and the arguments provided, do provide a clear consensus of the opinion of those who took part in the discussion. Providing what is a fact is not non neutral. Casprings (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• For starters, you are drawing a conclusion and using it to persuade others to your point of view in your notification. That is a no-no for neutrality. " There was a clear community consensus..." etc. Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok. Notifications should only be saying what is taking place and where, not why you think it is needed, or how you interpreted the previous discussion. Save that for the RFC/U itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that this note about an RFCU violates the principle of neutrality, both the focus on a (supposedly) already established consensus for a topic ban and the invitation to endorse the filing. When I first saw the note on a user's talk page, I thought it was put there because Casprings wanted that particular user as a co-endorser (which I think would have been totally fine), but the note didn't appear neutral in any way, and shouldn't have been sent en masse to potential commenters. Iselilja (talk)
• Everything Dennis Brown said is right on the money. His comment, "Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok", was precisely what I thought when I read the message. Doing that would've resulted in this neutral version: "You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here." All the obvious attempts at persusasion in between were highly inappropriate. By doing that, Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started. Also, sending it to 20 editors is a separate problem. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• What Dennis Brown said. It's not your job to draw any conclusion. That act alone violates the neutrality requirement. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You all make good points and I accept that I could have worded that better. My apologies to user:Arzel. I should have took more effort in wording my statement. Casprings (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if that poisoned the well or not. It wasn't the worse violation by any means but it was a violation, and I can accept that it was a good faith mistake, but even good faith mistakes can have negative consequences. Not sure what the fix is here. While sanctions aren't necessary, there is some potential damage, and I'm assuming those notices are still on those talk pages. At the very least, I would expect you to go fix them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Same as the above with an extra emphasis on one point. An wp:an or wp:ani on a vague/general behavioral claim is just a place where anyone who is willing to do mob violence and who wants the person gone or on reduced editing can show up and deceive/mislead with immunity. The result is not by any stretch of the imagination "community consensus", doubly so when someone is overreaching and giving their personal view on the result. North8000 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Dennis... Casprings can try to reduce any potential damage by going back to the 20 editors he canvassed and either (1) edit the message for neutrality (as shown above), or (2) simply remove the message if it hasn't been replied to (or striking and explaining it, if it has). IMO, that would show his sincerity in fixing this problem and, as a result, put an end to this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have started, and will continue to work on it. Casprings (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Each message was either deleted or struck. Without any objection, I am going to post the following message on all the talk pages:

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.

That is a neutral statement that informs all parties of the WP:RFC/U. Any thoughts? Casprings (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I commend Casprings for accepting responsibility for his error and working hard to correct it as best he can. I see that he has gone back to the talk pages of all the editors he contacted and removed or struck, as needed. As far as Caspring's intention to go back and message all those editors again, I think it's a very bad idea. After everything we've been through with this issue, it's the last thing he should do. My suggestion is that he simply drop the issue and move on. He's done a great job of cleaning up the mess and I think he should just leave well enough alone. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to post as long as it is done to everyone who participated. Once out, it is hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube so the solution is always going to be less than optimal. All you can do is the best you can and learn from the mistake, just as all we can do is assume good faith based on your actions and willingness here. I appreciate the timely action with this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It sounds like a number of people are trying to derail an RFC/U where there would appear to be substantial content on which to comment based on an asserted violation of a peripheral procedural aspect to the filing.

It should be noted that out of 19 votes on the AN/I, 14 supported a topic ban with 5 opposed. So the metaphors about "poison" are just diversionary rhetoric.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your claim of diversion is bad faith and wrong. I didn't participate in that RFC and have nothing to gain. But I can see the blatant canvassing violation and the effect it has. Not only does the notice draw conclusions, it actually invites people to endorse his RFC/U. The implication is that if you aren't going to endorse it, you're not welcome. As I mentioned, I didn't participate in that RFC. I see other editors here that didn't, yet see the violation. You, on the other hand, did participate and voted against Arzel, then were quick to jump into the new RFC as well. Is it really a diversion, or do you just not like it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all, the suggestion relating to the RFC was made by Arbitrators during the ongoing TPm case. Since my interaction with Arzel is limited to the TPm, it might be objected that my endorsement based on that limited interaction is somewhat out of the scope of the suggestions relating to starting an RFC. The only issue with the notification by Caspring has been addressed by Dennis Brown in this thread, so the repeated cries of "poison" seem to represent a type of IDIDN'THEARTHAT and diverting attention from the main issue at hand of the RFC.

