Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas

After [1] and then [2] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [3] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy's blog for this post/blog-article. Another was to this "article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activist clashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement--  Novus  Orator  01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support an enlarged list of topics. But again the continuing problem is that all edits of Terra Novus have to be checked for a variety of issues; that problem does not seem to have been solved by his repeated promises to adhere to a topic ban. I looked at the content and sourcing of Trinity#Judaism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Terra Novus has not so far understood the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support formally extending topic ban. This user has repeatedly (barely) escaped a community ban by making very clear and explicit promises that he has completely disregarded subsequently, both in this account and in his previous one. He has been one of our most problematic editors, cumulatively costing other editors literally hundreds of hours of time dealing with his violations. Now he's claiming here that his most recent broken agreement is subject to proof that requiring him to keep it isn't some "activist" conspiracy. ( I love it how that essay is most often quoted by the very type of editor it identifies, without their apparent awareness that it identifies them. )

This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making false promises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to disclose that I've posted notification of this present thread to the talk pages of the three other admins who commented in the previous AN/I thread where these promises were made. Because I consider this thread as essentially just a continuation of that one, I believe doing so constitutes an allowed notification in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: We currently have comments from three people who are very familiar with this user's past and present behavior, and who are in favor of formally recording the topic ban he informally agreed to in an attempt to avoid a block or community ban. Besides those having commented here so far, multiple editors previously, including Mann jess, Ncmvocalist, Hans Adler, Mackan79, ResidentAnthropologist, Torchiest, Beyond My Ken, and many others have said things like this editor's last chance came and went some time ago, that a community ban should be enacted, that any additional violations should trigger a community ban or at least a topic ban from all controversial subjects, etc, etc. I'm not aware of even a single editor who has ever disputed or opposed such statements. Apart from the editor himself, is there anyone who thinks that formally recording the topic ban against participation in controversial subjects that was previously agreed to would be unwarranted or unfair?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Terra Novus' behavior has improved for the most part since the topic ban and I was hoping we might even lift it in few months. This last AFD clearly indicates that Terra novus has not learned. Either Terra Novus' behavior needs to change quick or the way we treat his behavior needs to change. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify that, please? I'm not sure if you're in favor of vacating the topic ban that he's not abiding by anyway, or in favor of recording it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been taking a wikibreak due to personal issues, but I've read over the discussion here, and have worked closely with this user in the past, so I'll briefly comment. From his first edit, Terra's contributions have been problematic, almost universally being reverted by a broad array of users in an even broader selection of topics. At this point, it seems like he spends half his time at ANI (or elsewhere) rehashing the same points about the same editing patterns, with no indication whatsoever of improvement. The first time this issue appeared, I devoted months to walking him through policy, helping him work constructively. When that failed, I let others take over, hoping they'd give him the direction he needed. When that failed, I supported giving him another chance if he could simply demonstrate he understood why his editing was problematic. When that failed, I supported a topic ban, which achieved consensus but was never enacted. After 1 or 2 more ANI cases after that, a topic ban was finally enacted, and since then we've seen Terra at ANI unacceptably often, even still.

It's still the case that all his edits need to be scoured over by others, and I don't see any end to that problem. That is simply unreasonable. Extending Terra's topic ban is unlikely to help, since he's seen problems in every topic area he's touched, and furthermore, he's repeatedly breached the terms of his current ban at every apparent opportunity. With that in mind, I regret having to recommend a block or community ban. This user's edits are not a net gain to this project, and I see no way to remedy that. I would happily change my stance if someone could provide any reason to believe that Terra will eventually be able to edit wikipedia (anywhere) without constant supervision. I am, however, dubious that anyone will.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It should also go without saying that I support the current proposal, which is to extend his formal topic ban to include other areas. I think this step is unnecessary, and unlikely to resolve the problem, but if other editors feel differently, then I support giving it a try.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohio Standard, Terra Novus has shown this pattern of being unable to edit with out disruption in certain topic areas. I dont think widening the scope will have the desried affect in the long run. If he had'nt written a Good article in the mean time I would be up for banning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The last time I commented, I'd said "If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)". I think this is what Ohiostandard refers to when he mentions me above. I think my comment still applies today. Also, Jess's comments above are pretty compelling as to the emerging pattern here. Accordingly, I share Jess's support and reservations about the proposal if people think it will work, but I still see the ultimate resolution in this case being an indef or site ban, and it may just be time to cut our losses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• So far I'm getting the idea that Religion, Politics and Psuedoscience are areas that the community feels I should avoid. I agree. I hope that my recent editing behavior has been largely constructive, but I understand that these topics in particular are just not good for me to edit. If the community feels that my presence in Wikipedia is no longer warranted I will abide by their decision. I have unfortunately had a tendency for contentious editing, and I appreciate the efforts that the community has made to get me on the right path. I edited in good faith, but obviously not with good tact.--  Novus  Orator  06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• That ship sailed a long time ago. You agreed to avoid those areas, and all controversial areas entirely, and then utterly ignored your promise despite multiple requests to honor it. The only question at this juncture is whether to formally record a topic ban, or whether to proceed with an indef or site ban. The question is, in a nutshell, whether the community is willing to give you yet another last chance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposals (extended topic ban or community ban)

Extended topic ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed" and from all controversial articles and discussions including but not confined to those related to politics, religion, climate change and the environment.

• Support Although I am still concerned about his ability to avoid the problems that he has had in the past, his comments above persuade me to give him one last chance. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) and per Dougweller; one last chance. First choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Site ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely site banned.

• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Second choice (to allow one last chance via extended topic ban). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 Unblock request on her talk page

• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since it has been discussed here over the last few week I thought this page should be notified.

For the record I support her proposed unblocking, with one caveat, that the topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain should be included to avoid any doubt and her mentor should be allowed to add any more at his/hers discretion. Mtking (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Accept mentorship and support unblock per above conditions. Could Sarah possibly clarify whether she is seeking an immediate unblock (ie time served), or the month block she also mentions, which would be June 9 or thereabouts? --John (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have been uninvolved in this dispute entirely up until this point, but I am highly concerned about the statement in her unblock request which states "Given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists." Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the "English" as a monolithic, anti-Irish people is exactly what got her into trouble in the first place, and the fact that her unblock request contains a dig at the inability of anyone English to edit neutrally regarding Irish nationalism seems to me to show that she has no desire to change her ways. Indeed, if she can't avoid commenting on the English in negative ways even long enough to make a simple unblock request, I don't hold out hope for the change in her demeanor necessary for reintegration to the Wikipedia community. I'm not going to place a bold !vote here, but I am very concerned that she has not learned her lesson. --Jayron32 02:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I must comment here before this gets any further hyperbole added. I read the statement differently Jayron; to say it is difficult for an English person to be neutral about Irish nationalists in light of the implied reference to the Troubles and earlier conflicts is not prima facie as you wrote "treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" at all. It simply acknowledges that neutrality, one way or the other, is difficult to maintain in discussions regarding the two countries together among persons on either side. Your characterization of her calm observation of the situation as overly prejudiced and judgemental is exaggeration. Sswonk (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is difficult to maintain in articles about nationalist conflicts, on all sides. The fact that she singles out the English as being the problem is the issue here, and it is an issue because of her prior background. Every person does not get to start every day of their lives as a tabula rasa. She has a history that must be considered when trying to understand her statements. I'm an American of French Canadian and Blackfoot ancestry, I have no horse in this race, and I have never commented on nor been involved in any meaningful editing or discussion on the topic at hand. But she is not any random person making a random statement on the difficulty of editing in nationalist debates. She a specific person with a specific history of making specifically inflamatory statements about a specific group of people (the English) and that her unblock request itself makes another statement about "The English" specifically is a specific cause for specific concern in this specific case. The fact that she has a history of being unable to avoid making derogatory comments about the English means that statements she makes about the English needs to be understood in the history of her prior behavior here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In nearly all contexts past and current her beef has been with the acts of the British Empire, not with the current population of English people. That is why I mentioned that your reaction seems exaggerated, what you are writing is not what she meant. The statement that garnered the most attention before was about the application of the concept of being a "British Isle" in light of the history of famine, plantations and so on that is widely remembered in Ireland. She spoke specifically about the word "British" in that context, not about people. That situation is kind of like the fight against flying the Confederate battle flag over the SC state house that was fought by the NAACP and others, but not really comparable just reminiscent of the types of long held resentments that were evident in the US South where rebel symbols were used. The Anglo-Irish situation can and will be resolved, the visit by Queen Elizabeth certainly has been an encouraging sign of the prospects for reconciliation. At any rate, I still submit that you are misconstruing her words, I do not see anything like "she singles out the English as being the problem"; rather she acknowledges that as many others have here her block, described as "infinite" by the admin, has some issues when it is made by someone who prominently displays the English flag on his page. I don't see that as an indictment of or a "singling out of" all people English, but a statement in appeal to others to not judge her as she felt she was at the time the "infinite" block was made. I and others successfully argued that she was not to be characterized as a "racist" in the block log summary. Surely John has advised properly that she might consider NOTTHEM, I just hope to explain to you that again, she is being misunderstood and is not a one-dimesnsional bigotted, hateful person as that blocking statement seemed to say. Nothing like it, in fact. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah. You'll find that I already pre-agreed with you there; which is why I was the one who changed the blocking statement to remove the word "racism" from it. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#Sarah777_log_entry_reason for some background and check the block logs (Floquenbeam later changed my change accidentally, not because he disagreed with me but because he essentially edit conflicted with me). So don't tell me that I am treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person as noted in the first blocking statment since I was the one who changed it to remove the word. Before you tell me that I hold an opinion, could you let me know so I can actually hold it before you give it to me? That would be great. In the future, please become informed with the details before you accuse someone of the exact opposite of what they have actually done. --Jayron32 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is another example of what I am still concerned about, which is that you seem to make negative assumptions about people fairly quickly. Not only, Jayron, did I know that you had been the first to alter the statement, I also know the rest of what you are trying to lecture me about. Nevertheless, I am somehow ignorant and accusing? I need you to shout in bold letters at me that I don't know the history of this sorry case? Your change was from "racism" to "nationalism", please point out to me exactly how simply being nationalist is blockable. I am repeating, there is a distinct and important difference between "she singles out the English as being the problem" and what she wrote. "The English are the problem" is not what she wrote. To me, it was more like, "I don't think a block against me which used such hyperbolic terms as "racism" and "infinite" came from someone with a neutral stance, and given the history between the countries it is understandable this person is not demonstrating complete neutrality with those exaggerant words." Several other people have noticed the same disconcerting and obvious facts, and some implied that a block by a non-English person who wrote calmly would have held much more water. How you or anyone can write things like "Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" equals what Sarah777 wrote in her unblock request, and then in the same thread claim you are under attack by me when all I did was point out your characterization is a fairly substantial exaggeration of what she wrote, escapes me. I am not interested in making people lose their temper. If that is what the truth does to you, there is nothing more that can be said which would make me interested in discussing this with you Jayron. It is as kneejerk as the original block summary to paint me as accusing you of anything, I did not "tell (you) that (you are) treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person", but that I don't want anyone else to do that based on what you already misrepresented above. Please for your sake read and read and re-read what I wrote so you can see that I do not want exaggeration and misunderstanding of words to be accelerated here. Period. I will leave it to some of your colleagues to get you straight on that, I am done. Sswonk (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider myself highly sympathetic to Sarah's position, but I read her response exactly as Jayron32 and I agree with his assessment and share his concerns. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I take the point. I would argue that HJM's block gave an appearance of possible bias, but per NOTTHEM Sarah's unblock request should mainly concern her own behavior, something she has clearly made efforts to do. I think I would favor her serving the month's block then returning under mentorship and editing restrictions. I've made a request at her talk that she refactor the block request. --John (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) I agree as a non-involved user. If she's unblocked, the topic ban should be "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Let her write about African heads of state or cheese or automobiles; she's a very good writer and there are many topics that could use her talents. --NellieBly (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the topic ban would need to be more precisely delineated than "in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Otherwise, there will be arguments over whether particularly expansive interpretations are appropriate, such as the claim that the ban extends to the United States as a former British colony, or China because of the Opium Wars, or the Hong Kong situation. Chester Markel (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What of the proposed editing of automobile articles? I assume that fully British brands such as Jaguar or Rolls Royce would be covered by the ban. What of an article about an American or Japanese manufacturer that discusses its sales in the UK? Is the entire article off limits, or just the portion about that particular market? Chester Markel (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the article on Omega SA? While the company is Swiss, it mentions that Omega watches were worn by James Bond, a fictional British agent. Chester Markel (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a limit on "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed" would probably be to broad and over restrictive. Sarah777 should be free to edit on areas where any feelings she may have towards Britain will not be tested. Areas that should be off-limits imo should be "Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed" with the added restriction on the named pages (inc talk and project pages) above and any others that her mentor feels appropriate to add. Mtking (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also recommend that any unblock includes an undertaking to not comment (good, bad or indifferent) on the nationality of any editor or group of editors; nor to characterise any edit as being motivated or otherwise influenced by race. While she has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past, I think her main problem in this area is that she doesn't seem to understand which statements will cause offence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Sarah777 so I can't rule out that she has made "undeniably racist statements in the past". However, in the present situation there have been no such statements, and the accusation is a pretty damning one. Per WP:NPA#WHATIS ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.") I must ask you to provide diffs. Hans Adler 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of previous racist statements please see the large number of diffs discussed at length in the several previous discussions about Sarah777. Those comments are in the past and have all been dealt with at the time. I am explicitly not making any new allegations against her, because she has not made any recent racist comments that I have seen. This was the point I was making. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vague pointing to past discussions will not do in this case. I searched the AN archives for "Sarah777" and "racist", and could not find anything relevant. Given that in this case she has been accused of racism for the flimsiest of reasons, it appears necessary to be very careful. You may have noticed that I have not !voted below. It is important to me whether Sarah777 is actually a racist, or whether this is yet another case of British or Irish editors being unable to distinguish between nationalism in the Anglo-Irish conflict and racism. A racist is historically someone who believes there are distinct human "races"; in the modern sense the term also implies the belief that some such races are in some sense superior to others. Which "races" has Sarah777 distinguished, and which does she consider superior or inferior? Hans Adler 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While what you describe is definitely racism, as has was discussed recently (although not necessarily on this page), "racism" is also in modern usage applied to nationalities as well as just "races" and splitting the two was last time described as "wikilawyering" (although not by me, I agree with the sentiment). When one person engages in behaviour or speech that is excessively nationalist and denigrating to the Irish that is rightly described as racism, and so is the same when the target is any other nationality or race, including the British. If there is a term in common usage in contemporary British English that describes the same behaviours as racism against race as applied to nationality then I am not aware of it. It is this latter in which Sarah has previously engaged in. Relevant diffs are in previous discussions, where they were relevant. They are not relevant now as this discussion is regarding whether, and if so under what conditions, Sarah should be allowed to return to editing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously furious about this response. While I strongly disapprove of both nationalism and racism, there is still a huge fucking difference between them, and referring to over-the-top anti British rhetorics by an Irish editor as "undeniably racist statements" is not much better than the nationalist rhetorics itself. Yes, you are right about what this discussion should be about. Into this discussion you have introduced a serious accusation to which you declined to provide concrete evidence, and now you have admitted that you can't provide evidence because it's not actually true. The word undeniable was a lie, apparently, because most people would deny, and for good reasons, that anti-British sentiments by Irish people are a form of racism. It was seriously misleading: Up to this response I seriously considered the possibility that Sarah777 is actually a racist and I just missed it. I guess I could now call you a racist for considering British and Irish people to be different races (as Sarah777 denies that they are different races the idea must be yours)? And I guess it would be wikilawyering to insist that I stop? Hans Adler 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin. They all come under the heading of incitement to racial hatred or race discrimination, both of which can be translated from the legal to layman terms as "racism". The lack of distinction of the two is for many reasons, one of them being that the term "race" has no agreed meaning, and is often considered a discredited concept in itself. To disparage an entire nationality is racism in this sense. I suspect the U.S. has a different concept, and seems more concerned with defining "race". To describe Sarah's comments as racist is therefore reasonable, although I accept it is also reasonable to say they are not racist by other definitions. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This response is so stupid that it almost left me speechless. For discrimination laws in the UK, see List of anti-discrimination acts#United Kingdom. For hate speech laws in the UK, see Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom. If you actually follow the links, you will see that the latter are a subset of the former. Even if you meant "race discrimination" it's still two different though related things. And both of them are different from, though related to, nationalism and racism, so it's not even clear why you felt the need to bring them up. Here is a very simple exercise. Associate the example sentences with the correct characterisation:

(A) "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." (B) "According to your resume you grew up bilingually in English and Spanish. Unfortunately this does not fit into our company philosophy, which is to use the English language exclusively." (C) "I hate Canadians because they are all liberal atheist bastards with no respect for our flag." (D) "In terms of intelligence, the Jew is comparable to the Ukrainian, which makes him more dangerous than the nigger."

(1) Nationalism. (2) Racism. (3) Hate speech. (4) Discrimination.

Only a moron could get any of these associations wrong. This is as elementary as distinguishing between houses, tents and camping vans. Hans Adler 00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I could be annoyed by you calling me a moron but your post is so idiotic it's more funny than anything. The issue is not the consequence of the categorisation (discrimination, "hate speeach" etc) it's the lack of distinction between "race" and national identity prior considering the complained of act. I don't need to look up the WP articles you cite - it's my day job. Before touching the key board you need to get a better understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you really claiming you can't do this simple exercise? Presumably I must believe you now that the UK legal system is conflating these four different terms because you say you are an expert. But how far does this go? Suppose you got William Wolfe as a client because someone persistently called him a racist. Would you tell him he doesn't have much of a chance in court because everybody knows he is a member of a nationalist party? Here we are not in a British court of law, arguing highly technical legal points. (The Race Relations Act specifically defines the term "racial group" as "colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins". This is a legal definition and far broader than the natural language meaning of the term. It does not define "racist" and "racism", but instead uses less common word combinations such as "racial discrimination", to which it also gives unnaturally broad – from a natural language POV – definitions.) Here if someone writes that someone else is a racist, the majority of readers will understand it as saying that the person distinguishes between human "races" and discriminates or hates on that basis. I would not want to work in a project in which it is considered OK to label Irish nationalists individually as racists without making it clear that one is using hyperbole, in the same way that nobody should be allowed to label a specific editor as a Nazi for parading the English flag on his or her user page. And in the context of a ban discussion about a user who cannot defend herself because she is currently blocked this is particularly egregious. Hans Adler 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, I think you've only now just got my original point: "This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin." You don't like it; you think that's not what "people" think racism is. I don't agree and the evidence I gave is how this is treated in law in UK (and most of Europe). I'm done here. And next time you think to call another editor a moron make sure you've understood the point first. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to support your contention by quoting a dictionary? None of those I consulted, and I consulted a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias, even mentions a generally accepted use of "racism" for prejudice, hatred or discrimination of any kind other than that related to race. The term has come under attack as being hard to demarcate (from the Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology: "In recent international discussions, for example at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerances in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, it has become increasingly clear that 'racism' often includes extra-racial factors. In sociology, where the distinction between race and ethnicity is uncertain, it is best to limit “racism” to structures in which race is explicitly used to effect social domination."), but that doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to apply it to situations where it clearly doesn't fit. Hans Adler 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to argue over semantics on your own Talk pages. This bickering isn't helping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It would have been entirely sufficient if Thryduulf had simply withdrawn the baseless and surprising personal attack ("has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past") instead of trying to defend this lie as somehow justified because, apparently, robbery is just a normal synonym for theft arson is just a normal synonym for mischief racism is just a normal synonym for nationalism. If Thryduulf redacts the personal attack, then as far as I am concerned this digression can be removed or hatted. Hans Adler 06:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose her request. Her apology is limited to "the Nazi flag/union flag comparison" and "the pointy edits made on the contentious BI naming dispute". She doesn't apologize for her other crude anti-British remarks made at the time, which is what really got her into trouble in the first place. It seems to me this is either half-hearted or she's missed the point. She then adds "given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists", which confirms she's not going to change IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Rules for Sarah - WP:TL;DR on the rest of the commentary above (sorry; I've read other threads before) - but if the editor is unblocked, I stipulate that she must submit to ban on anything to do with The Troubles. The comments made by her were flatly unacceptable. She was entirely manic concerning the subject (I have Irish blood in me, but seriously, can we chill out a bit? The whole thing is bad enough to make Polandball cringe). Additionally, Sarah must not ever mention the citizenship/nationality of another editor if it is either British, Irish, or somehow related. She must not speak derisively of the citizenship of any subject whatsoever, broadly construed. She must not bring her battleground to Wikipedia, broadly construed, enforceable as a block by any non-involved admin (and not to be overturned without significant community consensus). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock Sarah has given assurances and has apologised for her transgression also the mentorship by John who is an admin in good standing can only be a plus to the project as Sarah has made thousands of good edits on articles not related to The Troubles. Mo ainm~Talk 09:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, with the restrictions already described, and a great mentor. I think Sarah is a productive editor with positive intentions, but is (justifiably) angry about the way her people were treated by Britain in the past, and sometimes that anger has spilled over in some places and some ways in which into Wikipedia editing, where it is not justified. Regarding the comment about it being difficult for the English to understand the way Irish nationalists feel be properly neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists, I did not read that as an attack on HJ himself. And though extending it to all English was too much of a generalization, I think it is at least in large part correct - most English, at least, most I've discussed the issue with, don't seem to me to really understand Irish nationalist feeling (and that's not any denigration of them - it's something that can't really be grokked unless you're close to it, and we did get decades of one-sided media coverage about "The Troubles" in England). As a disclaimer, I'm part English and part Irish, with family in N Ireland, and I have both unionists and republicans amongst my friends (though none is strongly in either camp - most just seem to want some kind of peaceful life) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (edited to correct my representation of Sarah's statement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC))(editied again, for clarity -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