Most of us have been waiting for the decision of the Arbcom case before assessing what might be necessary subsequently, but in light of Casprings taking up the more widespread issues relating to Arzel's editing conduct in response to AGK's comment, it does not seem too far afield to pursue the RFC, which has generated a fair amount o interest already.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let me start be pointing out that I've not opposed the notion of a RFC itself. I've opposed this one running as is. Since this is already in the ARBCOM domain, I think that this RFC is not needed, but I wouldn't necessarily fight it. So to call my "repeated cries" of poison IDIDN'THEARTHAT is really not AGF. I'm addressing Caspring's conduct and the results of it specifically....and THAT is the topic of this thread, isn't it? As I mentioned on the RFC talk page, I find the urgency and hardline stance interesting. An editor made the statement that "anycase people dont get out of trouble for disruptive editing because someone else makes a procedural mistake". Well getting Azrel "in trouble" appears to be the real goal for that editor. Regardless, in the real world, actual criminals are set free over procedural error. In the real world, tampering with a jury pool can set a murderer free. But in Wikipedialand, apparently jury tampering can't even bring a mistrial. Curious indeed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure most of those editors hadn't even seen the message yet. I really feel that it would be better to let this matter rest now that Casprings has done such a good job of handling the problem. Why reignite the fire? But I'll defer to Dennis' judgement and experience if he disagrees. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will go ahead and post the neutral message. I did learn that I must watch the neutral nature of these statements, not just post it to all that is involved. Again, thanks for bring the issues to my attention and doing so in such a logical manner. I appreciate everyone's input. Casprings (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Casprings, can you please wait to allow time for other editors to comment? It was only 40 minutes ago that you posted about your intent to re-message every editor. I don't see any need to rush. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I see that it's too late. Casprings posted here at 2:51 and then started his re-messaging blitz at 2:52. Ugh. I don't understand why you asked "Any thoughts?" if weren't going to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to respond. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry. Didn't see your message. That said, each editor now has a neutral message.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Will I saw that Dennis saw no issue and you deferred to his message. The other reason is that a WP:RFC/U has 48 hours until it closes, unless other users join. I made a mistake about sending it in an un-neatral manner, but those involved in the discussion needed the message ASAP. Casprings (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Going back and lining through it doesn't unring the bell. You got too over-eager to make your case and screwed up. Needed it ASAP? You mean you wanted it now, right? Those results you refer to sat for months inactive, why the hurry now? Wonderful that you accept that, but the better thing to do is stop pursuing this and, if it's as big an issue as you claim, someone else will start one and hopefully not poison the well the way you did. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Casrpings... yes, I agreed to defer to Dennis and was waiting for his reply. But he hasn't replied since I said that. And of course it didn't mean that other editors would have deferred to Dennis. And you started the RFC/U only 10 hrs ago, so there was absolutely no urgency. I honestly can't believe you re-messaged all those editors less than an hour after asking "Any thoughts?" here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Niteshift36. It's best to withdraw the RfC/U. You can't unring a bell. The ANI Casprings refers to became the current ArbCom case. But Casprings didn't comment at the ArbCom when he had the opportunity. Why bring this action now? And the canvassing has poisoned the well, as Niteshift36 has noted. Arzel would not get a fair hearing on this. It should be administratively closed. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• We now have two editors who agree with me that Casprings should drop the issue and move on. As I first said here about eight hours ago, "Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started." 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who received the original solicitation, I disagree that its content was sufficiently beguiling to warrant withdrawal of the associated request. Conversely, the tone of this very discussion is eerily reminiscent of those which have prompted such intervention in the first place.   — C M B J   08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removing them won't really help. I don't know about you, but I actually read edits made to my talk page. Even if you removed it, I'd still see it and the poison tree still exists. As for whatever this conversation reminds you of, I wasn't involved in any of those, so I'll presume you aren't making some blanket statement that includes me. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to work to make the RFC/U's opening statements as neutral as possible. Despite my admitted mistake of not watching the wording of my first statement, it still went to a controlled audience, the members who took part in the first discussion. Since those members already have some degree of knowledge of this, I disagree that the "bell cannot be unrung" and so forth. If there was damage done, it was relatively minor. I made a good faith error, which I am sorry about. However, I see no argument that my message, either first or second, will change the mind or taint the views of the audience it was sent to. I would argue that the RFC/U should be allowed to continue. There are issues there, at least in my view and the view of others, and those issues should be allowed to be explored. RFC/U is the best tool to explore the possible problems and shutting down the RFC/U only concerns to ignore the concerns of 14 editors who saw a problem. Casprings (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I struck my endorsement of the RFC/U and supported it being closed. Again, I am sorry for the mistake of creating a non-neutral statement to start this process off.Casprings (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Casprings made mistakes here but acknowledged and addressed them in a very friendly and cooperative manner. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Time to close? Since Casprings has not only acknowledged his errors, but I think learned a lot in the process, I agree that this should be closed. The RFC/U itself is closed. Perhaps an uninvolved admin will take care of this. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Time to close Agreed. Yes, the RfC/U complaint was withdrawn and therefore closed. Time to move on. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over NPOV tag on Narendra Modi

This article has been subject to aggressive editing by tenacious editors over the past few months. At this point of time, there is an ongoing edit-war over whether the article should continue to retain a {{POV}} template on the top of the page. The discussion over the use of template on the article page, which is only supposed to be used as a measure of last resort, can be found here. This probably needs attention of an uninvolved party due to hostile revert-warring by an editor with biased views. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus has gone ahead and posted notification messages on several discussion pages (regardless of their relevance) soliciting comments on a half-baked RfC that they have initiated on Talk:Narendra Modi. Obviously, the tone of their messaging amounts to canvassing, specially after their post on the Wikiproject on Pakistani politics discussion page. A list of these pages and the textual content is available below:

RFC on Nautrality at Narendra Modi
"Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral."