The pages and disputes that have got her into trouble recently are not about history, but about naming issues, that essentially revolve round COMMONNAME etc, and trying to balance worldwide naming in English with the particular concerns of some Irish Nationalsts. Encouraging her to bring her "anger" into these matters is not helpful at all, not that she needs any encouragement. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything remotely like that, I'm saying exactly the opposite - that bringing real-life anger to Wikipedia editing is *not* justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified, above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• What if any are the conditions of her unblock? they need to be clearly laid out here before users can comment - personally imo her presence in any English, Northern Ireland, Great Britain or United kingdom associated article only adds to the battlefield mentality and she should be edit restricted from any of those articles. note' - Irrespective of this discussion and any additional conditions imposed here. Sarah is already indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, including all its sub pages and talk pages, for this [4] (and surrounding sequence of edits), and from British Isles and its talk page for this [5][6], which was pure POV trolling and baiting. Additionally, for the persistent pattern of battleground rhetorics and hate speech displayed in edits like this - and blocked for one month[ from Template:British English for one month. diff. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Although the unblock request contains exactly the sort of attitude (albeit toned down) that got her blocked... topic ban & John as a mentor get the thumbs up from me. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the conditions - topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and John as a mentor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock but also agree that the conditions must specifically include the current indefinite bans as well as the specific areas mentioned by off2riorob (even if they overlap). Without that I don't agree to the unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not opposed to unblock as long as the topic bans are strictly enforced. (I'm not saying "support" because I'm unwilling to go that far, but this may be taken as a non-objecting opinion.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• As far as the fist unblock request goes, the backhanded attack on HJM shows she still doesn't get it. The broad brush attack on the 'the English' shows she still doesn't get it. Her personal/political prejudices are irrelevant, nobody here is interested in them and nobody has to be subjected to them. It's not her playground frankly. She needs to state clearly and without ambiguity that she accepts as a truism that on Wikipedia, having a particular nationality does not mean you are incapable of making neutral admin actions, or of writing neutrally about any topic. This has been her problem forever frankly - a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of 'writing from the NPOV'. Her beliefs would disqualify even Jimbo from contributing to an Irish article (he once said that if he hadn't been born American he would have liked to have been British). Also, on the whole issue of a topic ban - check, and double check, the proposed wording. Her suggestion of "anything that comes under the Troubles" is completely insufficient - she is the person who once even turned the issue of how we disambiguate Irish and British road articles into an alleged part of the anti-Irish Wikipedia conspiracy, flinging out all the usual attacks and smears. I suggest any restrictions be focused on simply the issues of undesirable behaviour, not just banning her from certain topic areas (although that also will clearly be necessary for several basic article sets). As she notes though, she doesn't tend to edit much outside of Irish geography, so a 'broadly contrued' topic ban on Irish topics would simply be a complete ban from Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would have supported an unblock under strict conditions (topic banned from everything to do with Britain, Ireland, British Isles, British Empire widely construed) but I cannot support unblocking a user whose own unblock request should've resulted in her talk page access being revoked. User:Sarah777 was blocked and topic banned from anti-British remarks. Her block was extended indefinitely because she made further personalized anti-British remarks. And now her original unblock request[7] repeats the same behaviour. Sarah777 has had years to learn how to communicate civilly and appropriately, and I see no benefit to community in unblocking Sarah777 until she recognizes that behaviour as unacceptable herself--Cailil ^talk 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think she has done, or else I would not have supported the conditional unblock (ie a return to the status quo before HJMitchell's inflammatory block). I also think it's a little disingenuous of you (or did you genuinely not notice?) to talk about Sarah's original unblock request with the adjective "now" when it was made at 01:38, 21 May 2011, your post was made at 21:02, 21 May 2011, and yet at 15:59 Sarah had responded to my request to refactor her unblock request. So, let me get it straight. You are opposing unblock because you didn't like a post that she has already refactored, thus implicitly recognizing that it was inappropriate, right? I would disagree with this, as blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If you feel that she deserves punishment nonetheless, perhaps this will be assuaged by her submitting to a month block, indefinite topic ban and mentorship? --John (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We are beyond the stage of implicit acknowledgement of her past failings and future obligations. She needs to be explicit on both. Even refactored, her current request leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, aswell as in the specifics like the boundaries of this topic ban which she seems to think would only be "anything that comes under the Troubles". As I said above, this leaves questions like for example does this prevent a recurrance of her past misbehaviour in completely tangential areas such as road article naming? The last thing we need is a situation where she starts making some edits in an area she sees as completely uncontroversial and nothing to do with her definition of the Troubles (and thus, not pausing to clear it with you as the proposed mentor), and someone else reports her. The ensuing 50 pages of wikilawyering and accusation/counter-accusation is the exact kind of Sarah777 centric nationalist drama we do not need frankly, and which is what HJM was trying to put a full stop on due to her past record showing that no, she's not going to change. He's not daft, he knows he cannot impose 'infinite' blocks, but he also deserves the basic respect of having his concerns properly, and crucially explicitly, addressed, before anyone else unblocks her. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • John don't mis-understand me, I am not outright 'opposing' but I cannot support an unblock request from Sarah777 that she needed to be told should be refactored. She has had 4 years to get the point about incivility in general and anti-British remarks specifically. Maybe I'm being a bit of a wonk here but in my view under the Fameine RfAr ruling on Sarah777's conduct her talk page access should have been revoked and the request declined because of that. But I'm not going to labour the point - I'm certain she will be been unblocked conditionally here, but I wont support requests from Sarah777 that are anything less than explicit (from their very first posting) in evidencing that she's 'got it'--Cailil ^talk 15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I have been reading Wikipedia a lot longer than I have editing it. In the early days one source of constant amusement were the low level hoaxes and "in-jokes" weaved into many articles on towns & villages in Ireland. I noted that it was User:Sarah777 dilligently clearing these up time after time. It would take a lot of convincing that this editor is not an asset to the project, although by the same token I'm sure she wont be missed on the handful of articles mentioned above (...sorry Sarah). Since User:Sarah777 made her comments, the Queen has laid a wreath and bowed her head at the Garden of Remembrance, a memorial garden in Dublin dedicated to the memory of "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom". I am sure everyone will lighten up in the future. MacStep (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

• Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
• Sarah is topic-banned from the following areas:
  • The Troubles
  • Ireland
  • United Kindgom
  • England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland
  • The history and politics of the aforementioned countries
  • All topics occurring in, on, or around the group of islands off the coast of Northwest Europe

    Note: Common sense applies; a violation of this particular restriction will be handled via a warning first, as it is somewhat open to interpretation.

  • The dispute regarding the geographic name of said islands
• Sarah makes changes to her own behavior to reduce the battleground environment
• Sarah ensures all her editing is conducted in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

Comments

• Proposed N419BH 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Needs tweaking in several areas. Topic banning her from "Ireland" broadly construed is, as has been pointed out above, effectively equal to banning her, and history isn't really where she's had the issues. See my alternative proposal below. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for Sarah777

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions

1. Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
   • Sarah is free to change mentors subject to the agreement of both mentors. Any change in mentor should be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page and on WP:AN/I.
2. Sarah is indefinitely topic banned the following articles pages: ["articles" changed to "pages" 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • British Isles
   • British Isles naming dispute
   • England
   • Great Britain
   • Ireland
   • Northern Ireland
   • Republic of Ireland [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • Scotland
   • The Troubles
   • Wales
   • United Kingdom
   • Template:British Isles [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
3. Sarah's mentor may add such pages to this list as they deem required. All such additions must be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
4. Sarah is also indefinitely banned from the following topics, broadly construed:
   • Anglo-Irish relations
   • The naming of the group of islands comprising the islands of Britain, Ireland and geographically and politically associated smaller islands.
   • The political status of the islands in the group collectively or individually
   • Irish nationalism
5. Sarah ensures all her editing is in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and explicitly agrees not to engage in battleground behaviour
6. Sarah agrees not to comment on the nationality or race of any other editor
7. Sarah agrees not to comment on any perceived national or nationalist motive for any edit.

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

All editors are reminded that the pages and topic areas listed above may become contentious and are cautioned that standards of civility and policies regarding assumptions of good faith and no personal attacks will be strongly enforced. All editors are further reminded that civility is a two-way street and any and all behaviours that are seen as "baiting" another user to break rules will be dealt with firmly, up to and including by long-term blocks in cases of repeat or egregious cases. [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]

Comments (alternative proposal for Sarah777)

• Proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd be more in favor of a broader restriction and then slowly chip away at it as she shows a willingness to edit in accordance with policy, but this one might work, as civility is the primary issue, and she seems to get into civility issues on the topics listed here. My concern with allowing her to edit such things as Irish roads is she'll use them as a platform to get in digs against the topic-banned areas, and additionally other editors might bait her into violating her restrictions, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hence I would prefer to remove her from the entire topic area. If she can focus on her own behavior she has a chance, if not I suspect she is close to exhausting community patience. N419BH 18:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I debated including something about the naming of articles where there were similarly or identically named articles in the UK and Ireland (which was the issue I saw with regards roads) but couldn't come up with any decent wording. I wouldn't object to adding that in if you can come up with something suitable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to see two changes before I could support :

• Republic of Ireland and Template:British Isles to be added to the band list of articles.
• The mentor could add any other articles they see fit to the list of band articles at any time.

Mtking (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with them and have added them above, making a couple of other minor consequential changes, all clearly marked. I've also added a paragraph at the bottom that is intended to incorporate the sentiments of the #Community context section below. It might be of benefit to develop a template (a specific version of the contentious topic template perhaps?) with a similar note and place it on the talk pages of the relevant articles? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Support Mtking (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Community context

We've been here done that with Sarah already. On 27 May 2008, Sarah was blocked indefinitely for similar issues. She was unblocked on that occasion (after a similar period to now) after after promising to undergo mentorship. Despite this, it was necessary for the community to employ topic ban restrictionsfor any article that Sarah "disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Now, there we have the latest fuss. Her behavior means that she has lost the confidence of the community. For this reason, she should be indefinitely topic-banned from areas where is cannot collaborate with others.

For those reasons, I propose the following for Sarah:

• Two-month block (from the date of the original block);
• Indefinite civility mentorship;
• Indefinite topic-ban from British-Irish and Troubles-related articles

However, Sarah's behaviour is not unique. There is a common thread of incivility and nationalist name calling on British- and Irish-related article. Addressing Sarah alone demonises her but does not address the wider culture of incivility and of dividing editors in to nationalist camps. It is that culture that escalates to the kind of behavior we have seen from Sarah. The community needs to take action on that culture and a decision on Sarah needs to address that context in order to genuinely address the problem.

Therefore, in addition, I propose that the community make a statement against incivilility and all forms of nationalist labelling and name calling on Troubles-, British- and Irish-related articles. Editors who engage in repeated incivility on these articles or who engage in nationalist labeling or name calling should receive similar escalating blocks, civility mentorship and topic bans.

We need to make it clear that this kind of behavior is a serious breach of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Civility is not optional. Maintaining and developing collegiate relationships between editors is essential to the project. Sarah's behavior damaged that. However, she is not alone and this behavior needs to end. --RA (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing is a community-enacted 'zone' (for want of a better term) of zero-tolerance of incivility, with this zone extending to all topics in the field of British-Irish relations, specifically including the The Troubles, broadly construed. Am I correct? Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In effect, yes. This is an area of heightened tension (but not the only one). It is crucial that editors maintain civility in this area because otherwise things can quickly get out of hand. I have seen editors become increasingly lax towards civility on these topics. In fact, some editors strike me as not even trying to be civil anymore. Eventually, this blows up into mayhem as tension builds up and ill-feelings fester.

It is also extremely off-putting to editors who want to contribute to these areas of the project but are put off by the combative nature of the area (even on sometimes the most innocuous of things).

I propose the following community sanction:

It's a big long-winded and I'm not precious about the precise sanction or the wording. It is the enforcement of a spirit of collegialism and civility in the wider community context that I am interested in. --RA (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the justification for an arbitration case and has many things that sound like arbitration remedies and procedures, just without the case having happened. I see absolutely no plausible benefit of this community sanction, given it doesn't contain anything that isn't already basic policy, and isn't already actionable after being reported to ANI or having been properly passed through other DR venues. I personally have seen many such reports just shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action, or even no substantive independent comment at all, save the usual meat puppets turning up to say the usual unsurprising things. The one such area of specific community sanction recently, BI naming, has had a very distinct game/lawyer-tastic flavour to it, while doing absolutely nothing to further the goals of ensuring a quality & respectful editing environment about which you speak of, let alone ensuring basic NPOV is respected. I simply don't see how this is going to change that, or focus people's minds any further than they already should be. It's not news to anyone, not least the admin corps, that the area of this topic is an ongoing source of dispute & policy violation. I for one agree that certain editors have been guilty of most or all of the above in this topic area, but you'd probably be flabbergasted to learn that I think one of them is you. I'm having a hard time getting you to acknowledge basic things like how un-"cooperative" it is for you to be making a proposal, recieving valid & detailed objections, and not responding to those in anything but the most policy lite personal opinion assertive or accusatory terms, and then simply returning to make the same proposal 6 months later to see if the 'consensus has changed'. The only way forward is either increased admin oversight in the areas, or an arbitration case, which if it found evidence for any of the above as a general theme, would punt violations into the field of arbitration enforcement, which is shall we say, a rather less volunteer driven process as regards getting someone to actually say yes that's a violation, or no, go away. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On your point that none of the above isn't actionable already, I wholly agree. Unfortunately, like you say, "reports just [get] shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action". At this stage I, personally, wouldn't even consider reporting some of the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith that I (and everyone else) receive. Nothing would come of it. If anyone did respond, I think I'd just get told to grow a thicker skin and stop coming to ANI with drama. And that's the problem: incivillity goes unchecked and consequently it is rampant and endemic.

That is the point of what I am proposing: no more shuffling off into the archive in the sky. Civility matters and these issues need to be addressed. I'm not precious about how it happens and at least the two of us agree that something has to happen — whether it is increased admin supervision or (another) ArbCom case as you suggest, or something else. --RA (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an incredibly wide ranging proposal - there are probably thousands of articles that are in some way connected to the UK and Ireland - 99.9% of which will never see any sign of Troubles or British Isles naming nonsense - to wave a vague threat of sanction over all these articles and all the editors who edit them is not helpful - are you going to ban someone for making an edit to say The Goodies (TV series)? The behaviour of the few editors who cause this problem should be dealt with by normal admin means - not by punishing everybody else.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nigel Ish. And furthermore this is veering off topic. Consensus above is to unblock per the conditions laided out by Mting.
RA, proposals like the above are not going to fly. The vast majority of users on wikipedia understand and abide by WP:5 and need nothing else. The minority who can't need to learn how to, but if they can't it's their problem--Cailil ^talk 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool enough. But in that case, can we start spelling it out to the minority so that they might learn? Incivility is a terribly incedious thing. It only takes a clutch of editors, who think naming calling, aggression and poor faith are par for the course, to drain morale and turn people off contributing to the project.

We need a healthy, respectful working environment where we can collaborate construtively (and keep focus on our work, and not the drama). I, personally, have tuned out twice in the last six months because I just don't want to contribute anymore in an environment where everything runs the gauntlet of combative editors and nothing is taken at face value. And yes, they are a minority - but they seem to be the only one's left on some pages. --RA (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, these sectors are uninviting for new users and also any users that are not willing to involve themselves in an opinionated POV battlefield situation. We all know who the ringleaders are and we need to remove them using edit restrictions, they create a toxic environment and by their example encourage other contributors to join in and create gangs of tag teaming meatpuppets. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to make it specifically illegal for me to call you up on your nationalistic views when I feel you are being unreasonable due to them RA, it's not going to work(!) Appeal per WP:AGF if you feel people are being out of line with you – it's a law Wikipedia already has, and it's made to measure. You are blessed with the knack of always being calm an passive outwardly (though occasionally hurt when under criticism) when you offer your own personal views/demands in all these UK/IRE issues, but not everyone has the ability to be controlled at all times – an ability of course that can get people past these laws you propose.

Your proposal also effectively reinforces the various UK/IRE schisms, which is a criticism I always have of you - because I don't think it's right, and that is simply my opinion. UK/IRE should be such a 'special case' – Wikipedia should be able to deal with it completely, as it is in no way the bloody 'real word' battle people claim it is on here. All the UK/IRE issues on Wikipedia would pretty-much end with two simple guidelines so much more productive than the endlessly-punitive 'policing' ones: WP:BRITISH ISLES (Wikipedia chooses archipelago-only) and WP:SOVEREIGNTY (sovereignty is of greater weight to nationalism) is honestly all it will take. A number of 'reliably sourced' polemics will immediately lose their exaggerated power, and issues like Londonderry/Derry, British Isles and the UK-country 'naming disputes' will all be effectively resolved - and decent explanatory editing can then take place over the limitless space within Wikipedia (and there is plenty of it already – it's always that fight for the premium space). Admin will finally have something to go by when people contravene these guidelines. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, can we try and keep this about Sarah - and about existing policy too? If we make it an actual offence to point out nationalist bias, we may as well close the doors and switch off the lights in terms of NPOV. "The significance of words and symbolism in describing them"? This isn't the place RA. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Who will bell the cat?

We may think we are getting somewhere by refining the items on Sarah777's edit restrictions, but there is one detail which I feel has been overlooked. All of this depends on a mentor for this user; who is willing to take on this responsibility? With the right person, we won't need to worry much about the details of these restrictions, because the mentor's judgment will more than make up for shortcomings in this area. Lastly, what should be done if no one does take it on? Or the mentor either clearly fails at the job -- or throws it up because she/he can't keep Sarah777 from reverting to her bad habits? (Not that I'm volunteering for this. I have too little time for Wikipedia at the moment as it is.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a mentor is the best thing for Sarah tbh - she is experienced and knows when her blood is up - she just has to curb it now. No more chances. I know she asked for one (which does show her genuine contrition I believe), but I think it's moot, and could be a needless extra responsibility for someone too. I'm writing a proposal for her that will hopefully explain. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it John (talk · contribs) has agreed to be Sarah's mentor. They are not someone I've had any interaction with but nobody has commented about their unsuitability anywhere, so I'm happy with them taking the responsibility if the community agrees to her return with a mentor (in any other circumstance it's irrelevant of course). Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am still open to doing this. I must say it's nice that nobody has any problems with my being Sarah's mentor, I wasn't expecting that. I guess we should move to close this soon, once we have an agreement on exactly where her restrictions should be. I'm in favor of not being too legalistic about it as I think Sarah is intelligent enough to know when she is crossing the line, but just sometimes lacks the ability to think before posting or editing. I am hoping that I will be able to coach her in this area and allow her to make the many useful edits she has been making without the troublesome ones. --John (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting up a proposal directly below in a very short while, which you might want to consider, even just in part. If Sarah really wants a mentor, and you are happy to do it, then it's hard to say otherwise - but I wonder if what she asked for was not out of her desire simply to be back? A mentor combined with a Troubles topic ban does seem rather daft to me - I'll ask her to clarify on her talk page now. Perhaps she genuinely feels she may too-easily transgress, so would rather edit in other areas instead. The Troubles though is a hard 'area' to completely (or completely adequately) define, esp in the light of nationalist quibbling over things like British Isles, country status, and matters to do with Northern Ireland in general. I'd like to See Sarah in those areas when she wants to be (and wherever she wants to edit), but with a couple of "do nots" in place (supposing she can accept them - she doesn't have to return at all of course). BTW, if anyone wants to say that her chances have all gone again at this point - please don't bother - I'm just expressing my views, and I think its ott. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Less punitive but more to-the-point proposal

I respect many of the comments above, but I'm worried about a few things happening here that will lead to an unfair decision. Sorry if this is a bit rushed in appearance - I saw the ANI a bit late and since lost my draft, but I've made some points below that I wanted to make first, and followed it with the proposal:

1. Please don't assume that Sarah is worse than she is, and it's worth noting here that she had a long gap between offenses too. She's a decent time served editor.
2. Sarah seems to harbour an opinion that British people are somehow interconnected with the British past – but please do not be tempted to factor that into your judgement on the terms on the unblock – only her past and likely future actions. Sarah may feel as she does partly through her negative opinion of UK foreign policy, but people's harboured opinions (and many are much worse than this on Wikipedia) simply cannot be actioned-on by Wikipedia, Only their behaviour can, and policy should normally be able to cover that.
3. I think that sanctions etc can be used to do the job of policy, rather than just add a few requirements to policy. As this is about unblocking from an indefinite block, and something of a “last chance” too, a couple of specific requirements additional to policy do clearly need to be made here – but policy (and whether Sarah is likely to meet it) must be central.
4. Please don't fall in the trap of thinking that nobody can be neutral on UK/IRE issues: this is not at all true. Many people are neutral on even the most controversial of these related matters, and this idea is imo rather against the ethos of Wikipedia, which is to behave neutrally via policy. I've always thought that it is achievable in this area, and the addition of some specific guidelines (if they ever do happen) would go as far as to pretty-much neutralise it on WP. Guidelines are infinitely better than various sanctions.
5. Try not to knock people who speak their mind. Obviously people should not be offensive (hence all this), but with Sarah you always know where she stands, and that can be a real bonus in a place where it can pay so-much to use all-manner of less-open approaches.
6. Don't knock someone who's willing to accept they've erred either. A couple of slips perhaps, but Sarah is seeing and understanding the issue.
7. Try not to think in terms on indef blocks for cases like Sarah– they are drastic things and more for trolls and the like. Sarah is a decent and long-standing editor, albeit a passionate one.
8. RE topic banning – I think it's a hard thing to pull off in cases like this, esp regarding user's talk pages. Sarah's talk pages are often quite communal, and a number of editors will be expressing all kinds of things there, and it's not so easy to stop them from doing that. It's also worth saying I think that it's impossible to remove people from Wikipedia altogether, although I don't think this applies to Sarah. I think that it's best to look at the minimum first, and work upwards with these things, and try not to be punitive for the sake of it. (I think that may actually be an admin guideline, though I could be wrong). Also, the Troubles are very wide-ranging, and can blend into a number of UK/IRE areas. Why do something potentially awkward and problematic when something else (see below) will suffice? Try not to think punitively as I say, especially after the time block involved. It's really about Sarah's future editing.
9. Mentoring is surely not always ideal for experienced editors. It takes an admin's time up reading ahead of things, and there have been at least one case of an editor who seemed to me a little more powerful than he should have been, after he was punished with a sympathetic mentor who apologised on his behalf! Why put two people in the mix? I prefer to have faith in policy, and keeping things as simple as possible so people know where they stand. But if mentoring (or even a topic ban) is what Sarah genuinely wants... I've asked her on her talk about this, but she hasn't replied yet (it's late where she is).
10. Finally, listen to Sarah – it's about her. Why not? She's not a criminal don't forget, just a Wikipedian.

The proposal:

I personally don't see any purpose in topic banning Sarah, or even blocking her any longer. She does need something specific though.

So - per an arbcom ruling, Sarah must,

• Acknowledge that it is against Wikipedia policy to claim that there is a propensity for inherent bias amongst British editors on Wikipedia. This is unprovable, and potentially offensive to contributing editors who simply happen to be British. It is also damaging to Wikipedia because it spreads bad faith. Any further indiscretions by her in this regard will now result in an immediate indefinite block, with a topic ban likely at any future appeal.

• Understand that universally and broadly labelling "the British", by name or clear inference, with language likely to be considered offensive, is also against Wikipedia policy. Any further indiscretions by her in this regard will now result in an immediate indefinite block, with a topic ban likely at any future appeal.

Note: I've appended "with a topic ban likely at any future appeal", as topic bans really are almost as serious as it gets on Wikipedia, and I honestly think this has escalated just a little too quickly.

These cover the two issues, and the phrasing can be worked if necessary. There is no need to mention Ireland, and you could even use more general words for "British", but there is really no point as the British (or various aspects of British history in reality) have been the actual problem with Sarah, and she seems to be quite socialistic otherwise. I'm sure that as long as she ceases to express her strong feelings over the 'bloodier' aspects of British history in terms of British people, her editing on Wikipedia will surely remain as productive as it normally is. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Thanks you Matt for the work you have put in over this, and your well made points, however her Block Log would seem to indicate a history of (to be polite) getting into battles that end up needing admin attention. An editor with such a contribution count should be given another chance, but for her sake she needs to avoid given topics that push her buttons, it is for that reason I think she should avoid (with threat of an block) the pages listed in the sections above, and the only way I see that working is with a ban. I do however agree with your point about the usefulness of a mentor. So at this time I, regrettably have to Oppose this proposal Mtking (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the log isn't great, but she's got in ruts in the past that shouldn't be able to happen in the future now. She is also genuinely contrite. Perhaps we could think of this in stages? Should there be another instance with Sarah regarding these matters (and hopefully there won't ever be), then a topic ban is the next stop. I'm very uncomfortable with the drastic escalation of Sarah's case here (a lot of people would be really angry if the indef block remained for example), because I don't think it helps find a actual workable solution for Sarah - which we have a real duty to do I think. I'm going to add this to the bottom of each of the two bullets if you don't mind. Sorry to do that to you after you replied, but at least only two people have so far! Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work Matt, I believe it is a fresh look at things. I've a clarification question. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand if Sarah genuinely has a problem with "the British" (meaning all people who are British), or "the British" (meaning the ruling establishment). Should Sarah modify her language to, for example, compare the "policies of an historic British establishment or government" with (the policies of) Nazi Germany - is this opinion that is allowable, or offensive? --HighKing (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was playing around with the second paragraph till the early hours, but needed to get something up obviously. I agree that a little more clarification wouldn't hurt it - though I think Sarah777 (and others) know what the wording entails. I'll actually put it to Sarah too I think. To be sober about this (and this relates to the comment to MtKing above), Sarah will need to try this out (ie work out what is reasonable 'wiggle room', as someone mentioned) - but any more offensive stuff (and people are pretty clear when it's happened) should lead to proper topic bans I think. I don't think you can get much more serious action than topic bans. But yes - we could perhaps improve the language to specifically say that ambiguous attacks are likely to cause offence given her past. She needs to be careful HK, but she can be. It's not rocket science. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think now? As just two of you have commented, I've adjusted it slightly. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Specific article topic bans are justified with her record on them, such as BI, ROI. I also personally have my doubts she would agree to this wording. I'm not really seeing where you get the idea that "Sarah is seeing and understanding the issue". Frankly, for Sarah, there is no indefinite block and appeal 'next time'; it would be a straight up community ban proposal, and it would sail through imho, even if her next infraction was completely minor. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as working to be honest. This is already Sarah's last chance, and several people believe that this is more than she deserves. Even if Sarah were the model contributor from this point forward, her past actions mean that there is no way that her presence on pages like British Isles will be seen as uncontroversial for a good few years at least, and topic banning her from them is as much about preventing the encyclopaedia from drama as it is about protecting it from biased editing. Accordingly I must oppose any proposal that does not include topic bans for those areas where Sarah has previously shown not to be able to put aside her beliefs and work collegiately. It's not having these beliefs that is a problem, it is not being able to work with editors who don't share them. Topic bans allow her to contribute positively to the encyclopaedia in areas where she is able to work without drama. To borrow an analogy made by someone else in a different context, if Hitler were alive today he would be welcomed as a Wikipedia editor if he stayed clear of articles related to Judaism and homosexuality and spent time writing high quality articles about vegetarianism (and before anyone misunderstand the analogy, this is not comparing Sarah to Hitler nor her actions with his). Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass removal of Flagged revision from BLPs

Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been mass removing Flagged Protection from multiple articles because "the trial is over".

Generally, I have no problem with this -except he is also removing them from BLPs without any discussion. In many case, FR will have been set on a BLP because of serious libels or complaints, and administrators and others will be watching edits to the articles to prevent further trouble. If someone wants to remove FR from the article, and it has been set for BLP reasons, then there needs to be discussion FIRST to ensure that we don't suddenly expose living people to libels (particularly where the article may have been sensitive - or have been protected due to a valid complaint).

I need administrators to help me go through the recent removals and replace flagged revisions on any BLP from which it has been removed, until such times as we can be sure that it is safe to remove it from that particular article, and in particular at least until the protecting admin has a chance to comment on the article.--Scott Mac 17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at the RFC was that FR's was over and no longer available as a protection option. People have been removing it for a while now, usually replacing with semi-protection if appropriate - this appears to be what KWW is doing... so I'm not sure what the problem is? --Errant ^(chat!) 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would note that per the RfC pending changes would be rolled back in general starting today, however Newyorkbrad also noted that removing it from BLPs without a good look would be irresponsible[8], and I have to agree. I would hold off on removing protections from these articles without a thorough look, which glancing at Kww's contribs does not seem to be given to each article. Semi-protection may not be an effective replacement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at the aforementioned page is for PC to be removed. For BLPs a careful look is needed and it either needs to be replaced with semi-protection or left unprotected. N419BH 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not like I'm using a bot or anything here, people: I look at each article one at a time, review the history, and look at the protection state before the trial started. If I see the anonymous edits during the trial have been getting rejected or it was indefinitely semi-protected before the trial began, I'm semi-protecting it. If things have been quiet, I'm unprotecting it. Can people disagree with individual judgments? Certainly. Feel free to change an individual mistake to something you think is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

At very least, if an article has been flag-protected for BLP reasons you must contact the administrator responsible. Often semi will do the job. But FR may have been applied for specific reasons, and that needs explored on a case-by-case basis to see if there is a suitable alternative. Don't assume that you can't have missed something with a look for a few minutes.--Scott Mac 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The consensus is to remove BP from all articles. The consensus is to not retain PC on any article for any reason, including failure to contact the administrator responsible, failure to explore on a case-by-case basis, or any other reason. You can keep coming up with new reasons why it is OK to violate consensus all day and the answer will be the same. All articles means all articles. You are required to abide by the consensus or step aside. This is not optional. Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PC: Blocked

Unfortunately Kww has persisted in removing FR from BLPs. I've asked him to stop and others here have expressed concerns. A discussion is needed. I have blocked him for three hours as a preventative measure. He should be unblocked immediately he sees the need for discussion before continuing with a controversial use of admin tools wrt BLP protection.--Scott Mac 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reverse this asap. The PC trial is over, and the consensus of the RfC was that it should be removed from articles. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock I don't see the problem, if he's just implementing the RfC, he shouldn't be blocked for it. Disclosure: I've worked on articles with Kww and sponsored his RfA on an earlier, unsuccessful attempt.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a step backwards. What became of the alleged high-importance of BLP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection remains available.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see above. Serious concerns have been raised with lowering the protection on BLPs without discussion of the effects on a particular article. Kww has persisted without that discussion been concluded. This is not to do with a trial being over, but of a responsible way of changing protection on BLPS.--Scott Mac 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked per his talk request, but urged him to discuss before continuing. After all, his talk page isn't the place for a discussion on the merits of a WP-wide issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock This block should not have been done by an involved admin. You are firmly on one side of the debate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that I have been discussing. I've discussed it with Scott on his talk page. I've discussed it above. I've discussed it at the RFC. It's very simple: the RFC concluded that pending changes needed to be removed. Many admins have been stepping through and doing it. I've been reviewing articles individually, and making appropriate judgments. Scott seems to believe that I need to have an individual discussion on each and every BLP and that an individual admin's judgment is not sufficient. I pretty much reject that in it's entirety: it seems to be one more method of heel-dragging to prevent this trial from being switched off. If there's any article that I unprotect that others feel requires semi-protection, go ahead and semi-protect it. If there's an article that I have left semi-protected that requires full-protected, feel free to apply full-protection. That's the available set of choices. When I started this morning, there were 260 articles to get taking off of pending changes. Now there's 172. We can make Friday's deadline if we move efficiently. Individual per-article discussions in advance of each change is not the way to go, nor is not doing it a blockable offense in any reasonable sense of the word.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no individual discussion with admins when semi-protection was removed from BLPs and replaced with PC, and there doesn't need to be any individual discussion now either. The RfC was clear that it ought to be removed, and the admins doing it are looking at each case individually to see whether semi-protection is needed. There's no need to refer in each case to the admin who added PC, who may not even remember doing it. Everyone is equally able to look at the history and make a judgment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock, the trial is over. Removing PC is perfectly reasonable. Stop trying to create drama where no drama is needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good unblock. Blocking admin should be admonished. Kww should never have been blocked to begin with, especially by the complaining involved admin with a tin ear for the wiki-editors that have !voted. The overwhelming consensus is to remove PC. There is no consensus currently for its use. The trial is over. R. Baley (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott not listening

I think it's worth pointing out that Scott has stated he will reblock me if I remove protection from any more BLPs without individual, per article discussion.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

At which point Scott will be Wheel-Warring and would be immediately blocked by an uninvolved admin. N419BH 19:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid doing that. Kww - I'm sure either discussion here, or an arbcom case (though I expect that to be declined), will resolve how best to deal with pages under PC, at which point we can go back to removing them. Prodego ^talk 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

May I assume that Scot blocked anyone who applied PC without individual, per article discussion? Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is rich. "Not listening". All I asked for was some discussion before mass removal of protection from BLP continued. I was only asking for some listening. I have filed an arbcom request.--Scott Mac 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And you've threatened to reblock, which is not listening in my book. N419BH 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll not need to do that. If we all put the admin tools down and start talking.--Scott Mac 19:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a year of discussion and a blatantly clear community consensus not enough for you Scott? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott, you must not use the tools here no matter what anyone else does, because you're far too involved. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Don't think that'll help much since once again you've shown your contempt for community consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked Scott the following question on his talk page:

"The consensus is to remove BLP from all articles. There is no consensus for leaving PC on any article for any reason, including 'removing PC in a reckless way without proper consideration.' Are you willing to follow that consensus?"

He responded that he was not willing to follow consensus.

See his talk page for context. Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad's close specifically mentioned "that there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible". I don't see what the hurry is for removing PC from articles, and why there shouldn't be time for discussion between stakeholders. Let's do this in an orderly fashion, with due diligence and care for the BLP issues involved, rather than hurriedly. --JN466 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad asked a question about whether there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible. The answer he got back was crystal clear and the consensus overwhelming that no such article exists, and that in even the worst imaginable case replacing PC with full protection would be just fine - not irresponsible at all. Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PC: Interim Measure

How about all PC'd BLPs are semi'd until the protecting admin makes the final determination. PC is no longer a protection option until community consensus is established with regard to its implementation, and KWW is right to remove it, though I share the concerns with leaving BLPs unprotected. I agree that BLP concerns require protection to be fully examined, though I wonder why we're relying on a specific admin to memorize the reason and don't have a log of this somewhere. N419BH 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue of dangerous BLP's; a problem does need to be demonstrated here (i.e. show us some of them) by Scott. I have a quick flick through some of the unprotects and they all seem fine. Requiring that the protecting admin be contacted in each case is pointless beurocracy; in most cases the admin probably won't even remember! Sure, care should be taken of biographies, but I can't see evidence that this has not been the case. Does Scott have an example of a specific problem caused by kww's actions? The block was extremely poor judgement. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Errant here. So far Scott has claimed that it could be problematic but they did not actually shown any example where it was problematic. Blocking another admin you disagree with like he did deserves a huge {{trout}}, even if Kww could just have stopped doing it for a while. But the consensus at the RFC does not require any admin to check with the previous protecting admin nor to semi-protect all BLPs. We can discuss such requirements of course and if there is consensus for it, we can implement it. On a side note, Scott didn't even leave Kww a notice about this discussion as far as I can see. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are concerns about leaving BLP's unprotected apply semi/full protection to the relevant articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection does not monitor all edits. I have two articles which I've been monitoring all edits for BLP issues, Kww removed the monitoring without discussion of the merits of doing so on those articles. With BLPs we don't wait until someone can show a problem, we exercise extreme and particular caution. Simply removing protection, without discussion some attempt at discussion on a particular article is reckless in the extreme. You need to establish that other methods will do fine. That needs at least a check with the admin who set the protection. This is a bare minimum. If you can show that there's no higher risk by an alternative means of protection, then fine. But you can't assume that.--Scott Mac 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure nobody's going to die if a page is unprotected for a little while. RFPP exists for a reason, and everything can be undone. Hell, we even have revdelete now. I don't see why you're making a big issue out of nothing, except maybe you're annoyed that PC is going away. If that's the case, that's something you're just going to have to drop. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to die either if PC is removed from an article on Wednesday rather than on Sunday. --JN466 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been ten months already. Three more days, then seven, then two more weeks... Where does it stop if we don't stop it here? Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So as to avoid parallel discussions, it would be best to continue this line of thought at the existing talkpage. Skomorokh 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold the phone. This is not some trivial content issue to be shuttled away to some obscure page. It has been made clear, countless times, that BLP's are of very high importance. This so-called "consensus" seems to mock that alleged importance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The exact same issues are discussed at the talkpage of the linked sitewide, heavily-advertised, just-closed-with-firm-consensus RfC. And had those opposed to Kww's actions been paying attention and participated there, we wouldn't be throwing this drama party. Skomorokh 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when does "consensus" somehow override BLP concerns, which are supposedly of paramount importance to the owners of Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? Your reply bears no relation to my comment, which is simply asking people to keep the discussion in one place so as to forestall chaos caused by admins trying to enforce contradictory conclusions. Skomorokh 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If Baseball Bugs has a BLP concern, he can address it by removing PC from all BLPs and replacing it with full protection. That would prevent any possible harm to the BLPs while still following the clear consensus. It is unacceptable to propose a limited-time trial of PC and ask people to approve it as a limited time trial, only to refuse to remove PC after the end of the trial because "BLP concerns are of paramount importance." It is even more unacceptable to ignore the clear consensus - a consensus that carefully considered the BLP issue in detail -- for those reasons. BLP concerns existed long before the limited-time trial, and nobody has ever made a case that PC is the only possible way that BLP concerns can be addressed. There is a clear consensus to not leave PC on any article for any reason, including the reason given above. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly lists the exceptions that supersede consensus. "BLP concerns" are not on the list. Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I read your comment. My question is, How does consensus apply here? Are BLP's important, or are they not? I've always been told that BLP overrides consensus. On that basis, it is not appropriate to even conduct a vote on the matter. It has to stay - unless BLP is suddenly no longer a priority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because a handful of people decide that BLP applies does not mean it does. Yes, BLP can override consensus, but just because a single admin (or a handful of people) think that BLP applies, does not give them free rein to do as they please when nearly everyone else disagrees with their actions. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wales is the visible face of Wikipedia, and hence is the most obviously accountable to the public. What is his opinion on this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, this is pathetic. If you want Jimbo's opinion why don't you go and ask him? But I'm sure his opinion will be the same as always: That this (PC) is something for the community to sort out among itself through consensus. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case where I could detect any BLP concerns, BB, I increased the protection level on the page. The BLP argument is a red-herring. There are good arguments that PC can make addressing BLP issues simpler, but we had WP:BLP around long before we had any implementation of pending changes.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a number of bios on my watch list, and I might miss something. The PC is a red flag that lets you know someone has changed it. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose PC other than laziness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the RfC, you won't have to imagine why the consensus is what it is. BTW, the consensus was to remove PC from all articles with no prejudice against reinstating it if there is a consensus to do so. I personally am very much in favor of PC and will vote for it if it comes up in a RfC. It is the violation of consensus that I object to, and the concensus is to remove PC from all articles - no exceptions. Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the red-flag will simply make it more difficult to protect BLP articles. BLP was once considered to be of paramount importance. Apparently "consensus" now says otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would really like a citation for the "paramount importance" claim. Is that an official Wikipedia ppolicy?

An individual editor is not allowed to completely ignore consensus just because in his opinion and his opinion alone it goes against this alleged "paramount importance." Just asserting "paramount importance" without showing that any BLP would be harmed in any way does not give you a free ticket to to unilaterally violate any and all Wikipedia policies. Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hard telling who you're talking to. I'm thinking back to when Wales created this category called "Living people", whose purpose presumably was to raise some heightened awareness of BLP's. I've also seen countless discussions, here and elsewhere, where the bottom line was that BLP violations are not tolerated, regardless of any "consensus". The Flagged Revisions stuff is probably not needed for things like Madonna's latest record album. But it's very useful for Madonna herself, as BLP's are constantly subject to random vandalisms, no small number of which could be considered libelous (and hence could potentially damage the wikipedia foundation) if taken seriously and if not removed quickly. By no longer flagging BLP's, you're making it less easy to observe changes to BLP's. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that's a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can see the huge gap between "BLP violations are not tolerated" and "this particular temporary experimental tool that is convenient when dealing with BLP violations cannot be removed, even though a less-convenient tool that protects them better (full-protection) exists." You cannot use BLP as a club to enforce your own set of rules that do nothing to prevent actual BLP violations. Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know who you're talking to. It sure ain't me, because your comments don't follow up to what I'm saying. BLP is considered a very important and sensitive issue. By abolishing flagged revisions, you make it more likely that a BLP violation will be in an article longer than if it were flagged and jumping out at you in bright colors. If I see a BLP violation, I can immediately fix it. If it persists, I can post it at WP:RFPP, and an admin might protect it within a few hours or whenever they feel like getting to it. But if I don't see the violation, due to the red flag no longer being there, then bad stuff could stay there longer. I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking to you. You are the one who keeps posting invalid arguments. For example:

"BLP is considered a very important and sensitive issue.": The PC RfC closing admin has made it clear that the above argument is not valid. He wrote "'BLP; is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making."

"By abolishing flagged revisions, you make it more likely that a BLP violation will be in an article longer": Incorrect. As has been explained to you several times Full Protection does a better job of stopping BLP violations. Even if this was not so, "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making.

"But if I don't see the violation, due to the red flag no longer being there, then bad stuff could stay there longer." Again, incorrect. The bad stuff doesn't get in in the first place under full protection.

"I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles": If you don't understand this, then you clearly are not listening. I have explained to you several times that there is a clear-cut consensus to remove PC from all articles with no exception for BLPs (again, replacing PC with full protection prevents any BLP violation). It isn't my fault that you refuse to read the RfC where all of this was debated at great length. I have also explained to you several times that "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making, yet you keep invoking it as if it does. Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're intending to proactively and pre-emptively assign full protection to all BLP articles, that will certainly be a very high level of protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Either there is a real danger of BLP violations or there isn't. If there is, then full protection will solve the problem - no PC needed. If there isn't, then semi-protection or no protection will do - no PC needed. What is NOT true is the assertion that PC is the only possible way to address potential BLP violations. What is NOT true is the idea that merely saying "BLP" automatically supersedes Wikipedia policy on consensus. You have to actually have some shred of evidence that there is a BLP violation that cannot be solved any other way. Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments continue to make no sense. It's not about "no other way", it's about an additional aid to those who think BLP articles are worth defending. Which I am beginning to think they are not, given the obstinance I'm seeing here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that you personally disagree with the consensus to remove PC from all articles but also agree that consensus is binding even when you disagree? If that's your position, that seems pretty normal. It sounded as if you thought that something supersedes consensus in this case. Probably because of statements like I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles" and "I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that[the consensus to remove PC from all articles]'s a good thing." Sorry if I misunderstood and that you actually agree that consensus overrides your desire to retain PC. BTW, you are coming close to the edge of violating Wikipedia's civility guidelines, so I will give you the last word and not tempt you further by explaining things after you say you don't understand them.. Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand why it's a good idea to make defending BLP articles more difficult. Go ahead and try to explain that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We now have a new record for comments most squished to the right. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment

Whoa! I've worked with a couple of you before and frankly can I state that the behaviour of all admins involved in this discussion is regrettable. Its not a good reflection of the principles of wikipedia. When PC was set up it was made implicit that it was a TRIAL that would need to be removed following the end of the trial. Consensus was established that PC needs to be removed by the given deadline. Challenging those who are working to uphold the consensus sends out a bad message to non-admins and new editors. How can admins then block others for edit warring or failing to uphold consensus when they are seen to be unable to do it themselves. It makes no sense. If certain admins feel that Kww's actions are incorrect then a new discussion should be opened about the application of the removal of PC from bio articles. But the fact this has gone to ARBCOM is a bad reflection on all those involved. I hope you've all got your suits ironed and your boots polished. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am just flabbergasted that this debate is still going on. Again and again, people have said, this trial is over. There are no policies for patrolling PC - there's no policy to say who gets to be a reviewer, or what a reviewer is supposed to do or must not do. Other than the RFC, there's no policy about when articles would be added or removed from the system. And there's no plan for a further test or for full scale implementation. Which makes me wonder when I read Talk:Dustin Diamond and Talk:Barry Chamish, which both say:

Please do not remove pending changes from this article without discussion. It was not set as part of the trial, but because of distinct and particular BLP concerns with this article. I am happy to discuss whether this is the best approach for the article, a pragmatic approach to a BLP needs to take precedence over whatever general experiments and discussions are currently happening over FR.

This article has had major BLP issues, and has ongoing problems with edits. It is therefore useful not to have any edit immediately published before being scrutinised, and (if no one else does it) I am willing to scrutinise all edits. The scenario is liable to long term, so absolute prevention methods like protection or semi-protection are undesirable, but the traffic is low enough to scrutinise all edits. I use common sense and the available tools to do what I can for specific articles, and I'm happy to change from this pragmatic approach if someone tells me how using this tool is detrimental to the article in question, or to the goal of encouraging people to improve such articles.--Scott Mac 09:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Now bear in mind that both these articles are subject to Level 2 Pending Changes, where only "reviewers" have the right to accept an edit, not long-time Wikipedia editors. Also bear in mind, as discussed at User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt and previously at Talk:Pippa Middleton, Scott Mac has claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from a person who accepted an edit containing reliably sourced material, because he felt that material was "trivial" and not appropriate content for a biography, despite news coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times and other non-tabloid newspapers. He in fact claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from me, simply because I expressed a different opinion of how BLP articles should be handled on the talk page. I don't see that per se as something I could call a violation of policy on his part, because, as I said, there's no policy for how reviewer privileges are given or lost, and I was given them just as arbitrarily.

Nonetheless, the effect now is that we have two articles that Scott Mac seems to be saying that only he, and people whose opinions he is willing to accept, can make changes to - and those changes apparently would be based not on what is verifiable, but some subjective criterion of what is trivial or appropriate that I don't understand. This goes to a whole new level beyond WP:OWN. And I have to say, from what I've seen as Pending Changes winds down to its bitter end, I'm becoming altogether convinced that it was intended as a censorship scheme rather than any kind of legitimate curb on vandalism.

Finally, we still have articles subject to Level 2 PC which I have no idea how they ever got on list, like Palaeoarchaeology, Ahmadiyya, Al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf ibn Maṭar ... the mass removal per consensus is now lagging behind the most recent May 20 deadline, and needs to be completed now. Wnt (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal is complete (Cenarium finished it off). Per Special:StablePages only test pages are now using it. Rd232 ^talk 02:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• God only knows why I'm replying here, but... I've been a witness to Scott Mac's previous hissy fit on this issue, and now there's this one. Can someone please get arbcom to take his bit now? To me, this has absolutely nothing to do with biographies. For whatever reason Scott is just not stable when it comes to this issue, and we're letting him run roughshod over all of Wikipedia. You can't work with the guy, since he polarizes everything that he seems to be involved in to the point where everyone has to take sides. Maybe once he's out of the way we can actually do something about referencing BLP articles and improving our content some.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons

By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.