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics (Not sure why this is relevant for this article?)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gujarat
• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a current thread about this article at BLP/N, which is where it should be discussed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread is mainly about aggressive behaviour of an established user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan is presumably relevant because this relates to a Hindu-Muslim issue. comments made by Modi regarding Afzal Guru, Modi being a Hindu nationalist and so forth. I probably would not have mentioned it there but, hey, more eyes for a RfC is surely not a bad thing? It is mentioned at WT:INB also, after all, by the same person. You, NHN, have accused me of ganging-up but your focus here appears to be Maunus. Feel free to add me to your list of "tenacious editors". Good luck with that: I have been trying to develop the article, including via initiation of numerous threads at Talk:Narendra Modi. I'm not always right, of course, but any article about any high-profile politician, especially one in India or Pakistan, is almost certain to attract POV. My interactions with Maunus are minimal, as they are with others who tend to get involved in modern-day issues of this sort, yet you suspect "ganging up" and "aggression" even when an issue is still shown as unarchived at WP:BLPN and there is a recent prior thread on the talk page.

I am not suggesting that you have a bias but I do think that you have taken your eye of the ball. I've done that and, hey, it happens but in the interval while you claim to have been watching there have been massive removals of arguably non-favourable content - mostly by Yogesh Khandke - that went undiscussed, was often reinstated by others (not me), and there was not a peep out of you. So, how long has your eye been off this particular ball? The RfC is A Good Thing. Maunus suggested it and I agreed. Later, much later, you said the same thing today. So what is your problem here? - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to make the point, and with no knowledge of NHN's real life or other contributions to Wikipedia, this series of edits took place on 18 April. NHN's last prior edit was 10 April and their next subsequent contribution was 12 May. A fair amount of what was removed in that block was reinstated in one form or another and I can't recall that I did any of that. Yet I am accused of ganging up? There is clearly a lot of contention here and, alas, I've never yet seen an opening statement for a RfC that I felt comfortably covered all of the bases. This one is no different but, hopefully, all will come out in the wash. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I applaud taking the issue to ANI, hopefully this can draw attention to the page from other editors than the clique of pro-Modi editors who have clearly had control of the page for a long time since I accidentally stumbled on it about a month ago. In contrast to editors like Headless Nick, and his companions at the talkpage I do not have a history of editing indian political topics, but simply stumbled on a biographic article that was so blatantly hagiographic that I started looking up the literature to provide some counterbalance. This page and others on hindu nationalist politics need acute attention from as many experienced editors as possible which is why I started the RfC and why I advertised it as widely as possible (which is clearly not canvassing under any definition of the term, and which is also not nonneutrally worded). As soon as other editors start chipping in I am fully content to leave that topic area, and let other editors form a consensus. But as long as it is maintained by a group of editors who appears to act as an extension of Modis own Public relations team, then someone will have to provide some balance. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