The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:

Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

As noted by a few arbs, this does not prevent admins from subsequently, even the same admin immediately after, consider in their own appreciation which level of protection is needed, with all due regards to the specifics of the article and in accordance with WP:PP. The reason arbcom doesn't mention this yet acknowledges it unofficially is because they want to appear tough on BLP issues. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the arbs might consider protecting a page, only to unprotect it a few seconds later, to be gaming? If they pass a useless injunction, surely they can't abide a demonstration its uselessness. Since it's inadvisable to irritate a committee with desysopping powers, I suggest asking another admin to unprotect the articles, ensuring an additional review, or contacting the protecting administrator, and waiting up to 7 days for them to respond. While arbcom can't desysop everyone (the stewards will refuse), starting a power struggle over a small number of articles will generate more disruption than it's worth. The most important remedy is to bide our time, and vote the incumbents responsible for this mess out. According to Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent, about half of the arbitrators will be up for reelection this December. The community needs to send arbcom a message at the polls that wheel warring and involved blocking to further a wiki-political struggle must not be countenanced, and administrators' hands should not be tied with bureaucratic red tape. Authoritarian actions hinder the development of a community-approved policy for the application of pending changes protection to BLPs, by alienating many potential supporters. The result is bad for the people about whom Wikipedia editors write. Chester Markel (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

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

Closing to avoid a totally unfair boomerang. Regardless of the history, this particular request for clarification was reasonable, given an admin's redaction of what, in context, was unambiguously an argumentum ad absurdum and not a personal attack. Enacting a topic ban based on a misconception so obvious is unacceptable. TreasuryTag: let this be a lesson to you - you've "cried wolf" too often and people aren't willing to take your complaints seriously any more. You'd better bite your tongue for a good long while and not make any, even if you're in the right. Rd232 ^talk 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Can someone clarify (a) whether or not this is a personal attack – ie. who is it attacking, or is it just an analogy used to make the point that people usually evaluate advice based on its source? – (b) whether or not it is appropriate for it to be removed as per WP:TPO and (c) whether or not it is appropriate that the people removing it are the person who considers themselves to be being attacked and an admin who has previously declared themselves INVOLVED with regards to myself? I am particularly concerned because the only uninvolved admin to have looked seems not to have been too concerned.
I would like to clarify that I am not drawing comparisons between Edokter and a terrorist. I was simply using an analogous situation.
If the conclusion is that it should not be removed, I would appreciate it being restored, since it is currently deleted. If the conclusion is that it should be removed, I would genuinely appreciate advice on what is wrong with it, and how WP:INVOLVED does not apply, so that I am aware for the future. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Implying that someone would like to take advice from bin Laden is a personal attack in most situations, yes. Can you explain how this isn't an exception?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment (obviously) doesn't address the issues I raised in point (c). ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see how it would be construed as suggesting one would take or value advise from bin Laden. Personally, I wouldn't have zapped your post, but that's because very little offends me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have further added an apology if my remark was mis-interpreted, but as I have stated, it was only intended to be an analogy. Interestingly, Sarek seems to be treating it differently to Edokter, who says he thought I was comparing him to Bin Laden. Neither was my intention, I assure you. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• My God, Treasury Tag, could you just please not argue and fight and complain and wikilawyer and snipe and push the boundaries all the fucking time about everything? When you're fighting and arguing with everyone you come across, and finding the need to start ANI threads about everything, eventually it should occur to you that maybe it isn't always everyone else's fault. Even when you're right, you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  If you don't actually comment on the issue I've raised, it's quite difficult for me to tell whether or not to take you seriously... ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 19:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't much care whether you take me seriously or not; that's your choice, and doesn't affect me. You might find it is to your advantage to take me seriously, however, because I have a gut feeling that I am less inclined than many others around here to severely limit your ability to continue to disrupt everything you touch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for TreasuryTag

- Sub-heading added. Fences&Windows 22:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please have a complete topic ban on TT starting these incessant 'requests for clarification' sections on ANI which, shock horror, always turn out to be anything but. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Oh yes. The recurrent drama achieves nothing - apart from consuming other editors' time, which is a valuable resource on this project. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's either an attack or terminally uncivil, take your pick. It should never have been said, and certainly not re-added. In any case, I agree with Floquenbeam and Mick above. Incessantly arguing about disruption is even more tedious than merely disrupting. Dayewalker (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support any measure that would reduce the amount of drama-laden threads Treasury Tag starts in order to air their Grievance of the Day against [insert random editor's name here]. My patience, which I used to believe was nearly infinite, has finally warn out with regard to TT's near incessant complaints. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban on me starting ANI threads. I am not aware of any other editor subject to such a restriction, probably because it's a ludicrous idea which prevents the free and fair exchange of views and can only cause more trouble. If people object to me starting threads complaining about the stupid behaviour of some other editors, then they would probably waste less time by (a) not reading them, and/or (b) not typing long comments complaining about drama. Paragraphs such as those which Mick produce do not reduce drama. They increase it. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  "It's everyone's fault but mine". There is indeed a reason that there's no other editor "subject to such a restriction". Can't you even get the slightest hint from all the adverse coments against you every time you open one of these threads? Unbelievable. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attack? No. Incivil? Perhaps. Stupid? Yup. Fortunately, for me certainly, we don't block/ban for stupid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• If it's not a personal attack, it's definitely uncivil and inappropriate, and I don't much care who redacts it as such. Banning TreasuryTag from ANI is an overreaction in my opinion. I'd suggest a WP:TROUT instead. N419BH 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• A more adult way to express a dislike of the frequency with which any editor complains about things, is to ignore him, as you would in real life. You don't tape over someone's mouth, you walk away and he either shuts up, changes his behaviour or goes and complains to someone else. It doesn't consume anyone's time if they just ignore it. Note that I am not making any comment on TT personally, I am talking generally. It works for me - I ignore a number of editors that p**s me off and they just go away. If we're going to block idiots, then it's going to be a long job. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your mistake of course is to comment on the general case, whereas all the people commenting here about TT, already know through experience that none of what you said applies to him, or the drama threads he starts here. Even you commented in the thread, to tell everyone to ignore it. If that's not wasting everybody's time, I don't know what is. And while everyone else gets to ignore this nonsense, that's not the case for the 3 people he specifically notified of the important thread he started that involved them. That's not the case for people monitoring this board for replies in threads which do actually matter. This is an admin's noticeboard for dealing with specific incidents. It doesn't exist to simply host an endless stream of pointless crap where TT seeks feedback about an issue he's never ever going to accept anyone else's interpretation of except his own in the first place, and will only make sarcastic reply after sarcastic reply, lawyer point after lawyer point, until yet again someone finally comes to put a bullet in its head and forcibly archive it (often having to close it two or three times as TT won't accept the conclusion). Even if everybody ignored it, that's still a hell of a stupid way to use the Foundation's server space. If you stopped ignoring him and started watching him, you'd see how hilarious it is to suggest that either his behaviour will change or he will just shut up, if we all just pretended he doesn't exist. It's nonsense. The guy is addicted to this sort of timewasting self-centred drama. A topic ban would be like an intervention frankly, a way to save him from himself, rather than ensuring this board remains an efficient incidents needing action board. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• A bit snippy, and hence a bit uncivil; but not a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• What "incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators" does this question refer to? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably the inappropriate reversion of another editor's comments, on the dubious grounds that they constitute a "personal attack". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I only see a request for clarification, which seems inappropriate here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bringing things here inappropriately as a way of continuing to express insults is so totally inappropriate, that I think a block might be in order. In my view this certainly counted as a personal attack, and I certainly am willing to block for personal attacks when they become disruptive. This one was. It's appropriate to stop continuations of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• It wasn't a personal attack at all. It was just a potentially (I didn't examine the full context) valid point explained with a drastic example. TreasuryTag is one of those editors who are definitely causing more trouble than they are worth, and starting this section was a bad idea. But as the TT's complaint is basically justified, this is not the occasion for proposing an ANI ban. Hans Adler 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• God, not another one from TT. Per Floquenbeam and MickMacNee et al., TT should be topic banned from An, AN/I, WQA etc. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban from AN, AN/I, WQA, etc. Much too quick on the draw that way; it's just disruptive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban on TreasuryTag opening AN/I, AN and WQA threads, support block the next time he makes uncivil comments like the one he's advertising here. Fences&Windows 22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure opening is enough. He seems to horribly escalate threads opened by others, especially on WQA. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• TreasuryTag, telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack. That you came here to argue about it tells me you should take a long break from the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Once again I see a number of normally quite intelligent people claim incivility by completely misreading a harmless contribution to a debate. (Not just you but also several people above.) It is pretty obvious that TT was merely arguing that to some extent it does matter who advice comes from. Using an extreme example to drive the point home is hardly criminal. This is one of the few things about which I agree with TT: I am quite unlikely to take any advice from TT seriously, ever.
    I wouldn't mind an ANI ban for TT, but I don't understand why this can't wait for a better occasion when it doesn't have to be justified with a pedantic, anti-intellectual civility extremism argument. Hans Adler 23:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are ignoring the context of the discussion. I certainly recognize and acknowledge that one can argue both sides; that TT's comments are or are not personal attacks based on this and that is of course debatable. However, TT's comments were taken as a personal attack by Edokter who expressed his displeasure. TT's comments were made just after telling Edokter, "I don't value your advice in the slightest, nor do I trust your judgement". After this comment, Edokter reminded TT to stick to comments about content not persons, at which point TT told Edokter that he probably valued advice from Osama bin Laden, ignoring the fact that Edokter was simply restating NPA, and it didn't matter who repeated it. Hence, the conclusion this is a personal attack. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment re "telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack". TT did NOT tell an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, he did, and he did it in the context of ignoring the advice of someone reminding him to avoid personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Quotation please? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
        • It's the very first diff in the beginning of this entire thread. I encourage you to read the entire discussion in its original context. The irony, is that it shows TT saying he won't abide by Edokter's advice to adhere to NPA. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, I read that, but "I am assuming, perhaps unfairly, that you would not value advice from Osama bin Laden," does NOT say that the person in question DOES value advice from bin Laden, and I have read and (I think) understood the context (the "perhaps unfairly" clause may be a little provocative, but it does not necessarily imply your conclusion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Did you read the next sentence, which read "But I guess that would be wrong"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

              I have stated – and apologised for that matter, though everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that – that I did not mean to compare Edokter to Bin Laden (which is the offense he took from it) nor to say that he took advice from Bin Laden (which is the offense Sarek took from it on his behalf). I intended to make a very simple point, in response to Edokter's bizarre suggestion that one should not evaluate advice based on its source. My comment has obviously been misinterpreted, which is unfortunate, and I have apologised, but since I am guaranteeing that its intention was not to be a personal attack, I'm not sure why such linguistic analaysis of it as is being done just above is necessary! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

              • (non-admin) Perhaps in part because you apologised after you opened this discussion? The words horse and stable door may be appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

                If memory serves, I apologised immediately after opening this discussion but before anyone commented (so it wasn't really a discusssion...!) because I was drafting both comments at the same time. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 07:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban on starting or commenting on WP:AN/I, WP:AN and WP:WQA. TreasuryTag's uncanny talent for escalating non-issues into dramalanches is disrupting the project by wasting people's time. Reyk _YO! 00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, this ban obviously would not apply is TT is the subject of a thread started by someone else. He would clearly have the right to speak in his own defense. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure if this is in TT's defense or not, but I would not call his comments attacks. Then again, that is simply because TT takes great care in adding a level of ambiguity to his comments in order to be able to claim his statements are not attacks. Kind of like if I were to say "I'd say you're an idiot, but of course, that can't be possible" (not nearly as refined as his efforts in this regard, but you get the point). On that note, TT, when having not gotten his way and run afoul of others, has, on at least one occasion, admitted to being willing and planning on "WikiStalking" (note the parens, TT) at least one other editor[9]. There is definitely some pattern of behavior here, which I've seen numerous times throughout ANI and TT's TP edits or edit summaries, but I would be hard pressed to define them. With hopes this doesn't add me to his "stalking" list... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I said that I would be carefully checking that Sarek didn't abuse rollback (which is a violation of policy) or make inappropriate blocks (which are in violation of policy). Tracking an editor's contributions for policy violations is not wiki-stalking, as clearly specified at WP:AOHA, where it is also noted that false allegations in that regard are a serious personal attack. And don't worry, you're not going to get onto my stalking list for the comment above. You'd have to do something far worse ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would support a one-year ban on TreasuryTag's participation on AN or ANI, except in threads started by others in which he or his actions are directly involved, or if he wishes to draw attention to an undeniable emergency situation. I do not believe I have ever supported a similar action against anyone, but TreasuryTag's overall pattern of participation on the noticeboards renders them significantly less useful for their intended purposes. (I will note that I have probably had more than my share of disagreements with TreasuryTag on here over the years, so my view can be discounted appropriately.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban from AN, ANI, WQA unless they are named in the thread. Reyk words it well just abovr, these "dramalanche"s are tiresome to wade through. As to the original post, it's wrong anyway, 'cause if you intended to commit a crime against humanity, you would definitely want to think about asking Osama bin Laden for advice, of course you would. Oh wait now, so the analogy being drawn is between TT accepting Edokter's advice and Edokter accepting bin Laden's advice? Which Edokter would only do if he intended to commit what crime? That is an extremely offensive nnalogy and as such constitutes a personal attack. If such continue, then blocks should follow. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The number of TT's ANI threads and the tenacity with which he prosecutes them contributes to the unnecessary overhead here, and have become in essence disruptive. I can't recall one of them ending with a compromise acceptable to all parties, a good indication that it's TT's intransigence -- the only factor they have in common -- which prevents any kind of amicable resolution from being achieved. (When there is an actual issue, that is.) Instead, TT just rails away until everyone gets tired and leaves. TT himself realizes that his ANI complaints never achieve what he started out to do, since he's begun complaining that (paraphrasing) "I don't know why I post at ANI since it always becomes about me." Well, I don't know why he posts either, but it would sure be nice if he was stopped from doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban of TeasuryTag from ANI, AN and WQA (with the exceptions mentioned above). There is too much unhelpful and needless drama. Mathsci (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support; it would prevent much drama, freeing up TreasuryTag and other editors to spend more time doing something useful, like working on articles. bobrayner (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support'; I've never interacted with TT before but I have read a vary large number of threads on ANI and wherever he goes, he tends to be accompanied by a fanfare of drama, explosions, borderline attacks and general unpleasantness. --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Summary of conclusions and proposed resolution

There are few editors whose judgment I esteem as much as Rd232's, but I have to say that I think he made an uncalled for decision in his action above. Shortly after six consecutive "support" !votes were posted that moved the discussion sharply toward an outcome he disapproved of, he closed the discussion to prevent that outcome, as he said. He also provided a "summary of conclusions reached" that wasn't really a summary at all, but rather an argument against what appeared to be the emerging consensus.

Because "hatting" or otherwise "closing" a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring, any editor would be justified to revert the closure. Here's what our guide to refactoring says:

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. (emphasis added)

Instead of explicitly reverting at this point, though, I'd like to provide an actual summary of the discussion:

Detail of !vote count through 10:12, 23 May 2011 UTC: Support=16, Oppose=7, Neutral=4

Notes: A few of the !votes counted on either side below were judgment calls since some editors expressed a marked preference without necessarily having explicitly stated "support" or "oppose". This especially applies to those I counted as "neutral". If you find one that seems debatable in one direction, please review all !votes for yourself before you take umbrage. If you do so you'll almost certainly find one that's equally debatable in the opposite direction. After doing that, if you still take exception to how I've counted anyone's opinion, please contact that editor and ask him to edit the represented count to correctly register his or her preference. If anyone does so, I'd appreciate it if he'd do so in a discrete edit, using the edit summary "Change of !vote count" to make that easier to find in page history. Of the seven editors who opposed a prohibition at this time, four expressed concern about overuse of boards. Counted as Support: 16 Floquenbeam, Bobrayner, Dayewalker, Ponyo, MickMacNee, DeCausa, Ohiostandard, Fences&Windows, Mathsci, DGG, Blackmane, Viriditas, Reyk, Beyond My Ken, Newyorkbrad, Franamax Counted as Oppose: 7 Hans Adler, Boing! said Zebedee, Baseball Bugs, N419BH, LessHeard vanU, Bretonbanquet, Rd232 Counted as Neutral: 4 GoodDay, RobertMfromLI, Sitush, Sergeant Cribb Not Counted: TreasuryTag, SarekOfVulcan

As an alternative to a lengthy continued discussion, it's my own opinion that the consensus in the preceding thread was in favor of prohibiting Treasury Tag from initiating or joining threads at AN, AN/I, and WQA for at least six months. I also understood the community to favor an exception that would permit him to defend himself should anyone explicitly initiate a complaint about him on any of those boards. As I see it, any admin who recognizes the same consensus in the preceding discussion could appropriately log that as an enforceable outcome at this time.

I understand that opinions differ in all good faith here, i.e. that some wanted a one-year ban and some none at all. But based on the !voting, I see no reason why the community should have to have this discussion again, perhaps on one of the other boards, in two or three months. My hope is that based on the !votes we have so far, we can agree to six months without having to draw this out any further or revisit it again in the very near future.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised that Rd232 archived the discussion. Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As was I, since the discussion seemed to be reaching a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a very good reason why the community should have this discussion again at a later point: We must not allow WP:ABF to become a policy. A ban of Treasury Tag is probably overdue, but here TT just made a harmless reductio ad absurdum argument, clearly recognisable as such and with no disruptive overtones but only a touch of sarcasm expressing irritation with an unreasonable demand. Replacing it by "[Personal attack redacted]" was itself a personal attack. While it wasn't wise of TT to open another thread about this under the circumstances, defending against such a personal attack cannot be held against the user. Then the first comment on this thread was from a leading member of the civility police (SarekOfVulcan) who chose to concentrate on TT's purported incivility rather than Edokter's and thus started the bandwagon.

This incident shows why civility extremism is evil: Because a lot of editors only notice incivility when it occurs on one side of a conflict, it's a tool of mob rule. Hans Adler 07:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The vote does not constitute consensus and also the proposal for a topic ban contained insufficient information for editors unfamiliar with the editor to comment. The specific edit complained of by the editor could be seen as a personal attack and no details were provided about previous misuse of ANI or other dispute resolution noticeboards. TFD (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm biased, but tend to agree that there wasn't a particularly strong consensus in favour of a ban. However, in light of the fact that there may nevertheless be a ban taking place, I have started one final ANI thread below ("Demonstrable case of wiki-hounding by 'clean start' account"). Perhaps people could review it, its tone and its seriousness, and consider whether it fits the general 'TreasuryTag pattern of drama' or is in fact appropriate and sensible. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 07:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sadly (as it means, for or against, this debate will rage on), I too must concur that no consensus has been reached. At least assuming my understanding of such is sound, which is a "win by # of votes is not equal to a consensus". Now, as there are people who disagree the "win percentage" constitutes a wide enough margin to agree it's a consensus... well, one sees the problem. Me particularly, due to the nature of the sanctions, counts !Support against !Oppose+!Neutral, as I suspect is fair, since the idea is to have all or a very decent majority "supporting" the decision, as opposed to a decent minority not opposing.

I also do not think this was the ANI to do this in. Those with concerns should probably start a new ANI, with refs/diffs, if they wish to institute community review for the situation everyone voted on (which was not the topic of this ANI). My position on that is, regardless of the merit or lack thereof of TT's ANI request, it should have been dealt with for the issue presented... ie: no issue, an issue the community needs to be involved in, etc. In that respect, this probably should have proceeded along different tangential lines, specifically whether there was merit to his ANI filing (and then community proposals and actions) or no merit (at which point it should have been closed). Following the conclusion of either route, anyone here was/is able to address this issue separately. I kinda think that's actually procedure (similar to how ArbCom deals with things) - but I could be wrong (havent read up on everything ANI related). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• No sanction at this time, as I don't think a clear consensus was reached. I have no comment on the wider issue, since I am not sufficiently aware of it, but if any sanction is needed against an editor then a misunderstanding should not be the event to trigger it. The comment starting all this was reductio ad absurdum, not a personal attack. (That's still my opinion after having read the discussion above and considered the various arguments, and I shall not be replying further or going round the same arguments again) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• No sanction To the extent TT is now on notice that some would ban him, that is done. Enacting a ban on the case in hand is, however, substantially improper, and seems to bring out "I don't like him" !votes. In point of fact, it is imperative that admins always discuout such !votes, as they are seldom based on the facts in hand. Also note that I generally find Draconian solutions to be unwise in any event, and this extraordinarily weak case reinforces that position here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Sanction or at least keep this open longer. Even in the midst of all this, TT has opened yet another ANI below. Depending on how that pans out I think it will have a bearing on how consensus develops hee. I have to say that it's mind-boggling how TT's brain works: that he thought it was a good idea to open a new AN/I thread here (whatever the complaint. If the wikihounding is clear-cut enough couldn't he have just diectly asked an admin to intervene?) DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Point of order. Editors just joining the thread should of course feel free to state their wishes in whatever format they see fit, but I wasn't exactly trying to call for a re-vote or even necessarily restart that process. If that's what people want to do it's certainly fine, but I'd actually hoped that those who'd already expressed a desire for a year-long prohibition could compromise with those who wanted none, i.e. that both sides could grudgingly accept a compromise of six months. But however new or previous participants want to use this thread, I'd like to suggest that if your preference was already recorded properly above then you might want to refrain from just reiterating your previous !vote with a new bullet-boldface pair, however worded. That'll make any final tallying up much easier, if we're headed back in that direction of !voting. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• It is difficult, but I feel you cannot debar an active editor from initiating or participating in admin noticeboards discussions - this is where the community decides on whether there is a concern raised that requires resolving, and there appears no other option if a contributor feels they need to refer an issue to the community. Any individual whose posts here become vexatious are going to be ignored or at least given short shrift, and where they have exhausted the communities patience in regard to a particular matter they may be required to cease posting but... No, I cannot agree to banning a contributor from these pages - it is an invitation for unobstructed harrasment of any editor so banned (and once we ban one editor, then a slew of "difficult" accounts are likely to have this access denied). If anyone really cannot stand the thought of reading through another post by Treasury Tag or another editor held in similar regard, then it is they who should forego having a presence here; it is in these places that we earn our salaries... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment IMO this drama may have been prevented if the proposed interaction ban between TT and Sarek had gone through. Sarek redacting anything TT has posted, as he did in this incident, will clearly lead to a drama filled time suck on AN/I. Maybe TT has exhausted the community's patience with his AN/I posts, but do people he doesn't get along with really have to poke him until he is community banned for it? I don't see that as positive either. Should we revisit the interaction ban idea? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In view of Sarek's contribution to this mess, that might be worth considering. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The thread started with a genuine complaint from TreasuryTag. This complaint was not taken seriously, and it rapidly devolved into a discussion of banning TT from using important means of dispute resolution. Such a measure is not unprecedented, but it should be used with extreme caution. In addition, ANI is always vulnerable to "piling on" and borderline mob rule, which makes it particularly important to remember that consensus does not trump policy, and that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I judged that it was better to sweep this whole mess under the carpet than to examine in detail the errors of all involved, given the general lack of willingness to do so fairly. For example, Edokter was wrong to redact TT's comment directed at him (even if he did understand it as personal attack), and even more wrong to use rollback to revert TT's response. SarekofVulcan, who has a history with TT which nearly led to an interaction ban, got involved with the edit war as well, and then was the first commenter at the ANI thread. This is a mess, and sometimes the best thing to do with a mess is to pick it all up and put it in the bin [=trash for you Americans :)], which is what I did with the thread closure. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is no inalienable right in policy to be able to use the ANI board. There is certainly no right to ignore a consensus formed on it and make such unilateral judgements as you just did, which did nothing to address the valid concerns of a good many editors. As we are even reminded right now, TT is the guy who can even template Brad as an 'inexperienced user' (or rather an experienced one who nonetheless deserved a template as he was in TT's eyes displaying inexperience, waranting a template). I mean, WTF? Are you really saying that TT has an inalienable right to start yet another ANI thread if Brad didn't happen to take kindly to that sort of clueless nonsense and told him quite right to just fuck off? Or if he didn't (which he wouldn't), and expressed it in more compliant terms such as telling him it was not civil, that we should then have 20 more pages on ANI with TT seeking 'clarification' as to whether Brad had in his reply sufficiently AGF'd over whether he really meant to offend Brad, or where on the line of clueless disrespect his actions do actually fall, or indeed once the inevitable happens and the thread boomerangs on him, whether we are all sufficiently taking into account any past history between TT and Brad so as to ignore the elephant in the room. It's this sort of utter never-ending hypocritical wikilawyering bullshit from TT at ANI that was the issue at hand, not the specific incident. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  We want people to use ANI appropriately, including TT. Since the original thread here was appropriate, responding to it with a sanction is just all kinds of wrong, regardless of the history. Failing to properly address TT's complaint whilst closing down the inappropriate sanction discussion seemed a fair compromise, given that community's patience is clearly near exhaustion. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Like OhioStandard, I have a great deal of respect for Rd232's judgement, but in this case I think that hatting was inappropriate. WP:BOOMERANG is arguably a positive outcome of threads, in that a root cause of a problem might be addressed rather than the initially reported problem (where the two differ) so I really don't like the idea that threads should be closed down because we can see the boomerang flying back. However, we can't turn back time; the previous discussion was derailed and now I'm not sure whether sanctioning TT would be the best outcome as it could cause even more drama, which is the opposite of my desired outcome. However, if TT were to provoke more drama in future, and if somebody else responded proposing sanctions, I'd almost certainly hit the "support" button. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought it was clear enough from my closure (perhaps I should have been explicit) that any future misuses of ANI by TreasuryTag might reasonably lead to a discussion about appropriate sanction. The boomerang is generally a useful feature of ANI - it was just wrong to apply it here - check out the actual text of WP:BOOMERANG. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We might have to disagree on this one; I think that a real boomerang yesterday would have been appropriate and well earned, not just a promised boomerang if/when TT provokes more drama in the future. A number of others seem to have held a similar position. However, the direction of the discussion was changed; now, moving back in the old direction would probably provoke more drama. So, setting aside the old thread, I think we have a fairly similar view on what might happen in future... bobrayner (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• No sanction per my original comment. I did not reply to MickMacNee's response to my comment because I did not accept any of his argument. Ignoring this guy works for me, I couldn't care less if he emails me on a daily basis and wastes three-quarters of the total cyberspace with his guff - ignoring him is beyond easy. Thus it should be so for anyone else. If he breaks a rule, act on it - if he's just being a pain, get over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Whatever you might think, 'get over it' does not solve the problem that already exists and is not going away just because you shut your eyes and make believe. The idea that it does, or even comes close to doing so, where TT is concerned, is pure fantasy. I'd wager that the reality is you've never even interacted with the guy, and more importantly, you've never needed to, so you're not going to be best placed to say what is and is not easy when dealing with him. Other have and others do, so kindly do not pretend that what works for you works for them. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  OK, well the "reality" is that I've had a good look at what TT gets up to, and I've interacted with editors a damn sight more irritating than that. I think you exaggerate the trouble TT causes - there is never a "need" to interact with anyone here, it's all done by choice. Nobody forces you to use your keyboard. As I say, I've worked with people who make TT look like a model editor, so "kindly" don't suggest I'm talking out of my 'arris. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yeh, great choice. You can either try and save your article/image from deletion or defend yourself at ANI, or you can leave. Because you aren't 'forced' to interact with anyone here. I remain totally unconvinced that you know anything about this editor or have personally experienced anything remotely similar. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Rd232's unfortunate closure of the original discussion has muddied the waters sufficiently that it's very unlikley that a consensus can be reached at this time. In the light of this, and considering the comments from people who might be supportive of a topic ban, but not as a result of this particular case, I believe that closing this post-discussion discussion is the best course of action now. Should TT's behavior not change as a result of taking the lesson here to heart, there will inevitably be another discussion at a future time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The threat of a ban, if it is credible, may be effective. Clearly a credible threat has been demonstrated above, but the door remains open for TT for necessary/constructive contributions to ANI etc (like the one today about Sergeant Cribb). It was with this in mind that I closed the thread as I did. Let's give the "credible threat" approach a chance to work (especially as the interaction ban discussed below may well help - Sarek had a role in quite a few of these ANI kerfuffles, including this one). Rd232 ^talk 22:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I admire your optimism, even if I cannot subscribe to it -- and TT's been a problem for a long time, well before and problems between him and Sarek. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• I thought Rd232's close was one of the most artful actions on AN/I for a while and it should have been left as it was. The pile on, my !vote included, wasn't really warranted for the actual incident that provoked it, and the close was bang on - TreasuryTag has become the boy who cried wolf and others are getting fed up of it. Perhaps he'll learn from this, or perhaps he'll be given enough rope to hang himself (metaphorically speaking, of course). Fences&Windows 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Describing the !voting process that was shut down as "a pile on" is rather disrespectful, in my view. I think most of us would call it something like "the development of consensus"; several have, actually. Think about the likely result if we each took it upon ourselves to say to fellow editors, "You can !vote, but only if you decide what I want." Rd232 said above that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Just so, but it's not an anarchy either: None of us gets to "super-vote" in such a context, and none of us has the right to short-circuit one of the most fundamental processes by which we develop consensus, simply because we disapprove of the likely outcome.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, yes. But the discussion rested fundamentally on a flawed understanding of the incident, and "pile on" is hardly an unfair characterisation given the nature of it (and I've not even gone into the bizarre evolution of the initially limited ban proposal). In addition, the perpetuation of the flawed misunderstanding rested substantially with an editor (Sarek) who had been in previous disputes with TT (to the point of an interaction ban, see below), and was involved in the incident but didn't disclose that (making his judgement seem a neutral third party. All of this, and other things I've already said, amount to quite exceptional circumstances, and I'm satisfied that I made the right decision, as an uninvolved administrator, in minimising the mess from that situation. And I'm a tad disappointed you didn't see fit to approach me before reopening the thread. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, you already made clear your belief that others' views were flawed and yours was not. I dare say most of the !voters felt the same way you did toward the contrary side, as I did myself. That would have been fine grounds for posting a comment, or expressing your confidence in your belief by a !vote, just as we all did. But it's distressing to me that you still think you were entitled to essentially tell 27 people that they had no right to express their own judgment, that yours was superior, and it was the only opinion that mattered. If you see nothing wrong with that then, as Bobrayner wrote above, I think we're going to have to disagree on this one.

Re not consulting you after you effectively told the rest of us to be quiet, please note that I didn't explicitly revert you or restart the !vote, although in retrospect I think I probably should have done. I took that middle ground following after Alison's actions in a previous thread that you also marked as closed. But apart from that, you had asked no one's permission to close the !vote, and I simply don't accept that a single person has the unilateral right to silence 16 opponents, clearly in the majority, and nullify their opinions. Nor do I think that those who have been treated thus are then obliged to ask his permission to speak after he makes the attempt.

I know you thought you were right to act as you did, but given the many objections that has caused here, I'd just ask that you be more cautious about doing so in the future. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh, OK. 1. Yes, as an uninvolved administrator at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, my view sometimes does matter more than those of involved administrators (especially when they fail to disclose that involvement) and of people who are evidently relying heavily on the (clearly erroneous) interpretation of such an administrator, and of people motivated by prior unrelated disputes with an editor sufficiently not to give the complaint a fair hearing. 2. the 27 people had a right to express their judgement, and they did, and many, particularly earlier on, called it right. In this context, the "topic ban" subheader was extremely prejudicial to an appropriate handling of TT's complaint, and it surely influenced the progress of responses, where the initial ones looked at the actual issue, and later ones (particularly after the subhead was added) largely didn't address it, assuming it invalid by looking at the very first responses to the thread, above the subhead. That is how discussions always go - as they get longer, later editors joining rely more heavily on the initial judgements and comments, and don't read the full discussion properly (WP:TLDR effect). This is particularly problematic here given point 1 (Sarek's above-subhead first response). Plus a subhead like that, whilst no doubt added with the best of intentions, will always act as a red flag for editors with prior disagreements. 3. Given that closing a thread like that is clearly very unusual, it would have been wise, at least, to ask for clarification from me. There being no requirement to do so, don't bother drawing false parallels (Alison's comment was a minor postscript, not reopening everything). 4. I could have done it better, perhaps, but it was absolutely right to stop that ban bandwagon in its tracks; and as I already said, this was an extremely unusual situation. Note that an admin who supported the ban gave me a barnstar for the closure, which ought to mean something. Well, whatever, this has been dissected enough now. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're very greatly mistaken if you're of the opinion that this board in some way belongs to administrators, or that having been allowed access to some additional tools gives you a super-vote to negate community consensus. On the contrary, this board belongs to the community, and among its other legitimate uses by the community, it primarily functions as a work queue, rather like when an employee calls out over the intercom, "Cleanup needed on aisle three!" at the grocer's. It's not accidental that a mop rather than a judge's robe is the icon for having been allowed administrative tools, and the only place that your extra bit allows you to super-vote is in closing an AfD, and then only under strictly controlled conditions.

As I said previously, I do have considerable respect for you, and I have no wish to draw out this discussion or embarrass you, so I probably won't reply further here. But I'd again ask that you reconsider your role: It is primarily to serve the community and uphold consensus, rather than to set yourself up as being above consensus by virtue of its having lent you some additional tools.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a parting shot then: it is an administrator's job to serve the community. Sometimes (rarely) the community is best served by telling it in no uncertain terms that it's got something wrong. Consensus is not magic or absolute; its validity is always contextual, depending on the processes by which it is achieved (not least, how representative the group of editors involved). I outlined above why the processes in the discussion were invalid, and making difficult calls to serve the community's best interests is what "the mop" empowers me to do. Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Would this "flawed understanding" be that you see it as unambiguously not a personal attack, and thus a legitimate report, whereas plenty of others called it a definite personal attack, and those that didn't, agreed it was a stupidly incivil way to talk to another editor? All in all, it was never going to result in any immediate admin action. And t'was ever thus frankly with these reports, hence the increasingly hostile reactions to TT from the community for this 'who, me?' act. TT has had his chance to deal with Sarek properly, bitching and whining to ANI pretending it's about a specific incident needing a dramatic deconstruction is not it, that was a complete irrelevance frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan 2

TreasuryTag has indicated on my talk page that he is willing to support an interaction ban between himself and SarekOfVulcan, something I proposed the last time they get into a scuffle. At the time both he and Sarek opposed, and a consensus did not emerge to impose this ban. TT has asked me to try again, and I am doing so now. I'll copy the original proposal here, the wording is adapted entirely from relevant policy language. Please note that I do not think that such a ban will solve all the problems here, but at least it will keep the two from poking each other unnecessarily. There are a gazillion other admins who can deal with TT, we do not need Sarek to be one of them.Griswaldo (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan are banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other.

• Support as proposer.Griswaldo (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support—these three acts of pointless disruption, Sarek's only so-called contribution to the discussion, could have had no possible intention other than to piss me off. And I am indeed pissed off. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 21:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. In everyone's best interests. -- ۩ Mask 22:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support with the usual caveat that this does not apply to strictly incidental contact, or to any mediation or arbitration pages. Collect (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Griswaldo. I believe Sarek and TT will both be happier and more productive if they leave each other alone. 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support As much as I really prefer not to take tools out of the administrative tool chest, I agree that action needs to be taken. Furthermore, TT please note that your repeated forays at DramaCentral are beginning to get exceedingly annoying. Hasteur (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Unavoidable at this point, per Sarek's silliness today here and all that's gone before it from both parties. Rd232 ^talk 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed; for emphasis, this type of behavior is unacceptable, especially from an admin (involved or otherwise). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and SoV should have been blocked for a significant period of time for that egregious display of baiting. Why was he reconfirmed as an admin, again? Feh. → ROUX ₪ 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Both of these users are supposed to be some of the most outstanding, trusted users in the Wikipedia community as administrators, and they both are acting like children. It's sad to see it come to any kind of ban on an administrator when they were previously deemed by the community to have the know-how and maturity to handle dispute resolution without an argument that results in nothing more than "but he started it." If you can't be trusted to not use your administrator tools against someone you're in a dispute with, you shouldn't be able to keep them. If you disrupt the community with senseless bickering, you deserve a block for disruption. I support that instead. — Moe ε 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarek was recently reconfirmed as administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2). There's no obvious alternative to an interaction ban that would be fiar, effective, and get enough support to be implemented. Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment TreasuryTag is not an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Really? I always thought he was, maybe I was thinking of someone else. Regardless, he is a long-standing member of the community, who really should know better. — Moe ε 23:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, he wants to be an admin. Fences&Windows 23:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 07:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's nice to dream. — Moe ε 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Practical way of preventing mutual escalation of minor problems into big problems. I doubt it's a perfect solution to every problem, but it's practical. bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. "Reluctant" because two otherwise intelligent, adult contributors who know how WP works should be able to control themselves without the community stepping in like this. But "support" because they have each demonstrated that in fact they cannot thus control themselves, and hence here we are. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support (per all of the above supports). TreasuryTag, take heed of what everyone is saying. SarekofVulcan, you are treading a path which will lead to a different type of request for reconfirmation (where the outcome will not be pleasant for you). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ya know what .. this is getting so old. Would both of you guys just grow the fuck up.... please. — Ched :  ?  05:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Sarek's recent reconfirmation RfA was a charade, and this is the inevitable result. Malleus Fatuorum 05:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think Sarek needs to take a few steps back from TT. I find TT one of the most annoying and difficult editors here, so I can fully understand why Sarek gets frustrated, but it's still not acceptable. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not that keen on you, either... ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Was that really necessary, TT? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  You could ask the same of Hobit (talk · contribs) if you felt like being non-partisan... ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 08:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not being partisan, all you had to do was ignore the baiting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to bait for the record. I guess what I wanted to say was support as second choice where first choice would be to ban/block TT for a good long while. As I don't see that happening, so I'm supporting as I worry that Sarek will continue to make ill-advised edits as he gets clearly more frustrated with TT. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps we could a footnote to the interaction ban: Sarek and TT are banned from using <small>, as it seems to encourage them to make unconstructive comments... Rd232 ^talk 08:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I didn't add <small> to my comments, TT refactored them on his own.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support obvious problems between the two that apparently can't be solved on their own... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I can't find it in myself to support this, but would rather suggest large amounts of fish for both parties for juvenile and uncollegiate editing. This is a collaborative project. If you can't collaborate, take a long Wikibreak and come back refreshed. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - As said the last time, I oppose interaction bans outright. When editors are dicks, then simply take the appropriate action, there's no need to add a bureaucratic layer of "I can't post on this page because he did first" nonsense. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See the responses to Mick below. The proposal is a practical one to reduce drama. Reducing drama is to the benefit of the rest of us. Other measures can always be taken now or later. But why oppose something that reduces drama? Also, please read the language of the ban. It does not anywhere prohibit posting on the same page, it prohibits posting about one another and interacting with one another directly.Griswaldo (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The number of users Sarek has difficulty with pales compared to the number who have difficulty with TT. Even in this latest charade, you can see that even someone like Brad is not immune to finding this guy an irritation, enough to support unprecedented general sanctions on him, in 50 words or less. I have no doubt that a specific interaction ban between these two will lead to nothing but wikilaywering, or the focus just shifting onto the next person who supposedly needs to be stopped from intercting with TT because of their failures. It's a sticking plaster that will soon fall off. If TT has a problem with Sarek, he can go to the arbitration comittee, who are paid to take people's genuine complaints where they concern admin conduct seriously, and treat their cases impartiality and for the good of the project. He won't do that though, because they're also not paid to ignore the reasons why he's the common denominator in so many of these incidents and interactions that descend into silliness or even outright hostility. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  "he can go to the arbitration comittee, who are paid to..." - damn, I knew I should have run! :) But seriously, Sarek pops up to often in TT's troubles, and so this interaction ban might actually achieve something. In addition, TT has promised to launch an Editor Review in a week or two. Let's make sure we've done everything we can to avoid the drama and time involved in an arbcom case. Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  My thoughts exactly. The proposal is for the benefit of the community. If TT acts as Mick says he does, he either will need to reform or will end up with greater sanctions. In the meantime why not promote measures that reduce the drama?Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Seconded re. a nice cushy paid job on ArbCom, but more to the point, I personally think it is completely unreasonable to blame me ('common denominator') for, say, this. Sarek wasn't involved in the thread. I wasn't baiting him. I'd not interacted with him for a day or two. Then he suddenly turned up to pointlessly disrupt an ANI thread I started. Nobody forced him to. It was his decision. It was a very bad one, and I think it's about time that this trouble stopped. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 13:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Arbitrators aren't stupid. They, like everybody else, would understand the point Sarek was making. Tht's why you would never ever go to arbitration, because he'd get dealt with for doing it, and the behaviour of yours that he was mocking would also get dealt with. Nope, given simple truths like that, this interaction ban is a pretty sweet deal for you TT. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sweet deal how? With all due respect, there is nothing which only Sarek is capable of. If my behaviour is viewed to be out of line, there are tens of other admins who are able to rebuke me for it, and I suspect most of them would do it in a slightly more mature way than three successive edits with the summaries, "badger, badger, mushroom." ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I can predict how that's going to go. If it ever materialises. Promises promises. Editor review is for people who geninuinely don't know why what they do is wrong, and have shown a capacity to be able to learn and reform, and can maintain an air of respect and collaboration even in environments where they are being criticised. For TT, on all those points, I'd say that horse hasn't simply bolted, I'd say it's in the next field by now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was doing just fine not poking him until he persisted in badgering Sergeant Cribb. And yesterday, I reverted two of TT's edits with the edit summary "I don't believe that's real" when it took about 10 seconds in Google to not only find the videos but to find reliable sourcing talking about them. While he's making edits as mind-bogglingly dense as this one to Positron, someone's got to keep an eye on him. Are we just going to put interaction ban after interaction ban in place until nobody can do anything, or are we going to deal with the problem at the source?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I was doing just fine not poking him until he persisted in badgering Sergeant Cribb. ...and then you chose to respond in the mature and adult way of leaving disruptive comments. You say that you oppose an interaction ban because someone has to watch my edits. I'm not clear why you feel this has to be you, since Wikipedia has more than 15 editors, but if your 'watching' is going to be in the vein of your disruption yesterday evening, then I don't think it's likely to be that useful. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sarek, how many other interaction ban proposals concerning TT have been made? Where do you get the impression that others are needed? That's a serious red herring. You are part of the problem here. There are plenty of other administrators who can handle TT. I don't see any of them concerned that they will also be subject of interaction bans. You have admitted being involved with TT in a way that is not conducive to interaction, and there was a pretty overwhelming consensus at your reconfirmation RfA (even from support voters) that you need to reconsider your behavior vis-a-vis involvement. Have you not learned a thing from that process? Your current behavior shows more of the same bad judgment. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's hard not to see a picture where one of the editors subject to the ban greets it with unmitigated glee. What's even worse than people trying to game the system is when we let them win. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No winners here. Regardless of the result, both editors - and indeed the community - are very much losers on this one. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that there are no winners, but I hope very much that there can be less drama. I still do not understand why people oppose a measure that will reduce drama. In the end people behaving badly will earn what is due them, but in the meantime we do have the ability to keep things a bit less disruptive around here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • TT doesn't want to interact with Sarek. Sarek wants to be able to interact with TT so as to keep him in check; TT, unshockingly, does not wish to be kept in check. The ban accomplishes TT's objectives while costing him nothing he values. Sounds like a win to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Does Sarek really want to be able to keep me in check, or does he want to pull more stunts like this? And why is it so necessary that Sarek does the check-in-keeping? Why is it impossible to leave it to Wikipedia's 100+ other administrators? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • While that "stunt" was clearly ill-advised, you are milking it far too hard, and being considerably too joyful in invoking Wikipedia's unwritten (and also quite ill-advised) rule of "whoever can get the other guy to lose his cool first wins". These things make me extremely uncomfortable with any outcome that clearly gives you exactly what you want. That, in turn, tends to favor an outcome where Sarek is allowed to work at keeping you in check, since out of those 100+ administrators, he seems to be the one who is actually motivated to do so. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • You seem unaware of the fact that there was a pretty strong community opinion that Sarek is the last person who should be doing so. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. Sarek nearly wasn't reconfirmed for this type of issue, and even many of those who supported his reconfirmation pointed out to him that he needed to improve exactly in this area - not to take an administrative role with people like TT and Avanu who he is too involved with. The example TT points to pretty much proves that he has not learned exactly what the community asked him to learn in his reconfirmation RfA.Griswaldo (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • • Okay. I suppose I disagree with that community opinion, then. It's fairly well-accepted that "AGF is not a suicide pact"; maybe WP:INVOLVED shouldn't be either. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Also please note Sarek's very own admission of his level of involvement with TT. How on earth is it a good thing for this person to keep an eye on TT? That sounds like an argument for pettiness as a positive on Wikipedia. The people who should be encouraged to keep others in check are the ones who are most likely to get into petty squabbles with them? I just don't get it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
              • The way I conceive of it is more like, if somebody is going around tracking dirt on the floor, let's not take the broom away from the person who actually cares to use it, especially not because the person tracking dirt on the floor made a giant stink about how that person used three broom strokes when policy clearly states that five is suggested and the broom isn't OSHA-certified. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • This diff is also relevant, as was Sarek's statement that they intentionally set out to "poke me" yesterday. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Please don't lie about my statements, especially when they're still on this page for people to review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MickMacNee. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: "I was doing just fine not poking him until he persisted in badgering Sergeant Cribb." Sarek's comment just above, which ought to be the final nail in the Sarek/TT interaction ban coffin. Not only does he admit poking TT, which was poor judgement (obviously), but he still doesn't concede the importance of Cribb making a clear enough statement about the agreement required of him [in the thread below where Cribb needed to agree not to follow TT around], so that TT's prompting on that point is "badgering". Sarek simply lacks perspective on TT, a ban will protect him from himself. Why deny him that, exactly? Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lacks perspective"? Two days ago, TT welcomed Newyorkbrad to Wikipedia, claiming "I generally don't template the regulars on the basis that experienced editors are familiar enough with Wikipedia policies not to need such basic, boiler-plate reminders. However, that unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case here." I'm failing to see why this is my problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that the edit you've linked to isn't your problem, largely because you didn't make it and it's nothing to do with you. Would you agree that this series of edits is your problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, that's the fourth time in this single discussion you've linked to those same diffs. Kind of proves my point from yesterday, doesn't it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sarek just yesterday you did this - same link as the above in TTs comment. Is that the reaction of someone who has perspective or of someone who is acting upon emotional impulses?Griswaldo (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • If there was only one source, I (and at least a few others) would not have supported this measure. Requiring an entire Community to say 'what you are doing is not OK' each and every time there is an issue is unreasonable (first it was several noticeboard threads, then it was a reconfirmation, and now it's this); instead of insisting you will continue to contribute to the messes, what we would all appreciate is if you avoided them when asked to. You've complicated this mess with your involvement; not made it easier to resolve or to address as a single source. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as before. these two can't seem to stay away from each other. if they could, they wouldn't always be here. since they can't seem to resolve their problems on their own, it's time the community did. -Atmoz (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the community isn't going to block TT for his hobby of deleting unsourced material on a whim because, as he puts it, "I don't think that's real", then the more people scrutinizing his edits the better. Either that or we all get to delete all unsourced content without bothering to perform even the most rudimentary search on which to base an opinion. Further, it's just ridiculous for TT to object to Sarek's rather amusingly ironic request that he stop badgering another user when he had himself employed a greater measure of irony in welcoming Newyorkbrad to Wikipedia. If you want to be a smart ass, it's hardly reasonable to object to some wry comments back once in a while.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine that the community is indeed not going to block me for removing unsourced material (largely because it's not a blockable offence and is more or less encouraged by policy), and I would simply point out that pointing to my behaviour isn't an especially good way of justifying Sarek's. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of trying to add a request that "supporters", and especially TT, please stop arguing with every single "oppose", and then got an edit conflict with TT. You guys have all made your positions perfectly clear already, and it's beginning to look like badgering at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• TT has now made the same point with the same diff 6 or 7 times. The diff is of Sarek making the point that that is exactly the sort of nonsense that TT thinks is civil and respectful behaviour. An editor review won't stop that. Interaction bans don't stop that. TT cannot help himself frankly. This is what he thinks is normal behaviour. This is what he thinks is acceptable behaviour. This is how he rolls each and every day of his life on Wikipedia. He lives in a bubble of cluelessness and hypocrisy frankly, if it's not just one giant trolling of Wikipedia from start to finish, and rather than it being sustained, it needs to be popped. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Move to close without action. It's now 16 to 7 by my count, just as it was in the other direction above, when the !vote about banning TT from the boards was brought to a sudden halt. There would be a certain rough and appealing justice in treating this one the same way, with the same "no action taken" outcome. I won't do that, since I object to it on principal, but I do think we should all just drop the sticks at this point and get on with editing articles.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