While I have in the past seen massive edit warring over obscure facts, this is the first time I'm seeing it happen due to a tag. Reinstating the tag by Maunus seems a bit childish to me, a lot like trolling. Clear consensus must first be established on this matter before we put up the tag. As I stated last night, the tag is being misused. Just because the tag exists, and several sections of the article are allegedly tilted for or against the subject, there is no reason why tag exists. Seems more like a case of 'The tag exists and there therefore must be inserted into the article'. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Puting the notices on the notice boards, especially the way it was worded Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral was to sensationalise the whole thing. Sitush, note that Afzal Guru was an Indian citizen, puting the tag on the pakistan politics notice board especially with such wording is clear mischief .-sarvajna (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline on canvassing explicitly states that the wording of the messaging should be neutral. Maunus, a former administrator who recently resigned "under a cloud", does not appear to care for such trivial guidelines on the encyclopedia and employs aggressive tactics into dominating and bullying other users. This effectively poisons the atmosphere and rules out any chance for productive discussions and dispute resolution. The behavioural guideline further states: "More importantly, recruiting too many editors for dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember, the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it." Maunus's bad faith editing is laid bare by their employment of biased wording and posting of messages canvassing involvement in the dispute on pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics which is not relevant for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording is neutral and this is not canvass. If you repeat the accusation of canvassing then I hope you will back up the accustation with action so that a real admin can come a long and tell you what is and isnt canvassing. Also your accusations of bad faithy are becoming pretty intolerable. From my very first edit to Modis article which you reverted (using twinkle! with no edit summary) you have been casting aspersions about my motives.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The evidence has been documented above. You will also need to read WP:TALK to understand why it's not polite to double indent the comments you post. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps. As I said, I would likely not have mentioned the RfC at the Pakistan project & I've never yet seen a well-formed RfC, although Afzal Guru was convicted and executed by India as a collaborator of Pakistani jihadists. I cannot read the mind of Maunus and was merely speculating as to why they did what they did. Perhaps I should not but when I am seemingly among those being accused of ganging-up by an admin who even after coming here seems note to have read recent discussions, well, ... some attempt to balance things out seems reasonable. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How is Narendra Modi connected with Afzal Guru? Because he made some comments on the Congress government in relation to his treatment? Would that mean that everytime Manmohan Singh says something about an Indian national who has Russian collaborators, every dispute on his biography must be referred to the Wikiproject on Russian politics? Stop wikilawyering and read up WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have made unfounded accusations against me. You certainly have not been following the article development and talk page particularly well. That is your problem and it just happens that the manner in which you have failed to do this is working out to be favourable to Modi and his extremely effective PR machine (not my POV: his effectiveness as a political communicator is well-documented). I doubt that it is deliberate on your part but while I would not have done things in the way that Maunus has, I can understand the frustration that might arise in this situation and I note that the terms that Maunus used are ones that are commonly applied to Modi. Running here crying "foul" when you are clearly not completely au fait with what has been going on - the open BLPN thread, for example - might be ok in strict policy terms but the fault may not all be on one side here. You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV and hassling at least one person (ie: me) who has been working hard to improve things in an almost peer-review manner while generally sitting on the fence when it comes to the issues surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots and how we depict Modi's cult of personality or whatever it is perceived to be. I, too, sometimes fail to handle things well but at least I acknowledge it. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you have changed the thread of the discussion from Afzal Guru/Pakistani politics Wikiproject to Narendra Modi's PR machinery. How is the chatter about his PR machinery relevant here? Your actions and words denote that you seem to be holding some strong opinions about the individual, which in by itself is not wrong, however to keep bringing up the same subject out of context over and over again and claiming that the person is so controversial that his article shall remain controversial forever does not really help the encyclopedia or contribute to the further development of the aticle. In the past month you have labelled the subject of the article as an "arch-manipulator", while also claiming that most other politicians are as well. How in the world is that even relevant for discussion on an article talk page? By extension of your logic, shouldn't the PR machinery of these other unnamed politicians be working against the subject of the article? More importantly, please drop the passive-aggressive attitude by trying to sideline discussions on the actual problem with behaviour of users on the article. Only recently you accused another editor of making "Modi-apparatchik type of edits". Are you trying to claim that the other editor is a paid agent of the Gujarat government? Do you think similar accusations can be made against you given your previous comments on Narendra Modi?

Frankly, this discussion has been rather exasperating and I am going to take a step back and do my own research on the article. You are welcome to do the same. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything against you on the ANI, I wonder who is making accusations against whom, let us not getting into how effective one's PR machine is neither ANI nor wikipedia should be bothered about that.You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV Are you saying that the edit-waring of Maunus should be ignored? You seems to be more interested in protecting Maunus here, I agree that recently you have not gone into content disputes and the other clean up work that you are doing is surerly appreciated. There are more than one editor and many were not involved in the article like me since past felt that the tag was not required but Maunus seems to think other way. Do not consider yourself a sole torch bearer of NPOV. -sarvajna (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have provided links to the various accusations above. The timing and the wording obviously relate to me as much as to Maunus. Someone has not done their homework here before spraying around accusations of tenacious editing, POV and ganging-up. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Given the substantial amount of accusations leveled against me here from editwarring to canvassing, "ganging up" and "mischief", I would like to ask what administrative action is being sought in this thread?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• If someone adds a neutrality tag and provides evidence on the talk page, then you need consensus for its removal. I see an RfC in progress so we should just let that run and close this discussion before somebody says something they're going to regret later. I'd do it myself but .... --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have really cared to see the RFC does not give any reason or evidence about why the article is not neutral, rather it asks a question "is the article neutral" so we are not sure. Having NPOV tag and giving the current RfC as the reason is meaningless.-sarvajna (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sarvajna, but flogging this on ANI is a losing approach. It would have been better to have focused your energies on modifying the RfC (because what is or is not neutral is a good question to ask) than to try to give this affair a behavioral flavor by bringing it up on ANI (I know, you didn't bring it up). I suggest you go back to the talk page (where, imo, your point is actually a good one) and deal with the issue there.--regentspark (comment) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User claiming to be the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party wanting to remove article.