IP phishing

70.48.238.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Porgers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.193.59.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I thought there was something about this here on ANI, but I can't find it. Maybe I saw it elsewhere. Anyway, the above IP (currently blocked as a sock of Porgers) sent a request to Wikimedia asking for my password to be reset. Naturally, they didn't blindly do that. I'm not an admin, so hacking my account wouldn't have done them much good anyway. But I wonder how widespread this phishing attempt is getting to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Only four of us here on en.wiki, that I'm aware of. He's tried a few times from other WMF sites as well. The password reset attempts, while somewhat annoying - are generally harmless (as long as you delete them rather than clicking any links). Just make sure you have a strong password set & if you haven't already, set up a committed identity (just in case). --Versageek 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#User_Porgers_attempting_to_crack_my_account. --64.85.215.26 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this could work anyway - even if the Wikimedia folks did reset someone's password on request from a hacker, the new randomly-generated password would be emailed to the user's registered email address and not the hacker's address. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So he's not really trying to hack, he's just being a pest. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the recent targets for Porgers (and his various sock puppets) over the last 5 days or so. I also got a notice from Wikimedia about someone (IP address 70.48.238.196) requesting a new temp password for me. It is a nuisance, but nothing more than that. Nothing was compromised. Obviously, only the recipient of the email can see the password, not the requester, if he is someone else.

I suppose this option is there for people who forget their passwords. I did notice, however, that the following statement is not true:: "If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you." I could not log in anymore with my old password by the time I read the email message, so it had already been reset by Wiki as a temp pwd, without my confirmation. That was rather annoying (although easily fixed). <[:-) --Skol fir (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This used to be a lot more common. I don't patrol changes anymore but, when I did, I'd usually get two or three "password reset" attempts by IPs every week. I'd say most of them thought it was just that simple to break into my account, not realizing how it actually worked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:FuFoFuEd creating essays to support his position

This is a first for me and I have no idea how to respond. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChucK:

1. FuFoFuEd argued to keep based on the existence of similar articles.
2. I responded that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
3. FuFoFuEd replied with a link to WP:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES.

Here's the problem: FuFoFuEd is citing an essay he had just created, just so he could cite it. (Take a look at the history.)

My concern is two-fold. First, I think that's a somewhat less than completely honest way to try to win an argument in an AfD. Second, the essay appears inconsistent with the rest of guidelines regarding reliable secondary sources. I would like to propose it for deletion but I have no idea how to do that (or what the deletion criteria are) for an essay. Advice would be appreciated. Msnicki (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:SPS would be a place to start... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the reviewing admin is capable of not taking user written essays as policy. Why does it matter if he is linking to his own essay? It's basically a link to his argument, much like your own comment was just a link to your argument with no other content. The closing admin is hardly going to read it and say: "Oh! Thats an essay! This comment carries triple weight!" because that isn't how it works. (One hopes anyway.) Don't see much point doing anything here. Regards, --81.98.48.154 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also what does self published sources have to do with anything here? He is making an argument in a discussion, not attempting to cite anything as the original poster here incorrectly asserts. Normally as a dynamic IP I just lurk, but sometimes I really am tempted into replying to some of the nonsense that goes on on Wikipedia, and this is one of those times. --81.98.48.154 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I've moved the user essay into FuFoFuEd's namespace. - SudoGhost™ 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Two problems: first, you did it wrong. Secondly, you probably shouldn't do that unilaterally; that's what MfD is for. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things: first, stating I did it wrong without saying why doesn't help. Second, the MfD page's "Alternatives to deletion" suggested that I do the very thing I did. - SudoGhost™ 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "you did it wrong" was too harsh. Let me rephrase. The essay Msnicki was concerned about, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES, has not been moved. Apparently FuFoFuEd had also created a copy with a misspelled title, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES; you moved that one to his userspace. I'll db-tag the userspace duplicate and the misspelled redirect. Regarding "Alternatives to deletion", it suggests moving articles out of Wikipedia space, not essays. Userfying a Wikipedia-space essay isn't really a case where a page is in an obviously wrong namespace, so it's usually better to discuss first, either with the editor directly, or via an MfD, before doing that. 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES was the one linked above, so I assumed that it was the only one, I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES (with the correct spelling).

You're right: it is linked above; I stand corrected. I was looking at the one linked to in the AfD. Regardless, we only need (at most) one copy of this, so I've requested speedy deletion for the copy. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems there's also a Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESWITHAPPLES in addition to Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES and the previous Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES. I'm not sure which of the two is the preferred version, so I'm hesitant to request a speedy deletion of one over the other. - SudoGhost™ 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He sure likes copying and pasting that essay! I've redirected the first to the second; easy enough to undo if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As 81.98.48.154 says, it's perfectly OK to write an essay and link to it rather than spelling out one's argument on the AfD page. You can MfD the essay if you want, but it's well within the guidelines for essays and would probably be kept. What you've done (noted in the ChucK AfD that the essay was written by the editor citing it) is probably sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Correcting again for the edit overlap.) Thanks very much for the feedback. You've answered my questions. Msnicki (talk)

Just to note, I agree that best practices would be for a person citing an essay that they just wrote to mention the fact that they just wrote it. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go. It was the seeming deceptiveness that bothered me. If someone links to a WP: page, we WP:AGF and we also expect that if it was worth the link, it's probably to some material that's been around for a while, that's been debated and can provide useful outside guidance on the prevailing consensus on that particular matter. We don't expect someone to quote themselves. This was a first for me and I had no idea how to react. Again, thanks to all for your kind advice. Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite an amusing usage of WP:AGF there, as what you did was jump to the conclusion they were trying to mislead you... --81.98.48.154 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"I quote myself all the time." - SudoGhost | SudoGhost™ 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He did mislead me last night when I first read it because I did WP:AGF. It wasn't 'till this morning I realized I might have been tricked. Bear in mind (as you can see by my contributions on that page) a lot of what attracts me to AfD discussions is the part about checking sources (they're not always what they appear to be!) and I realized this was one I hadn't really checked. But I'm disappointed I should have to in this case. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I welcomed the user to Wikipedia btw, since no one else thought of doing so. Probably a better welcome to the project than an ANI notice accusing him of bad faith editing when he probably isn't well versed with the mountain of red tape/rules (take your pick) that this project has. --81.98.48.154 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  But apparently well versed enough to participate in an AFD and write an essay. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He also wrote the bio of Ge Wang, the creator of ChucK, who had previously created the ChucK article as User:Gewang. He also knew enough to search my edit history and canvass for editors he thought might not like me. It did make me wonder. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course someone should disclose that he's citing himself. Duh. And the claim to being a new user does look pretty fishy to me. Or maybe ducky. Is there a checkuser in the house?  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gewang. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say, FuFoFuEd is certainly not a new editor. Nobody creates an essay to support their own AfD argument 6 hours after they first start editing Wikipedia. The IP's claims of WP:BITE are ludicrous. -- Atama頭 16:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't list it when requesting an investigation, but I suppose it's possible that 81.98.48.154 is just yet another sockpuppet. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of indefinite block sought

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, IP blocked for block evasion

Dear Wikipedia Administrators and Wikipedia Community. I am user BernieW650 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I was told that posting here would be an appropriate way to have the indefinite block against me reviewed, as I believe an honest mistake has occurred. I've been linked to a notorious user because he frequently edited on an article I've been working, in a SPI case opened by an editor I was having some trouble with. here. I thought this would be carefully investigated and cleared up. I honestly did not take it seriously thought it would be dismissed.

Now, of course, I can't believe I've been blocked. Mistakes do happen so I don't take it personally. I have never used multiple accounts, but I have used multiple IP addresses, since I'm at various locations at Standford University often, esp. before I created an account. I've disclosed these when I forget to log in.

I examined the banned editor I'm suspected of being, Giovanni33, and the only commonality I had with Giovanni33 was one article/subject. It's my misfortune that I choose to edit that article first, but I would hope to have the benefit of the doubt. My editing history involves many other articles and interests that do not share any history with Giovanni33, and that appears to have been ignored. It's a bit far-fetched to assume that just because someone's from SF Bay Area, and edited an article 3 years after Giovanni was around, that I'm the same person.

It seems really unfair that I'm blocked based on mere suspicion. Can someone please take another closer look and reconsider this decision? I know you all have the best interest of the project in mind, and I would like to contribute further.

I wrote the blocking admin and gave as his reason that I had five articles in common with Giovanni using this link: Using fuzzy math

I call it fuzzy math because it only shows two articles, not five: 1. The US and State Terrorism article, and 2. Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and their respective talk pages--not separate articles). John is the admin who is actively moderating, and he is not an article, either. My message to John was only a response to a message he had left me. This has no real connection to the user Giovanni33 that I can tell.

Also, the two articles are linked/related with the same subject; the section I've been working on in one was Atomic Bombing section, and we were trimming it, and so I moved over material to it's related main article. This means its just one article/subject that I have in common with the banned user. Just one. Not Five.

Regarding the SPI case that was opened:

• A large amount of the links posted had nothing to do with me, and were simply posted as a means of making it look like there was evidence. Most of the links were just things that Giovanni33 had done, with no mention of why they were connected to me. Really they should be removed from the SPI case unless there is some specific reason that they indicate that I might be connected to Giovanni.

• The administrator did not specify exactly which "behavioral evidence" made him decide to block me, other than the 5 articles, which really turn out to be two of the same subject.

I've been editing collaboratively, and abiding by the rules, working with others in good faith. If I had known this article is a kind of "third rail" of Wikipedia, I'd have avoided it. If I had really been Giovanni, would I not have known that going back to the same article as my first article would be highly suspicious in the least? I find that highly unlikely.

Again, I respect the work all of you do, and do not take any decision you ultimately make against me personally, but it is a mistake. I'm wondering now if I should just give up on Wikipedia, accepting my fate at this time, or if one of you can maybe see some basis for reasonable doubt if not outright good reason why this indef block is invalid. I'd greatly appreciate an opportunity to continue editing peacefully.

Help, Bernard. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. BernieW650, if you wish to contest your block, do not evade it, but follow WP:GAB.  Sandstein  22:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mhmm, instead of moving this to the blocked user's talk page and placing it in an unblock request for him, you block the IP. Following the letter of the law when it makes users' lives more difficult needlessly is the whole reason IAR exists. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He can still make the request on his user talk page, as described in the guide. Making an unblock request is no reason to allow block evasion.  Sandstein  22:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Sven, this is a good time to ignore the rules; Bernard says that he was told that posting here was a good idea. Why punish the IP for doing what he thought was the right thing? Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that just blocking the IP is very unhelpful. At the very least, we should help him in trying to work out an unblock request. Silverseren^C 05:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean the one that's already been posted on their talk page well before your comment? T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocking a Dynamic IP address for 3 months due to a single users block evasion seems excessive. The user will have another IP within a few days, no need to punish every editor who ends up assigned to that IP because a user dared to post an unblock request on ANI. (Plus I thought blocks were preventative, not punative. I don't see the IP vandalising or damaging the wiki?) --81.98.48.154 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(from the IP's talk page) Please assume good faith. My IP is 67.169.68.203 and doesn't change. → kind of says the opposite; moreover, there has only been one person behind that IP for quite some time. That said, since the person has an account now, namely BernieW650, the unblock request needs to be made there and not in two separate places. –MuZemike 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair play, although it is potentially shared by multiple users according to its ISP, but I suppose that can be dealt with later if it ever becomes an issue for them. --81.98.48.154 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

One might note that no block notice was placed on the UT page, thus it is reasonable to assume that a person would not know intuitively how to appeal the block. I daresay that posting here was not a heinous crime, and so marking the IP as a "sock" is a bit of overkill. Clearly no evasions of any sort was contemplated, which is the minimum needed to make it a "hanging offense." Collect (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest for all of those who involve themselves at ANI, that one remembers when dealing with new editors, patience, and adhering to warnings and tagging is probably preferential. Wikipedia has gazillions of guidelines, policies and even rules. It's a lot to absorb for someone editing here for a couple months. As mentioned by Collect, a proper block notice would probably have prevented this situation from ever happening. In addition, I have noted that multiple times, with new editors, other routes such as suggested or even "forced" mentorship, and properly pointing the editors to specific guidlelines for things they aren't understanding (with explanations/summaries provided) can go a long way. Does it always work? Of course not. But as a community, at the very least, I personally think it's the proper way to handle, help and deal with new editors. But, that's just my opinions and suggestions. We were all new editors at one time. We all made mistakes during that period. And I suspect we all still make mistakes from time to time.

On that note, I oppose the new block. I would support a mentorship, even with predefined conditions. And, I'd be willing to act as mentor (wouldn't be the first time, and I've had a decent level of success). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for intervention in the Nair article

A discussion has been going on for many days in the Nair article about the varna status, triggered by a caste fanatic called CarTick. But one of the users, MatthewVanitas has been indulging in one sided and completely biased edits even as the discussion was going on, ignoring other editors like this and this. Even after evidence was presented to show the non-reliability of his changes here, rather than acknowledging it, he resorted to attack the editor based on his surname. On top of this edit history of MatthewVanitas shows that he is incapable of being neutral in such situations, as he is constantly adding the offensive term Sudra (peasant varna) to non-peasant castes like Nairs and Kayasths, while protecting a particular well known peasant community (Maratha) from that term. I request some one more neutral to oversee the article and take in to account the views of all the users. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Neutral changes were made to the first paragraph. But MV and Cartick continuously changed it to steer the language to their point of view. Opinion of the majority of the people in the talk page are ignored (then what is the need for a Talk page?). Some one please stop these caste fanatics from insulting the communities they are less tolerant with. Robbie.Smit (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

These allegations are unfounded. I'm a member of WP:WikiProject India and have been clearly outlining there my activities regarding caste articles, and the consensus there has been supportive of these long overdue fixes. A request was made at WPINDIA for help on a thorny caste issue in Nair, I arrived and updated the article with well-chosen citations, which have been reverted by the above complainants. To give context to readers not tracking India issues, a large number of Indian castes have "legendary" claims to be of the Kshatriya (warrior) mega-caste (varna). However, in the vast majority of cases a quick perusal of RSs on GoogleBooks makes clear that most of these castes are historically of the Shudra (farmer) varna, and the main people who believe their "warrior" status are the caste members themselves. Unfortunately, this is politically unpalatable, and since many caste articles are haunted by strong pro-caste POV, such mentions of the very term Shudra provoke massive retaliation, regardless of how many PhDs have written so and reputable universities have published their findings.

Referring to their specific claims, I did not attack a user based on name; his name is certainly not "Nair", so my general statement that "we have to watch out for POV from people who have are in a given family and want to self promote" has no way of applying to him directly. Second, the first complainant, CM, tampered with my RS references, changing the links from a 2003 University of California publication to some Victorian penny-rag, with no edit summary provided. I didn't catch the change until I converted the gBooks links to full cites: dif. In short, the article has several editors hell-bent on keeping any whisper of the term "Shudra" out of the article no matter what the refs say. My only goal is to balance out caste articles by insuring that "awkward truths" like a working-class history are not obscured by historical whitewashing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to say except that i am pretty confident nobody is going to care about this thread except may be give a shallow opinion and treat single purpose accounts that have no edits outside nair and nair related articles with others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history. --CarTick (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the term "Sudra" is not used in normal occasions in independent India. Rather than as a varna, it is used more as a derogatory ethnic slang, like "Nigger" and "Kike". If a person calls someone "Sudra", he will face the same result when someone calls an African American "Nigger" in the US. MV argues that Nair was originally a farmer caste which falsely claim the Kshatriya status. But the sources other users given (More than 100 of them here) proves otherwise. At the most we can argue that Nair is both Sudra and Kshatriya. But in that case, the edits by MV and Cartick has been completely one-sided by ignoring the Kshatriya factor. As seen from here, Nair is even given as an example or mentioned as one of the only two Kshatriya castes in many of the well reliable sources. What MV and Cartick want is to completely whitewash this and bombard the article with the offensive term "Sudra" wherever possible. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history" - This is Cartick's main tool for sometime now. He makes thousands of rubbish edits in articles which he has no interest to camouflage his disruptive edits in caste related articles. Treat everyone equally. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nairs were always regarded as Kshatriya in Kerala. But varna is not important in Kerala caste system. So it will be better not to mention it. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This "Shudra is a slur" canard is overplayed; if you dislike it take it up with the academic community who continue to note this historic designation. So far as agreeing "both", that is exactly what CarTrick and I have been advocating; we are the ones pushing to say "the issue is contested, and A Group says X and B groups claims Y." It is your side which insists on making the whole page "totally warriors, always." If our edits are "one sided", it's only because we're adding Shudra cites to the existing Kshatriya cites, not removing the Kshatriya in favour of Shudra. The other popular canard is "oh well, varna doesn't matter so let's leave out the Shudra"; it's all well and peachy when one can use highly-contested Kshatriya claims (with the contestation ignored) to peacock a caste article, but once the messy realities of caste politics arise, then suddenly "varna isn't important"? Again, the clearly cited facts demonstrate that the Nair/Nayar have been considered Kshatriya by some (and in some cases), and or filled a "Kshatriya-like" social role, where in others they are strictly Brahminically categoried as Shudra due to lacking verifiable descent from the (generally believed extinct) ancient Kshatriya classes. The entire argument against this has yet to have any real basis than "Shudra isn't a pretty word, and we can't say anything that might hurt someone's feelings."

To those folks unfamiliar with India issues, again this is as though the Scottish clan "MacGregor" article went on about how the whole clan was noble Scottish lords and warriors, but then when confronted with PhD/university citations showing they'd been a class of turf-cutters and shepherds, with several kings arising from them and several periods of war where they did indeed provide soldiers, the clan-advocates would cry "you can't call them turf-cutters, that's calling them 'hicks' and inappropriate! And besides, their occupational history isn't important at all, let's compromise and just go back to calling them kings and warriors." I am still failing to see any reasonable NPOV argument for leaving out the well-document Shudra affiliation of the Nair. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please close this complaint, as I have withdrawn it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be closed after you've called another editor a "caste fanatic." WP:NPA certainly applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree! Calling Cartick a "caste fanatic" is a blatant personal attack.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is explicit permission necessary?

An IP user recently removed File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg from the article Point of view pornography and expressed concerns about a) the age of the person depicted, and b) the consent of the person depicted. Regarding the age of the one performing, it seems borderline. However, is the person depicted's explicit permission necessary for a use of the file, or should we keep using it (as long as the person depicted is of legal age) per WP:NOTCENSORED? Sorry if this is the wrong forum; I am not sure where to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer the personality rights question. But the age thing seems fine, although it's nearly impossible to judge from so little I'd be happy ticking that off as fine. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well; my guess is 19 - 23. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MCQ ←, but I think that explicit permission is required if the subject is personally identifiable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I never would have thought that that is a copyright questions. :-/ Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the people watching that page are usually better versed at image policy and the legal stuff surrounding personality rights than the average user watching AN/I :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try and ask the personality rights question there. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I should know better than to ask, but how does an image expand the reader's understanding of the concept explained in the article? I have no problem with explicit images being used appropriately, but I do not understand the seemingly pervasive desire to add pictures of breasts or penises to every article that it is even remotely connected to sex, nudity, or pornography. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all readers will understand what POV means. Now, if we had a free, non-explicit POV pornography picture that would be much better... but I found nothing on the Commons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you consider using words, instead of images? Images can be useful, but in my opinion, words should be given preference unless the article is about a specific object/person/painting/etc which needs to be shown since the text relates to how it looks. In regard to explicit sexual images, we should always err on the side of caution. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is already in the article. However, the English-language Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world, who may not necessarily understand what is said. A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words. If there were something non-explicit, that would help too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrable case of wiki-hounding by 'clean start' account

I had been planning to cool off on ANI for a while and voluntarily not start new threads for quite some time, but since there is a proposal above to ban me from doing so altogether (#Summary of conclusions and proposed resolution) I feel I need to do this now. This one actually is serious, and I would appreciate it if people could treat it on its merits rather than seeing that it came from me and reacting as usual.

We start with part one—wiki-hounding. Please could somebody look over the following pattern which I've noticed emerging between myself and Sergeant Cribb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—it seems very unfortunately conclusive.

• I create Oklahoma primary electoral system—within hours, the Sergeant nominates it for deletion (everyone else argued to 'keep')
• I list at AfD Terry (Fawlty Towers)—the Sergeant materialises there too
• I edit International Bureau of Weights and Measures—the same day, so does the Sergeant
• I edit Xerox—then the Sergeant follows suit
• I PROD Wooburn Grange Country Club—the Sergeant turns up there
• I start a thread at WP:ANI—the Sergeant comments against me in it
• I edit Peter St Clair-Erskine, 7th Earl of Rosslyn—14 minutes later, so does the Sergeant
• I edit Fourth Doctor—suddenly, the Sergeant shows an interest in the article for the first time
• I PROD Miss Tibbs and Miss Gatsby—the Sergeant arrives the next day
• I edit John Bercow—the Sergeant decides to as well
• I edit Transport for London—the Sergeant joins in
• I edit United Nations Trusteeship Council—and inspire the Sergeant to do so too
• I edit Instant-runoff voting—the Sergeant considers that a good wheeze
• I edit Nevada—the Sergeant is on it
• I edit Positron—the Sergeant suddenly develops an interest in particle physics
• I edit Ice—the Sergeant thinks that's cool
• I edit List of elected or appointed female deputy heads of state—the Sergeant has obviously spotted it

I would point out that these articles come from wildly differing topic areas, ranging from comedy to political science to the British nobility to weights and measures. I am always reluctant to accuse another person of stalking my edits, and have myself been on the wrong end of accusations of this sort and know how unpleasant it is, but this really does seem to be a textbook case of wiki-hounding—"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute [...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."
This is not to say that all of the Sergeant's edits are bad in themselves; while the ones regarding deletion are (in my view) extremely misguided, often to the point of inexplicability, he also does some good work adding sources. But it still makes me uncomfortable that somebody is so obviously tracking my editing patterns, and I don't think that there can really be any legitimate excuse: for instance, it's not as if my edits violate policy and need correcting.

Now I move onto part two—the former undisclosed account. The Sergeant's userpage states that he is making a clean start... using precisely the same wording as that of Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made a dramatic exit from Wikipedia while in a dispute with me... just five days before the Sergeant started editing—so it now becomes clear that we have a breach of WP:CLEANSTART, since such accounts are not supposed to be used to pursue old disputes in an inappropriate way but evading the scrutiny of previous usernames. (There is also other, lesser, evidence linking the two accounts, such as being active at the reliable sources noticeboard and frequently tagging articles with 'BLP unreferenced' tags.)

I have discussed this privately with a number of admins, all of whom agree with the conclusions I've drawn, and more than one of whom suggested a post to ANI. I would consider naming them if that would be of interest to anyone. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: I was among the admins who had this material mailed privately yesterday, but didn't find the time to look into it and didn't respond by mail. – Seeing this documentation here, I find the evidence of "hounding" very compelling, and the evidence of account identity highly likely. If this is true, Sergeant Cribb definitely needs to be told to stay away from TT. Not quite sure about how far sanctions should go; I think it depends on how SC reacts now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This does look rather incriminating, but let's give SC a chance to respond. On a related subject, though, you're pedantically removing a lot of rather uncontroversial/easily-citable information and SC is just adding it back with appropriate citations. Perhaps instead of removing this information, you can tag it with {{cn}} or cite it yourself? That is mostly separate from the issues you raise in the post, but take it as food for thought. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it looks like hounding, and I noticed the poor average quality of TT's edits as well. To get the full picture it would be necessary to know all previous accounts of Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus / Sergeant Cribb. I am not saying that this has happened, but before coming to a definite conclusion I would like to rule out the theoretical possibility Treasury Tag went through a list of articles edited by a former account of HP/SC and made a slightly pointy edit to each. Hans Adler 09:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I resent Hans' suggestion of potential deception and bad faith on my part, but since I did also check this out of interest, I believe that almost all of the pages on my list above were never before edited by the Sergeant or by his prior self. Or by me, for that matter. They were simply pages I came across while browsing/researching stuff. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING says If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. The problem here is that SC seems to be making proper edits and constructive suggestions. Decidedly the one on female leaders where he made a polite suggestion on TT's UT page is not in the category of "harassment" for sure, etc. At such time as SC makes edits or claims which impact on TT's reasonable ability to edit, I think this issue is a non-starter. SC is, moreover, advised to find additional areas to edit in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consulted LHvU on that very point, and this is what he advised me (he gave permission to post the text of his emails): The fact that most, if not all, of the edits fall within a reasonable good faith interpretation of WP's policies and guidelines is irrelevant - they are intended to negate your contributions to the project, and they are a continuation by a previous editor of a "personal" dispute. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree with that interpretation which is contrary to the English version of the page cited. Moreover, I ask you heed my opinion stated earlier today with regard to you above - and recognize that the more you come to this well with weak cases, the less likely you are to get water. I did not see harassment in this case, and did suggest that sC find additional areas to eduit in. That should be quite sufficient to address any conscerns you have. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be a pattern of following, which may be of some concern if it turns into harassment. But what about, for instance, this jaw-droppingly bad edit by TT, which I would likely revert as "rvv" or "don't be so fucking stupid"? There is absolutely no requirement for inline citation of well-known and uncontroversial facts, or you could just read the linked article. So the question arises, if not Sergeant Cribb, then who else is going to check all TT's edits to reverse this sort of damage to the encyclopedia? Franamax (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that the person adding content to Wikipedia is responsible for citing it appropriately, but I also think that that isn't (or shouldn't be) the point here. We have an individual who turned up for a 'clean start' less than a week after his old self left in a huff, and is now pursuing a long-standing dispute by stalking somebody's edits and immediately nominating a perfectly decent article of theirs for deletion. It may not be harassment (and please note that I never suggested it was) but it's a pretty bad show. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 12:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

TT while no one should be following all your edits, a number of commentators here have made some very fair points about some of those edits. How about, at the very least putting people's minds at ease that you will tag unsourced content that is not contentious or not in violation of policies like NPOV or BLP instead of removing it? You're not doing yourself any favors by wikilawyering when these criticisms come up. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN also says "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." Personally, I think WP:BEFORE should apply to inline deletion in addition to AFD, but that's not for here. I'm not going to speak directly to the issue at hand, because I don't know TT, don't know SC, don't know the editor SC is accused of being a reincarnation of, and in general don't have a horse in this race. But I am going to take a look at TT's other recent article contributions and see if there's anything else that can be easily cited and restored. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think by linking to Wikipedia:Harrassment (WP:HOUND is just a subsection of that page), you are actually suggesting that it is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point, I didn't think about it like that. But I'm not suggesting 'harassment' in the usual sense of the word (threats, emails, incivility, abuses of process other than the deletion issue). This is purely limited to stalking my edits, and to the WP:HOUND sub-section. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we solve the problem of your bad edits though? ANI looks at all behaviour. Seriously, you removed poitron-emission tomography from the Applications section of the Positron article? You thought you were improving the encyclopedia? Franamax (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My "bad edit" (incidentally, not vandalism as you claimed above) was the removal of information lacking a source, as per "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." I have no objection, in principle, to it having a source added. That is helpful. However, allowing and, indeed, encouraging the stalking of someone's edits should not be a solution to anything. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case the removal was a bad choice. Don't just remove content because it has no in-line source - especially if it is on a technical topic and seems reasonable. Everything should be verifiable, but not everything is sourced in-line. So if something non-contentious concerns you then tag it. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken on board for the future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 14:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's probably not necessary to delete broadcast metrics as uncited 3 minutes after they get a citation needed tag.[10] Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be that TreasuryTag would benefit from an Wikipedia:Editor review for feedback on his editing, but ANI is not the place to discuss this sort of thing. TreasuryTag - doing that wouldn't be fun, but it would probably be helpful, if only to give a chance for people to comment on all these sorts of issues in a constructive rather than judgemental potential-sanction way. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So what admin action is being asked for here? the following around is very clear; and whilst a lot of the edits are positive (finding sources for removed content) there is some concerning stuff. And, tbh, if TT has the feeling of being uncomfortably hounded then that should be grounds enough for some sort of action. Interaction ban? --Errant ^(chat!) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to an interaction ban (or even a block, given the clean-start issues) but I think they'd both be slightly overkill at this stage. I'd suggest that an admin issues a sternly-worded warning to the Sergeant that if he continues an interaction ban will follow, and I suspect that would solve the problem without resorting to mega-sanctions at this stage. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 14:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I was one of the admins TT approached about this, and it seems to me that Sergeant Cribb has violated the spirit of WP:CLEANSTART by following around someone he's previously had a dispute with. It doesn't entirely matter whether his "following" edits are bad or good (there are certainly question-marks about some of the deletion-related editing). Cribb certainly needs to clarify whether he was Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus; and given that Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus was itself a CLEANSTART account, arguably clarify who he was before that as well. And he needs to stop following TT around, and trust that other editors will take care of any issues he might have with T's editing. Failing a commitment to do that (or breach thereof), an interaction ban might be appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 14:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reply I have just seen the notification of this thread (some of us work for a living). I note that 13 of the 17 edits that TT complains of consist of my adding references to articles where in 12 out of those 13 cases he had arbitrarily remomoved material as unreferenced that was trivially easy to find citations for. Let me point out that WP:HOUND states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and that this is precisely what I was doing. Let me also point out the four occasions on which I politely suggested that TT's behaviour was problematic: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Why did TT not want to enter into a dialogue?
• [I'll continue later.] Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  To answer your question, I didn't want to enter into a dialogue with somebody stalking my edits (which did and do not, in my opinion, violate Wikipedia policy). I also notice that you've not given a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question which Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) asked you on your talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Continuation Indeed, I have not addressed that question yet, but will do so now. Yes User:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus was my previous account. I scrambled it in disgust at the persistent incivility of TT ( [15] refers) and the failure of the admin corps to do anything about it [16]. It was perhaps a mistake to accept the invitation to return so quickly. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not going to keep badgering you, because I suspect that Rd232 et al will have this situation fully in hand, but may I just ask one final question? If you abandoned your previous second account "in disgust at the persistent incivility of TT" then would it not have been a good idea to avoid intentionally angering TT by stalking his edits? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  As I explained above, I reject the accusation of "stalking". Your complex question must therefore remain unanswered. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't withdraw the accusation, but allow me to rephrase the question in a way which will hopefully enable you to answer. If you abandoned your previous second account "in disgust at the persistent incivility of TT" then would it not have been a good idea to (a) avoid deliberately getting involved with him again, and (b) avoid intentionally angering TT by tracking his edits? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  On the other hand, TT, couldn't you have avoided editing badly? --88.104.35.41 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Uh, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Bit weird reading that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  In answer to TT, (a) perhaps yes and (b) still too complex (assumption of intention to anger anyone is petitio principii). If TT was angered by my civilly restoring sourced material to the encyclopaedia, that is regrettable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  How about making it dirt simple: Why the hell didn't you just avoid TT entirely? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  On reflection, that was probably not the best use of my time. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Per Rd232. In my email comment to TT I was not referring to WP:HOUND but WP:Clean start - that regardless of the the apparent propriety of the edits they were in fact a continuation of a dispute from the previous account. That of itself is violation of policy. Solely on that basis, TT had good reason to raise this concern (even though I counselled to bring it to ArbCom's attention, where it might have been handled without the drama that gets tacked on here.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal:

1. User:Sergeant Cribb agrees to not follow TreasuryTag around. Regardless of intent or of quality of edits, given the prior history, he should not be doing this. Other editors will take care of any issues arising with TT's editing. Failure to agree (or to respect the agreement) would risk an interaction ban.
2. User:TreasuryTag agrees to a Wikipedia:Editor Review. There are enough people who have something to say about TT's editing that this non-judgemental feedback forum may be helpful. In addition, accepting it will probably help User:Sergeant Cribb agree to point one.

Rd232 ^talk 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Both very good suggestions. The attitude expressed above concerns me: that because policy language says that a general kind of editing is permissible in the abstract, that you are necessarily justified doing it in a particular instance, particularly if you are selectively relying on only part of the relevant policy language. Just because you can remove uncited content doesn't mean you should always remove uncited content; it's far from the only solution and it's not usually the best (as a first step, at least), and WP:BURDEN expressly says that. And WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is also policy. So it would be a good thing to have a review of how his editing judgment has played out in practice and guidance given where a more constructive step should have been taken than the one that was chosen. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about a clean-start account immediately launching back into their prior dispute, though without disclosing their previous username, including nominating an article of mine for deletion? ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 18:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm wavering about whether or not to agree to Rd's proposal. I must confess to being unclear as to why I should be forced to make concessions in order to not have my edits stalked. I'd be interested to hear whether or not the Sergeant would, hypothetically, agree to the compromise. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 18:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to agree to Rd232's compromise. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable entering into a compromise over an issue where there should be a clear-cut position. Sergeant Cribb must not stalk/track/target/insert-politically-correct-word-here my edits and that is all there is to it. It is a violation of WP:HOUND and it is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART. I would like him to agree to permanently stop ____ing my edits; I see that he has already agreed above that it is bad use of his own time.

I may subsequently decide to voluntarily go in for editor review, of my own accord or reacting to somebody's request, but it is unreasonable that I should be shanghaied into doing it simply in order to secure a situation which should be the case anyway – namely, being free from the stalking of a third-account CLEANSTART editor with a grudge. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 19:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. I remain open to the compromise if TT changes his mind. In any event, I do not currently intend to seek out further problems with TT's editing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm slightly confused. Are you basically agreeing to stop following my edits? Because if so, I will happily mark this thread 'resolved' (or at least declare it 'resolved' as far as I'm concerned) and move on. And I might go in for an editor-review in a coupla weeks anyway; see how things go. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that I accept that I have better things to do with my time than follow TT around. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it would be as well to be clear about this. Do you agree not to specifically track {lovely split infinitive}my edits any more? Yes or no? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree to quit badgering people in discussions? Yes or no? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree to quit badgering people in discussions? Yes or no? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree to quit badgering people in discussions? Yes or no? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry if there was any ambiguity, so to be clear: the two parts of the Proposal are independent. In particular, even if 2. doesn't happen then some form of 1. will happen - including, if necessary, an interaction ban or other sanction of Cribb. I'll take Cribb's statements as agreement to not follow TT around, so in effect, this problem is solved (in combination with Cribb confirming his prior identity). If he breaks that agreement, he'll be subject to sanction, without regard to whether the "following around" edits are good, bad, or indifferent. Now I'd like TT to accept 2. as well, but if he doesn't, that's his bed he's making. Basically, we're done here. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Rd. I'll bookmark the link for reference as a guarentee that Sergeant Cribb (talk · contribs) is not to stalk/follow/trace my edits any longer. Now that this is resolved, I will voluntarily commit to undergo an editor-review within two weeks. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• In the interests of perfect clarity --
• I agree not to deliberately track TT's edits: while we may intersect in future, I will not seek to do so. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since there has been unambigious violation of WP:Clean Start I would prefer that Sergeant Cribb edit only from the Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus account, or at very least make it abundantly clear of the connection between the two. Disregarding this abuse, in the raising of concerns regarding Treasury Tag and their edits, is improper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done [17] [18]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to a discussion on my talkpage it is confirmed that Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus was also a WP:Clean Start account. As Sergeant Cribb has been forthcoming as to the fact, indeed supplying the evidencing diff, I am content merely to note the fact and to express a hope that the contributor will be more circumspect in future in relation to their past accounts editing histories. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• comment. OK - 1) I agree that TT had every right to be upset and concerned about this. 2) I compliment RD on his work to resolve this with minimal fuss and drama (good work). However, I do recall not more than a week or two ago that TT mentioned that he was going to follow SoV around and check his edits and actions. (I'd rather not have to go searching for the diff, but I do recall the gist of the post) - I have a request in that venue. Please remember how it feels to be hounded, harassed, and stalked TT, and I ask that you not do the same to others. Thank you, that is all. — Ched :  ?  22:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree that TT really needs to undergo an editor review, as some of your removals are baffling. Yes, you can justify it in policy, but the positron edit in particular was a bit ridiculous. Please take our concerns under consideration, TT. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Is there any particular reason you felt a need to post the above, in light of my very clear comment, "Now that this is resolved, I will voluntarily commit to undergo an editor-review within two weeks," slightly higher up in the thread...? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 07:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Heh, evidently I missed that when reading the many replies after my earlier comment. My bad. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User NapoleonX continuously removes text and sections from two articles

The user NapoleonX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continuously removed unflattering, but sourced, information from the James O'Keefe and ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy articles: [19] [20] [21], just to show a few incidences. If you look at the gentleman's contributions, you'll see upsetting trends. Many users have tried to talk to him, requesting that he actually express his grievances, but he just erases peoples comments from his talk page and ignores everyone in general. It's clear that he will keep this up, and so I am requesting that someone else also look into this. Thank you very much. Enderandpeter (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a handful of constructive edits, but quite a few edits which remove controversial, yet properly-cited, material.NapoleonX gives the appearance of attempting to "sanitize" or "whitewash" articles. Several of the edits are arguably non-neutral and break the verifiability of article content. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Time for a new filter...?

It never fails. All it takes is one malcontent with a dynamic IP, a thirst for attention and no real ability to contribute meaningfully to in turn cost far too much volunteer time. I refer to one of the latest long-term abusers, User:Meepsheep. I've never crossed paths with him, but he's showing up a lot more on the blocked user list. I believe it's time for a filter to block this guy on sight. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a set pattern to the edits from which a filter can be derived? I've never come across him/her myself, although I've seen the username a half-handful of times either here or on AIV. (My curiosity's up a bit...) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There are variations of the original username in the names of the socks which include not only "Meepsheep" but both "Meep" and "Sheep" as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That, and if they edit, the first edit is always some inane post to create their userpage. I found one with the picture HJ Mitchell has of himself on his userpage with some disparaging remark, for one, and using blocked sock templates seems to be a favorite. I've been watching the user creation log, and although it hasn't reached MascotGuy levels it's getting annoying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think such a thing was even possible. :P Still, he's annoying as all get-out and if we can start with a filter without resorting to rangeblocks, I'm all for it. PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

See, here's the problem if we were able to "blacklist" all forms of his name (which I don't think would be possible without collateral damage BTW): that's only going to make his disruptive accounts that much harder to detect. –MuZemike 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And of course, me and my big mouth. The little darling just insulted me with one of his usernames over at the blocked username page and he used some alternate characters to do it. Anybody for a rangeblock? At least I got under his skin. Very satisfying.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And you're not helping any by creating an SPI case on the account (which was globally suppressed, BTW) and then recreating it after it was deleted. CU is not going to help here at all for the exact reasons you stated above. –MuZemike 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me elaborate in that we already have many people who are watching this and that the only possible thing CU can do here is scan the underlying IPs and XFFs for open proxies (which, after doing a couple, there are one or two of them). In other words, rangeblocking is out of the question. –MuZemike 21:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Then to hell with it. I saw the litttle monster's socks, reported it here, thought I was facing a technical glitch and now I'm the one getting reamed. I hadn't been involved with the issue before and believe me, I won't be again. I swear, this site eats its own. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) Pointing out that there is no effective technical solution isn't "reaming" you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Second day of religious-based personal attacks (and expressed contempt for WP NPA/civility/blocking policies)

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

Closed per Kiefer.Wolfowitz's request and the likelihood that nothing good was going to come out of keeping it open. 28bytes (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The ANI's failure to act after the previous abuse of User:Keepscases has been interpreted as a license for further insults/personal attacks/baiting by User:Snottywong.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

[...] shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself. —SW— ^spout 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

...

[...] If you feel the need to block me, then just block me. Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block). You can get a preview of what the community's reaction to a block would be by taking a look at the recent ANI thread started by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. —SW— ^speak 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

...

Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves. Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence. —SW— ^soliloquize 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing the ANI alert on Sunday (18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)), this noticeboard failed to act after yesterday Saturday's abuse:

Seriously, why don't you try to keep your religious biases out of your opinions at RfA (and anywhere else, for that matter). No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in, and nothing could be further from relevant when voting for adminship. No one likes people who constantly refer to their religion, push their religion on others, or publicly announce that the decisions they make are based on their religion. If anything, it makes you look more like an idiot. —SW— ^gossip 21:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• That was three days ago, not yesterday. Anyway, the emboldened section is the concerning part, although it is well worth reading the context as well to get a better understanding of what was actually being said. Aside from all this, an admin has already told Snottywong that if they make a comment like the emboldened section again, they will be blocked. So, regardless of the fact Snottywong seems unimpressed by being told that, I don't really see there's anything to do here (yet more drama?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the emboldened section is the one that generates the greatest concern. But I'm also concerned by some other aspects of this -- the statement that blocks for misbehavior will not lead him to alter his behavior, for example. And (indirectly) calling someone an idiot does seem somewhat outside of what is contemplated in wp:civil.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks for misbehaviour will not lead him to alter his behaviour? Well, an excess of honesty is not a crisis - if he ends up blocked then that admission can be taken into account when deciding the block length. And yes, there's a distinct lack of civility. Something for WP:WQA or some other similar forum, not another huge drawn out drama thread here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- I agree that wqa would have been a more appropriate noticeboard.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The claim that WikiProject Atheism is a hate group is obvious trolling. With a mere 1650 edits in 4 years (roughly 1 per day) and the overwhelming majority of them to project and user talk space, Keepscases looks like a troll sock that should simply not be fed. (I vaguely remember similar earlier incidents, but with such a low intensity of participation it can take many years for someone to get banned.) It could of course be a good faith editor with a temporary failure of mental capacities, in which case that editor should also not be fed. Overreactions to Keepscases feed Keepscases, and reactions to the overreactions also feed Keepscases. Just stop them all and the problem will be much easier to solve. If Keepscases is a good-faith user, it will simply disappear. If not, then the user will increase their activities to get attention and will then be easily blockable. Hans Adler 18:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, your statement is contrary to the no-retaliation policy. You are condoning a second day of personal attacks on KS, interpreting SW's abuse as justified retaliation against a troll. Further, you add a personal attack against KS, here on ANI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Atheists, being a hate group, have committed many lynchings, church-bombings and cross-burnings over the years. Haven't they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the great Atheist crusades of the Middle Ages, as well as the Atheist Inquisition in Spain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know posting comments in a smaller size of font allowed you to post non-constructive off-topic ramblings on ANI, which could be read as attempting to provoke a response from other users. May I join in? --81.98.48.154 (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP (says with utmost disgust =p) has a good point you know. There's no sense bringing up medieval and colonial history which might provoke an annoyed response. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, you want some hard facts beyond those I have mentioned already, so it can't be classified as a personal attack? Keepscases' 20 most frequently edited pages: (1) ANI, (2) WT:RfA, (3) User talk:Keepscases, (4)-(20) include 10 individual RfA or RfB pages. This is essentially an RfA/RfB-voting single purpose account, and there were at least two attempts to ban the user from RfA/RfB, ending in no consensus. (At least in one case with much participation and numerically slightly in favour of the ban, I believe.)