User:Kehlstein, who in an edit summary claims to be Stephen Goodson, the leader of the party, is repeatedly removing sourced controversial/negative material from the article, and requesting/demanding that it be removed. To me the material seems properly sourced but I would appreciate if an administrator took a look at it, and also decided what to do to Kehlstein/Goodson. "User:Kehlstein" is a single-purpose account that has only ever edited Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party and Stephen Goodson, meaning that there's a COI too, and has been given a final warning for repeatedly deleting the material. Thomas.W (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, they've been given a final warning and haven't blanked since. Shirt58, operating under the alias "Peter", has left them a note; let's see how that goes. If they return to Goodson, that article should probably be tagged; if they return to that party article and edit like they did before, they should be blocked indefinitely. Also, good luck to you, South Africa. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That should actually be "Peter, operating under the alias 'Shirt58' "... Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A new user, Paardekraal, has just popped up and edited Stephen Goodson, in effect identifying himself as Stephen Goodson in the edit summary of one of his edits to the article. I have reverted his edits, issued a {{uw-coi}} to Paardekraal and tagged the article with Template:COI. But that's as far as I'll go, so from now on it's your problem. Thomas.W (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kehlstein filed with CU request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Kehlstein and Paardekraal have been confirmed to be one and the same in the SPI. Confirming that Stephen Goodson has been abusing multiple accounts while trying to remove (well sourced) negative info about himself. So I guess an indef block on User:Kehlstein would be logical, and well deserved. Thomas.W (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary at Stephen Goodson

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

User:Paardekraal, who self-identifies as the subject of this WP:BLP [156], has posted an obvious legal threat in a recent edit summary [157]. User is notified. [158] - Sperril (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely BLP territory, so I would ask where is the source showing the article subject is a holocaust denial. The legal threat is a separate issue but we need to iron out both. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a cursory examination and the relevant sections of the article and they appear to me to be well-sourced, but I would certainly welcome further review. I have never edited this article and have no idea who this person is. I found the legal threat while patrolling the contributions of new accounts. Sperril (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article is well-sourced. I also listened to the interview on youtube, and, if anything, the sources understate his anti-semitic views.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to be able to source exactly the extent of his views. The holocause is a big lie is well sourced, but has he ever stated he admired Hitler? I was trying to find that part. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to say "admiration for Hitler's policies" [159].--I am One of Many (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)]

Regarding the legal threat, I have given Paardekraal a standard-issue NLT block. Haven't looked into the verifiability or otherwise of the holocaust denial claim. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by this edit summary User:Kehlstein is also Stephen Goodson (in the edit summary Kehlstein identifies himself as the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, that is Stephen Goodson). Kehlstein has been used for deleting controversies and negative info about Goodson from the article about the party (see current discussion here at ANI). Thomas.W (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Kehlstein and Paardekraal have been confirmed to be one and the same in this SPI. Confirming that Stephen Goodson has been abusing multiple accounts while trying to remove (well sourced) negative info about himself. Thomas.W (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Pacific (TV miniseries) edit war

The situation at The Pacific (TV miniseries) is getting out of control, and requires the intervention of other editors and administrators. As I am involved in the dispute, I will try to give as complete an accounting of what has happened as possible, acknowledging that I am, in part, to blame for the edit war.

Niemti made a series of bold changes to the article, but offered no edit summaries or explanation for the changes he made. I reverted, stating in my edit summary: "Such an extensive rewrite and rearrangement of the article requires an explanation; discuss on talk." I then posted on the talk page, stating that I did not find the edits helpful and hoping that we could discuss the matter.

Niemti did not respond until the next day, posting a series of messages, in which, instead of showing a willingness to discuss the issues, he stated that they "totally obvious for anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a while" and questioning if I understood the meaning of the word "synopsis". He then reverted to his preferred version of the article. I responded to his talk page post, stating that his attitude was not helpful, and citing WP:BRD, I reverted his changes again.

Fearing the situation was getting out of control, I posted a message on PresN's talk page, asking him to keep an eye on the discussion. PresN never responded, but Niemti did, posting a series of messages in which, frankly, the sarcasm and attitude get even worse, and in which he admits to canvassing to get an uninvolved editor --- "I just informed JTBX (who had such problems with this user before) about this discussion, so he can tell more, hopefully leading to some action regarding this problem (it's about time)." --- to join in the fight.

Today, he reverted again and I reverted back, which I think puts us both at WP:3RR.

What I would like to see happen here is for other editors to join in the discussion, for Niemti to curb his attitude, and for us to move forward in improving the article. The latter may only be able to happen if Niemti and I stay on the sidelines. The atmosphere now is so combative, I am not sure we can work together at all. But, the situation cannot be allowed to continue. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is a bold choice for Niemti, who has just narrowly avoided being banned more than once due to civility and OWN issues. He's on extremely this ice and is well aware. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite is owning basically every article he's watching, reverting any kind of edits (I wasn't even inseting literally anything, all of it was just basic copyedit of a badly written article) unless the edits are explained to him for a reviev and accepted by him, which he calls "consensus", in a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. He does completely unilaterally, without explaining his problems (at all, instead simply claiming that "none of those changes seemed necessary or helpful" without elaborating) and he does also even in violation of 3 reverts rule ([160][161][162]). This need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're not following WP:BRD? Or waiting until there's a consensus on the talk page before reinstating your information? Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" with what, with whom? Do you call "consensus" a supposed necessity for getting an approval for performing even a simple copyedit work from someone who thinks he owns articles (plural, as in multiple articles, LOTS of them) on Wikipedia, and so he needs to review everything before any change can happen? copyedited literally thousands of articles, I don't remember having problems with aquiring "consensus" for that from anyone else. --Niemti (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, with sources or consensus, if someone is challenging it, then your answer is yes, it is necessary. (Excluding bad faith trolling type stuff, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Consensus for having a badly written article? Consensus for my edits being in fact "necessary or helpful", while it wasn't even said why he thought they were not (and all of them)? That's ownership and demands for edits to be explained, reviewed by him and then (maybe) approved, which is discussed in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (and which needs to be stopped). And once again - its's not just about me or this article. --Niemti (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for your proposed changes. Quite frankly, upon looking further, both of you are acting unreasonable. One of you demands and explanation for the changes, without stating why he needs it, (Jacobite) while the other refuses to give an explanation, when it would just be easier to explain why you made the actual changes (Niemti). Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it's not just about this article or me, it's about his ownership of multiple articles and behaving like that in regards to other editors as well. Also, as for "and OWN issues" - it was regarding the user who is now banned precisely for literally screwing up articles[163] (I was right about him all the time), a completely different situation as you see. --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but part of it is about this article, and you avoiding a real response on that is exactly what I'm talking about here. Neither one of you are discussing the heart of the problem, you're both just barking out vague questions to the other one, and then just responding with more questions. One asks "Why no edit summary?" and the other just asks "Why do I need one?". If you guys would start answering each others questions maybe you'd get somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries are optional, while ownership of articles (and it's not about just this one) is not allowed and is the real problem here. It's hard to say how much damage he did with indiscriminately/whimisicaly reverting people's edits like that, apparently for a long time (years?). --Niemti (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point, edit summaries were just an example. My point is that one of you asks "Why did you do that?" while the other just asks back "Why did you do that?" Both of you need to explain your edits to one another on the talk page. You're both too busy cooking up another "zinger" to discuss anything of substance. Beyond that, you haven't given any proof of this huge, multi-year/article spanning OWN conspiracy you keep referring to. You gave a single dif showing one other time you disagreed with him. You're going to need more proof before people start listening to that, otherwise there's not much to discuss yet there... Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's because I know this guy, and I decided to not play his game (someone got to make a stand, and I'm glad it went here). Okay. Happy now? Now, the "OWN conspiracy" (at least 215 reverts out of 500 last edits). --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I need to run out the door, but two quick points- 1, I would not describe a back-and-forth with 1 revert on one side and two on the other as an "edit war", and 2, the canvass accusation is a bit rich seeing as it was quite clear that you only contacted me vs any other admin because you thought I would take the not-Niemti side in any argument. --PresN 16:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

2 reverts on my side (plus edits), 3 on his. --Niemti (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Although Niemti does have a fairly abrasive approach to people sometimes and that has gotten him into a lot of hot water. In this case, his edits did indeed expand the article. Sure, edit summaries would have helped but aren't required and wholesale reverting the, what I think are, constructive changes to the article was not the way to go about it. Quite frankly, the article should be reverted back to the version post-Niemti's changes and a discussion kicked off on the talk page rather than going the classical BRD route since there was nothing untoward in Niemti's edits. Blackmane (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not enough. He needs to cease ownership on ALL articles. As I said, that many, many articles where he constantly blocks attempts by other editors to improve them, demanding "consensus" with him, and calling his versions "the stable version" ("stable", because he reverts back to it). I don't think I even have to say how harmful this is, and it needs to stop right now. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you show some difs for this? Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

[164] and the discussion above it (JTBX can tell you more about it). Also notice how he never even responded (and so his "stable versions" remains). Apparently, Gareth Griffith-Jones is also in it. I'm pretty sure just glancing over their edit history might reveal lots of it. (I can also recall his semi-automatic revert of my cleanup-rewrite of one of Clint Eastwood-starring spaghetti westerns.) --Niemti (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that their names have been mentioned, I've left a notification on JTBX and Gareth Griffith Jones. Blackmane (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This film was A Fistful of Dollars (Sargecross wanted me to find it, so I did). --Niemti (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Some other examples of untold damage done by The Old Jacobite to Wikipedia:

• The writing is horrible. Portions of sentences like "tries more and more drastically" give the appearance that this was written by a middle school student on lunch break. RepublicanJacobite, from the edit history and talk page, you seem to have longstanding WP:OWNership issues with this article. That wouldn't be so bad if the writing weren't quite so dreadful. My edits improve the quality of the writing. BRD is an essay, not a policy, and not an excuse to block people from improving your favorite articles or changing them from your preferred version. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that this artice is in need of clean up, however, any edits done to improve the article are being reverted and at many times without cause. For example, any edits explcitly stating that William Wallace did not have an affair with Isabella of France are often reverted along with any edits that explicitly state that Edward III was not the son of Wallace. Instead, the article has a vague passage that Isabella was 3 years old at the time leaving the reader to infer that that an affair could not have happened without clear indication that the two were never involved even later in life. There is no reason for such a run around. This [this], [this], and [this] are just a few examples of this. In fact, even adding the fact this was historically inaccurate was a point of tension with the first mention of it being reverted without good cause despite its factual accuracy as seen [here]. Additionally, this article contains certain statements which seem bold to state without any reliable sources to back them up. An example is that the article makes the connection that the Stone of Destiny was returned to Scotland as a result of this film. A citation is going to be needed for this claim. Additionally, for some reason Anglophobia has its own section despite it's light content and even though there a cultural effects section where it could be merged into. I'm afraid it looks like two editors have taken strict ownership of this article based on edit history and WP:DR will be the next step if such reverts continue without valid explanations. TheLou75 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) (the other self-proclaimed owner in question: Erik)

• Mr. T.O.J., I tend to disagree with what your saying. This particular article is not a "collaborative project". If it were, you would allow me to edit without reverting my changes giving no plausible explanation. Aside from one section, the Awards section, you haven't compromised on any of my changes. You constantly ignore everything I've been saying. If anything, I've been the only one making compromises so far accomodating a portion of your selected complaints. Your also not making any effort to review the content that I put forth. It doesn't take that long to view a few small sections of improvement. I'm not asking to you to review a novel. You are exhibiting clear ownership qualities in relation to this page. A portion of what your saying is also incorrect. There hasn't been "multiple editors" who disagree with my changes. Its been entirely you and another editor who neither seem to have their facts straight after being proven wrong. I've been more than patient waiting for your response to the improvements. You have yet to do so. Do you have anything helpful to add or say to the points and issues above that I mentioned? Or do you want to keep on ignoring what I have to say, and continue doing nothing? Your not cooperating. Moovi (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And so on. --Niemti (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, while we understand you feel strongly about these matters, some recent issues have given plenty of editors reason to drag you to ANI and other places for slight or moderate civility concerns. I endorse bringing any content disputes to DRN in the future for the simple reason of opening it up to new eyes and documenting cases in which can prove your patience and dedication in future problems. Niemti, you do acknowledge your short temper, but it would be in everyone's best interest to get a centralized mediation on any issues concerning your editing for the time being. We want to help, but if you are not being calm and remaining civil then the community is going to ostracize you and you will be perpetually skating on thin ice. You do good work, but I think you need to remove yourself from conflicts and substitute in other editors when your changes are contested. I frequent DRN now and it is a smooth if albeit slow process. In order to prevent yourself from being blocked over your questionable and sometimes hostile responses, I think a little 'editor incubation' needs to occur and your arguments and defense of those edits need to be made by proxy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a condition of participation in Wikipedia that editors be willing to discuss edits and collaborate in a constructive manner on improvements and changes and fixes.

BOTH EDITORS here need to remember this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Both"? Like it's only about me? How many more examples of "Mr. T.O.J." owning various film/series articles and blocking other editors' work do you want me to provide? Because I can do it. --Niemti (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't, "Mr. T.O.J." did. I use this occasion to highlight the enormous damage that he did to a large number of Wikipedia film-related articles (blocking many people from working on and improving the articles). --Niemti (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright then!

• Well, I beg to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's assertion of article ownership with mass reverts. He didn't think someone would one day challenge his monopoly-type authority. He basically came in there, sort of did a whole bunch of mass reverts, giving unplausible reasons for doing so, and being proved wrong on virtually every count. He's attempted to use false reasoning as a poor excuse for being opinionated. The DVD version of the film can be used as a reference as has been done so in FA nominated articles like American Beauty. The overuse of images is complete nonsense. He was upset that an image for example, appeared in the Plot section. There's no Film Project rule that says you can't have a photo in that section to illustrate a character relationship. Other FA articles have had them in the past. All the photos include complete usage rationales. As an example, a similar photo/rationale is present on the Avatar film page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg Yet it wasn't deleted. User Erik has decided to jump on Republican's bandwagon and sort of give an unplausible explanation for removing the pics saying they were not "compelling enough" reasons. User Erik is simply giving a double standard. I've placed the correct rationales: low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. I'm considering reverting that edit. Its completely unjustified. The friendship piece with Glenn and Costner details a character development relationship that occured during the filming of Silverado. It needs an expansion. Does that mean that this particular piece should be deleted in the meantime? I mentioned already the issue of the Blu-ray/DVD info regarding Amazon on the talk page. The reference is not being used for reasons of spam. It was used for one precise point: to note a particular release date. Websites like Amazon or Barnes & Noble are not user edited. Again, I don't believe there is a Film Project rule that asserts you can't use an ecommerce site just to simply reference a release date. And if I might add, Alien vs. Predator, another FA article does reference Amazon for a piece of content too. Cite number 39. DeWaine (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly, I am surprised, Andy, that you did not trot out your old "article ownership" accusation, as you seem to do every single time we have any interaction. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) (Andy = Andy Dingley, another user who was repeatedly being blocked by "Mr. T.O.J.", back then posting as RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive)

That's seven different users (me, JTBX, Balph Eubank, TheLou75, Moovi, DeWaine, Andy Dingley) in at least eight different articles, but the very some problem. Enough already for admins to stop ignoring it, or talking about us "both"? Or how many more examples I need to give you to get up and act, after this has continued for a long time? (I wonder, how many people got their edits summarily reverted and didn't even know?) --Niemti (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why RFC/U exists. Your tone and conduct show little civility and a clear frustration with the user, but responding in kind is liable to get you punished because most of us are more familiar with your actions then Jacobite's at this point. When deciding between two wrongs, who do you think is going to get off easier? No one? The quiet one or the loud one? I don't know, but you should seriously consider your tone in your responses. Even now it sounds like you are blaming admins for not being proactive with a situation that were unaware of. 7 editors having a problem with Jacobite's alleged OWN is exactly what RFC/U is for. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, one can be a nearly complete asshole on Wikipedia for many, many years before anything is done about it. The keyword here is nearly and it translates as extreme rudeness but avoiding extreme incivility. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to be off topic, but 5.12.68.204 is blocked for ban evasion. No link to who it is, but should it be collapsed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So how can I get you more familiar with this huge amount of damage to Wikipedia? How long would I keep quoting the various other people saying the same thing, before it stop being seen as only between "us both", as it was only my edits in one article being reverted for no reason? I think the situation is just extremely serious, and actually much worse than I originally thought. It's just too bad it's seemingly only me who thinks so (here and now). --Niemti (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Also it's not just "7 editors", it was just 7 of my examples (random ones). That's a world of difference, you know? I could list many more people who were reverted like that for no good (or simply just no) reason and somehow didn't like it too. That was just a few examples, because at one moment it was thought here like it was just about mey edits and in one article (while even I've got reverted like that by him in more than one article), or maybe just me and JTBX (and JTBX who was called over here can take it over from me, because now yes, I'm just frustrated, I excepted to see a launch of substantial effort to repair at least some of the damage done, maybe by estabilishing and contacting all the wronged users and encouraging them to now go back and restore their edits, and turns out it's nothing there even "actionable" at all). --Niemti (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment That's quite the laundry list of offenses you have there, Niemti. Regarding the discussion, I think everyone can agree that your edit was sound. Your civility toward Jacobite, however, was not entirely sound. That being said, I see nothing actionable for either side. Laundry lists like this tend to generate more heat than light. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? So this "laundry list" is still not enough for it be "actionable"? It just doesn't matter how many (I don't know how many, but I have a very good reason to believe it was LOTS) constructive edits were lost because of that - the work of people who didn't even know they were reverted (and they were reverted little to NO reason), people who thought it's not worth it to fight for their good edits to be approved by a self-appointed owner of many articles (I don't know how many, maybe very many), people who still fought (and I quoted the people who fought) but lost (and I've seen it too)? How many articles are kept in a bad state only because of that - not because people didn't try, and didn't work on them, sometimes the best, but because they were simply not allowed (contrary to the idea of "anyone can edit" and the anti-ownership rules), and all their work was destroyed! And you still refuse to do anything about it? I must say it's quite...surprising. I excepted something else. But, well. I can't say I didn't bring it to public attention. Now it's all your ball, I did my part and I'm out (but severely disappointed). --Niemti (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I'd be a lot more motivated to assist you if you weren't so condescending and abrasive every step of the way. We're all volunteers here; why help someone who is so difficult themselves? You've been accused of OWN issues a ton in your time here, and you refuse to address anything said about you, you just point the finger and anyone/everyone else - every single time. Life's too short to assist angry people who wouldn't appreciate my efforts anyway. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No I wasn't (unless by this guy, and now you too know this guy). Anyway I provided a plenty of leads to investigate (into something potentially very serious, or at least relatively, one might not call anything on Wikipedia a serious matter), and so my role ends here. (But you can call me if it's needed to give even more examples.) --Niemti (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not seriously denying the fact that you've been accused of WP:OWN issues in the past, right? Because it was one of the central issues brought up in your recent RFC/U. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Which was about AnddoX being AnddoX. How's your own experience with AnddoX? Please tell me, I wonder. --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you even check the links? Did you really think I wouldn't? Per your RFC/U: An IP, not Andox. Masem, not Anndox, Birdies, not Anndox. Etc etc. Come on, stop the misdirections.... Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you "stop the misdirections". OK? And now I'm really done, and I hope someone will take this seriously, as it should be, and act on it in a proper manner. Out. --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be misdirection, it was an explanation in response to your "outrage" how no one's really listening to you here. No one wants to waste their time helping out someone who is difficult and condescending every step of the way, and has been accused of doing the same exact thing (ownership issues) in the recent past. Feel free to continue to be bewildered and "severly disappointed" with Wikpedia, but the truth is that you keep shooting yourself in the foot by the way you act and treat others. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you would ever understand it's not about "helping out" me, but about the others who were and still are being artitrarily blocked from editing by him for no valid reason - which I thought I made clear again and again. (And no, no one has ever accused me "the same exact thing (ownership issues)" on any talk page like that, as far as I rememeber. But hey, keep on misdirecting.) --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U is that way. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)