With my comment I was trying to make Snottywong stop these silly personal attacks. That would be the best way, because then Keepscases would no longer be rewarded by drama. Hans Adler 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the boomerang issues, I'll just say I agree that the issues raised as to SW are not warranted by any behavior (or misbehavior) by the complainant. Personal attacks (which most of us seem to agree were present here) are never excused by complainant behavior, and disregard for core wiki principles (a block will not change my behavior) are never a good sign.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Its looks like Keepsakes made the most absurd neutral vote in an RfA I have ever seen, obvious trolling whether as a joke or something else. Snotty bought the troll bait. He should ignore the troll going forward, as should we all.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• It would have been better to post something like an UNINVOLVED template at the page. (EC3)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• It's fair to say that Keepsake's questions to admin candidates are at least entertaining. Like, "Is it possible for wikipedia editors to fall in love?" What that has to do with adminship is anybody's guess. But it keeps things light. Until he meanders into the "hate group" nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keepscases, as Hans Adler demonstrates, is basically a single purpose account with the intention of disrupting RFA with nonsense questions and soapboxing his hatred of atheism. Just look at all the disruption caused by the single neutral vote (though this isn't the only time). He's long overdue a ban - we should not tolerate SPAs on Wikipedia. While I probably wouldn't have commented the way SW did, I can honestly understand his frustration. Is Keepscases a positive asset to our encyclopedia? Not at all. We should stop being over sensitive when it comes to these things and take a strict stance. AD 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Seconded. Keepscases is simply an RfA troll as far as I'm concerned. His questions serve no other purpose than to mock the process, and his decisions whether to support or oppose a candidate have nothing to do with the interests of improving the project but rather if they meet his own personal moral standards. -- œ^™ 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Following Hans's explanation, I looked at Keepscases's contributions, and I agree that much of it is trolling, particularly at RfAs. Perhaps Snottywong remembers this question? I think that banning Keepscases would be good for WP. I no longer view Snottywong as issuing personal attacks against a nice but misguided person (like many Americans I know), but as being sidetracked and then being uncivil towards a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
• Keepscases is harmless. He has a beef with a Wikiproject he thinks is belittling religion, and votes accordingly on RfAs. The entirety of his "disruptive" RfA comment that sparked this iteration of the drama was "Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose." Why people can't just refrain from arguing with him about it all the time is a mystery to me. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a mystery to me why people continue to support an obviously disruptive SPA. He's not harmless, not everyone knows his history so someone is always going to respond to his trolling. That's why we have 2 ANI threads, plus a very long discussion on his talk page about it. If he was harmless, we wouldn't even be discussing this. AD 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I just don't find "Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose." to be "obviously disruptive". I think he's wrong not to support that RfA, of course, since I Supported it, but people are wrong on the Internet all the time. We have two ANI threads because the normally-clueful Snottywong, who does know the history, couldn't refrain from hurling insults. 28bytes (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have any problems with that vote, until the rationale was given. Keepscases keeps insisting and repeating that a group of editors here are on par with the KKK. He may well be allowed to do that, but some people don't appreciate this sort of labeling, just as some people don't like being labeled with other epithets. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose silencing Keepscases (largely for reasons given by 28bytes) or blocking SW (comments are unfortunate but well short of blockable). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• 28bytes sums it up quite well. And RfA could use a little mocking-of-the-process from time to time. Get a neutral vote like that, save the nugget about being able to laugh at our own processes but ignore the urge to reply to it. Basically a win-win if the user is mature about it. -- ۩ Mask 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if these two could just stop with this and agree to respect each others' religious beliefs before things get worse. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keepsakes clearly worships Satan while pretending to be religious, so that will probably be difficult.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if Project Atheism was displaying anti-theism userboxes, not just atheist ones, and I think it's that that Keepscases objected to - and I would object to it too. I've no real problem with users having anti-theist userboxes (other than that I generally prefer to see pro- userboxes than anti- userboxes), but I don't think projects should associated themselves with them. Project Atheism, Project Islam, Project Judaism, Project Christianity, etc, should all be about promoting the well-sourced coverage of their topics on Wikipedia, and *not* about promoting the belief system itself. Thus, whatever my own belief system, I should be able to feel equally comfortable should I choose to become a member of them all and try to contribute to them all. Project Atheism is NOT for atheists - it's for people who wish to improve Wikipedia's coverage of atheism, whatever their own beliefs. And Keepscases has done nothing wrong in acting according to what seems to be a similar opinion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz clearly has no idea what ANI is for, and has now created enormous amounts of unnecessary drama by starting two ANI threads on me in as many days (despite the first one being quickly closed as frivolous). I propose that he be restricted from starting new discussions on ANI, unless he first consults an admin for approval of the topic of discussion. —SW— ^chatter 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom. —SW— ^chatter 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I support an uninvolved admin closing this whole thread. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also support closing this thread. I have already acknowledged that an uninvolved template would have been more appropriate. A suggestion that newbies consider first using the uninvolved template could be added to this page's directions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This can clearly be closed. Snotty has cooled down, and Kiefer seems satisified as well. Close before more people have chance to stir it up again.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Danceking5

Danceking5 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I am having some problems with the above-named user, and would like some administrator intervention before it gets messy.

Danceking5 has engaged in multiple personal attacks against me and other users at Talk:Trance music. I have warned him three times (123) to refrain from (and redact) his personal attacks on the page. His response has been to remove them, and then to make more personal attacks against me. (calling me a stalker (which necessitated warning #3 above), calling me 'unstable and annoying' and referring to a 'god complex', calling me a vandal). Clearly my warnings and requests that he redact his attacks are falling on deaf ears; administrator intervention is required here. Sigh, edited to add this change to his userpage, accusing me of various things. Further edit to add this, his latest comment on the talkpage in which he now has gone from outright insults to casting thinly-veiled aspersions about my life. → ROUX ₪ 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Warned him for "unstable and annoying" -- not acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He has already been warned multiple times both on his tpage and the tpage of the article. All of these warnings have been ignored, so I'm not really sure what effect yet another one is going to have. → ROUX ₪ 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

More nasty commentary, including another allegation of stalking [22] (which is kind of a weird thing to suggest, since I first edited the article in question approximately three months before he did), and telling me to 'add to the community' [23] (likewise weird; 1 FA 4 GA 9 articles started, 22-23K edits is not contributing somehow?). So seriously folks, could someone please step in here? → ROUX ₪ 06:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. I ran into a similar situation a while back, right here in ANI no less, and even though things got very rocky a couple months in, they ended up turning out very well (and earned me a very nice section on their userpage). I suspect Danceking5 is gonna do just fine, once he's managed to absorb the ton of info in all the WP:ACRONYMS he's being exposed to. If he (and you, Roux) are willing to try, I'm willing to try to help out. Even a mentorship if he's willing. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Failure to understand policy

As a related topic, Danceking5 appears unable or unwilling to understand basic Wikipedia policies including but not apparently limited to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and guidelines such as WP:BRD. The current argument is contained at Talk:Trance music#Origins and Talk:Trance music#Further problems with this page. In summary, Danceking5 seems to think that he is a reliable source (via personal experience) for statements he is making in the article, and that (for example) because he knows that X song is a trance track, a citation to that track's release data on discogs.org is a perfectly acceptable reference. Needless to say, the reference does not support his assertions, and repeated attempts to get him to understand the content policies mentioned above have fallen on deaf ears. A look through the history of Talk:Trance music would be edifying, as this problem has been ongoing since February, when he began editing the article. It is my understanding that similar problems with sourcing have been occurring across other music genre articles, but I have not bothered to investigate in any depth. I can if requested.

Not sure exactly what intervention will work to deal with the policy problems, so I leave it for the community to figure that one out. Essentially, Danceking5 seems to feel that the rules do not apply to him. As a minor side note, I have explained to him several times in detail how to format talkpage comments properly, and he continues to refuse to do so, failing to indent and using a horizontal rule to separate his comments. Given the number of times I have explained how to do it, I believe he is being intentionally disruptive/annoying. In a minor way, yes, but it seems to be indicative of the overall problem. → ROUX ₪ 21:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just realized that this may have the appearance of trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. This is not the case; the only reason there is a content dispute is Danceking5's refusal or inability to understand core policies. My efforts at explaining this to him have been utterly futile, which is why I need someone else to step in. → ROUX ₪ 00:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on this talk page. He's already been given some excellent advice by another editor. Let me know if further problems occur. Hopefully things will change now. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Subject line insults by User:Pmanderson and removal of AFD tag

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

No admin action is going to be taken here, move along. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Could I have an admin remove these insults from the subject lines of these edits please?:

[24] (Undo vandalism by Rememberway.)

[25] (Undo vandalism)

I don't like bad faith accusations hanging around when I'm clearly not doing anything that can be construed that way. (I did a perfectly normal user merge and then when it was undone I called an AFD.)

I just find it highly offensive. Very many thanks.

One of the edits actually removed an AFD tag as well...

Rememberway (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing an afd template is vandalism. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what Pmanderson did, not Rememberway. Get your facts straight, Mr IP. Revdelling an edit summary made up of nothing but swearing doesn't stick, so I don't think mischaracterisations of an edit as vandalism is going to be removed. But Pmanderson should be aware that if he continues to make such baseless accusations and remove AfD templates he will end up getting blocked. Fences&Windows 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, sorry if I wasn't clear.  :) 216.93.212.245 (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion both Pmanderson and Rememberway are bordering on disruptive. I am not trying to excuse PMA's removal of the banner, but he did not act in a vacuum. If you look at the AfD discussion, there was some indication that the nomination should be speedy closed. Also, see the recent debates at both WT:MOS and WP:Article title for some additional background. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the banner was an accident; I must have looked at the wrong diff, and thought that this was another effort by Rememberway to get rid of the example which inconveniences his pet theory. I am glad to see it restored, and I apologize for the error. But Rememberway blanked a substantive article, and has now asked to have it deleted, because he doesn't like its title, because it isn't a noun. I regret to say I'm not making this up.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely not true, I merged it, perfectly properly, and then Pmanderson just went berzerk. Pmanderson has carried on with his bad faith attacks even within the AFD itself and here; and seems to be engaged in WP:POINTy behaviour there as well. IMO it's all very improper behavior.Rememberway (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone isn't following this extremely closely (which is likely), Blueboar isn't a disinterested party, he's been buddy-reverting in WP:Article titles back to Pmanderson's edits; where Pmanderson's edits are making the bizarre claim that song names aren't nouns. Yup, they both think that names aren't nouns. You couldn't make this up.Rememberway (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Charles Whitman Article

Resolved

 – Page protection restored.

Please review Charles Whitman Article and Discussion Page.

IP USER 71.85.120.252 (by own admission of who he is here [26] and here [27]) has been blocked/banned on Wikipedia on numerous occassions for causing disruptions to the Charles Whitman page. (See ANI thread [28])

The Charles Whitman discussion page was protected here [29] on Dec 13, 2010. But at the request of an editor, it was unprotected by a different admin here [30] on May 18, 2011, presumably without checking the history as to why it was protected in the first place.

I am finding myself in an edit war because information he is wanting in the article is not properly sourced and that too is mentioned on the Charles Whitman discussion page as to how poorly sourced the article is. I am requesting help/intervention. I left a message (to no avail as of yet - the admin mentioned on their talk page they would be offline for about a week) on the talk page of the administrator who banned this user last here [31] because she stated I've lengthened the IP block and removed all the BLP vios I could find. Please keep in mind, any editor is free to rm BLP vios on sight. Likewise, given all the sockpuppetry and disruption, if/when he shows up again, all an editor need do is let an admin know about it. Meanwhile, this looks like enough support for a community siteban to me, so I've added ban tags, so anyone who stumbles onto this later will be aware of the background. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bateauxny (talk • contribs) Bateauxny (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The above got zapped by the archiver somehow. Anyway, this situation looks to be a kind of "coatrack" about the officers involved in the taking down of Whitman, as it strikes me as undue weight. The internal politics of who should credit for the shooting and such stuff as that is very minor compared with the actual event involving Whitman and his infamous random shootings from the university tower in Austin. That was notable. The stuff about the police officers is trivial, and could be summarized in one sentence if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted at WP:RFPP in case no one gets to it here first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This guy has been causing trouble forever. Let me quote Jimbo from Talk:Houston_McCoy: "It should be noted that this editor is John Moore, who has been disruptive at Wikipedia for many years. See User:Subwayjack. He sent me a highly insulting email this morning, speaking of "that piece of shit hero McCoy", ranting angrily against Mr. McCoy's daughter, lobbying personal insults at me and other editors at Wikipedia, etc. Mr. Moore's role in the life story of John McCoy is not notable, but Moore has a POV-pushing agenda to take public credit for various things. In my view, it is all a sad and personal story between these folks, and it deserves no place in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)" Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

All well and good. And the guy keeps at it even as we speak. So far, the admins appear to be asleep at the switch on this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP is at like 5 reverts now, so I've also reported him for edit-warring. Hopefully, an admin somewhere will do something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

They're all snoozing, Bugs--it's just you and me. Hey, let's pretend we're 4chan. Better: let's do something MoMK-related, that will wake them up. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you an admin yet, or are you still waiting for the certificate to arrive in the snail-mail? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours. I don't have time to fully look into the situation but there's certainly a lot of reverting going on. A couple days will let others catch up...RxS (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone is proposing a topic ban. Where would be the best place to discuss that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University and Raymond Cottrell

Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First off Let me start off by saying I have no horse in this Race, I added this page on my watchlist like all Chattanooga Area Schools and Colleges. I am summarizing what is going on the page recently.

Southern Adventist University is small university in Collegedale, Tennessee affiliated with Seventh day Adventist Church. The school as Higher Education institutions go is pretty conservative to the point where their biology department doesnt acknowledge Darwin's Theory of evolution.

Ok? so given the context of the where it is on the spectrum of everything we have a Adventist theologian "Raymond Cottrell." Contrell was still conservative (By most American's idea of the spectrum) but not quite as much to the right as some would like. Basically Contrell called the University out on its Fundamentalist positions and described it as "agency of Southern Bible belt obscurantism." I essentially a equate that to the say "Ignorant bunch of Deep South Bible Thumpers" or some sort similar put down.

So basically we have is Several individuals attempting to label Contrell as "Progressive" in way to invalidate his opinion. Further complicating the matter have an relative Contrell who dislikes him being labeled "progressive" which to him/her means something in the vein of "Liberal Democrat" or something similar. The individuals who labeled him that backed off and phrased it "Contrell, who took a number of progressive positions." The Relative keeps doing drive by edits and removing the label.

Several editors have come in and tried to work this out but we basically have is Pov warriors with "THE TRUTH" on the talk page trying to protect Southern's dignity and displaying WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments.

Could we have some people look over this and maybe hand out some topic bans or help mediate this in some way? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this mess since the last ANI report on BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since his unblock by Kubigula, he has been edit warring as a tag team with his real life friend Tatababy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Some of the relevant literature (e.g. articles in Adventist Today) cannot be checked without a subscription. In addition material publicly available elsewhere about controversies and resignations at Southern Adventist University in the 1980s also exists in the same sources for Pacific Union College, but has not been added to that article. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you didn't want to discuss this on your talk page, would you be so kind as to point me to where a similar issue resulted in a President's resignation, etc. at PUC and/or where Cottrell made similar comments about PUC? If Cottrell made similar comments about PUC, they ABSOLUTELY should be included in that article, although I would be SHOCKED if he did so. bW 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not edit articles on Seventh Day Adventism; there was no point continuing the discussion here on my talk page. The two articles on presidential resignations in the 1980s were consecutive articles in the same journal. You used one in writing the controversy section on masturbation in Southern Adventist University, so you can easily find the article just next to it. You also had something connected to masturbation at Southern Adventist Univeristy in the "fun section" of your user page [32]. Mathsci (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair BelleWello is actually been the more rational voices there and more within policy than ideological driven editors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I would disagree. BelloWello introduced two negative strands of information about Southern Adventist University into the article (controversiies and ideology). They appear to be POV-pushing and WP:UNDUE. His real life friend Tatababy has repeatedly written in edit summaries that the statement in an adventist source that, after his retirement, Raymond Cottrell took "progressive" views in adventism is a lie. All of this seems quite out of proportion. Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not the editor who introduced the "Ideology" section to the article. I reintroduced it because it is relevant. At the time, I planned on expanding the article further, but because of the controversy I have moved away. bW 23:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like Tatababy is the one that's stirring the pot by removing cited material and edit warring. It's been a very actively edited article over the last few days, but the only diffs I see from Tatababy are edits I'd not classify as "constructive". The only fly in the serum is the inclusion of the article references from Adventist Today, which don't fall under the heading of "freely available", although for anyone with a subscription WP:V is definitely met. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tantababy is actually the relative I was referring to and I frankly am sympathetic to his position. I dont think he quite get how Wikipedia works. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: Per a SPI someone filed, Tatababy apparently became notified of the disagreement on the page through a post on my facebook. The post was not intended to ask for an additional editor, most of my friends are conservative and hence if I were looking for an "ally" through devious means, facebook would not be the way for me to do it. I do not know who zie is, and have specifically asked that zie keep me in the dark in this regard. However, when the editor made the removals, there were NO SOURCES to given for the claim that was made. Tata seems to be a newbie who is simply trying to remove a false claim about someone close to zie. bW 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan, take a closer look at [33], [34], [35], and [36]. Note that the reference supporting the text that Tatababy and I removed and Fountainviewkid repeatedly re-inserted was a dead link. Even though I told him why I was reverting, Fountainviewkid persisted in inserting in violation of WP:V. In fact, WP:V was only met about 8 hours ago when DonaldRichardSands inserted a proper citation Mojoworker (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, that's a VERY biased summary and shows little of the complexities that comes with this situation. Cottrell, as even moderate editors have pointed out was engaging in a less than academic "rant". The label progressive is to help clarify. This is a section of the Adventist church known as Progressive Adventist, which many of Cottrell's beliefs fall into. Cottrell, by the church's standard was definitely to the left of the mainstream. The SDA church has a number of core doctrines and pillars (fundamental beliefs) which Cottrell challenged and attacked publicly. In the SDA church we have a tradition of trying to deal with our differences "behind closed doors". To really understand this situation one needs a good understanding of the SDA church, it's politics and it's workings. Bello is not the "rational" one in this debate. The true rational one has been Donald or somewhat Jasper. Both of them disagree with the progressive label, but recognize that Cottrell's rant needs to be clarified. Tata is trying to remove a statement that has been credibly cited and agreed, too. Nevertheless, I have said that we should remove the contentious label once we come to a compromise consensus. We were just about to it, before this whole situation blew up again. I would suggest that before anyone makes any pre-judging (as Resident has definitely done) that they first read the Talk page at Southern and especially the comments that Donald wrote. Fountainviewkid 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the theological politics of factions within the SDA denomination which I am well aware of. Thats how I am seeing this and calling it here. I personally dont think his comment is that relevant to the article on the school at all. I am viewing this as Theological dispute have no place here on Wikipedia as it contributes to WP:BATTLEFEILD mentality. So quite labeling people as biased when they dont agree with you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting Tatababy as a suspected sock, but actually I agree with BelloWello's assertion that it's unsourced. But, I think we need to be less radical with our changes or else consensus never will come. BelloWello FYI has been on ANI before about WP:BATTLEGROUND.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My own feeling is that negative material like this is WP:UNDUE in articles about educational institutions. For comparison, King's College, Cambridge has had a number of scandals, some of which might have hit the press and at least one of which concerns religion; but none of this merits inclusion in the wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(In reply to Resident) It's not a matter of agree or disagree. That was a biased summary and I can tell because there was one editor which praised it as "balanced". Specifically you've already publicly admitted on here your favortism towards Bello and his position even though his editing has been one of the major sources of controversy which caused this to be posted here (him and Tata). Yes there are a group of us editing the SAU article that are working to try and keep it "balanced". That means not allowing rants to go through freely. Donald has been doing a great work on it and I believe he has already solve the problem, in addition to inserting the correct citation which caused so much unnecessary headaches, especially from editors that weren't as well informed. This is more than a theological dispute as it is true that Southern has been viewed as controversial by some sections of the church (much as Cottrell has been seen in the same light only the opposite direction). I don't label as "biased" based on agree or disagree. Donald and Jasper are two editors I have disagreements with but I see them as "balanced" and fair. Lionel and Simba I agree with both I don't see them as perfectly on the middle (balanced) on this issue. Another editor who is somewhat balanced on the ideological issues but less so on the edit wars is Mathsci. I'm not trying to say I represent the right perspective. All I'm doing is showing the other side, something that was poorly done in the summary of this situation. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fountainviewkid 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fountainviewkid, I have never edited any articles on Seventh Day Adventism or their talk pages, so I have not a clue what you are writing about when you mention me. Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a working link to the Southern Adventist University citation #58 next to Raymond Cottrell's name. Also, I have included the quote where Walters actually uses the "progressive positions" phrase in his tribute. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I said there were merits to it and Yes I am sympathetic to BW position. My issue is that the labeling of Progressive is bothering a living person. I tend to agree with Mathsci my it opinion it is WP:UNDUE in the college's article. Thus I am on neither side here. Please stop treating me as an enemy The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, who is the living person who is being bothered? (Raymond Cottrell died in 2003.) Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BDP situation as i see it the relative of Cottrell. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy on bothering a living person? This surprises me. There are many difficult truths which upset living persons. Perhaps you are aware of the HBO movie Something the Lord Made. I recall reading that the real relatives of Dr. Blalock (the white doctor hero) were upset with a scene portraying him swearing #@#@# at his assistant, Vivian Thomas (the black hero). The relatives wanted the scene removed. HBO refused. That's the way Blalock was they answered. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bothering"? No. I'm fairly certain there's something in at least two-thirds of the articles about living persons that said living person would consider less than flattering, if not bothersome or downright troubling. However, WP:BLP doesn't speak to a statement that might "bother" someone. It speaks to material in a given article being properly sourced and cited. Material that can't be verified as coming from a reliable source is subject to immediate removal from an article. Conversely, if something "bothersome" CAN be directly attributed to a reliable source and verified, it is NOT subject to removal, no matter how unflattering it might be. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Since Cottrell's "progressiveness" has been sourced to a published tribute article, I can't see how you're trying to apply that policy. Are there self-declared relatives of Cottrell editing wikipedia? All I could find was this. [37] Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks N5iln Alan. Since Cottrell is dead, does the WP:BLP seek to protect the ones alive who care about his reputation or theirs? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering the question for N5iln, BLP only applies to what we write about living people. For example, if we write that Joan of Arc was a witch it might generate unhappy feelings in some living people, but that is not an issue for BLP because D'Arc and everyone involved in the case is dead. The issue with BLP and recently deceased people is that we can't say anything without sources which would apply to other, still living people. For example, we have to be careful about saying the subject was born out of wedlock, was having an affair, was beaten by the spouse, had partners in crime, etc., in case that would reflect on other people involved.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been uninvolved with this article until I reverted edits by Fountainviewkid under WP:Verifiability, WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN because they were not properly referenced -- in fact the reference for the text was a dead link. This was the same text that Fountainviewkid repeatedly re-inserted in his edit war with Tatababy -- see:[38], [39], [40], and [41]. Over the past several days I've been in a running altercation with Fountainviewkid trying to explain Wikipedia policy to him. See: User_talk:Fountainviewkid#Southern_Adventist_University and Talk:Southern_Adventist_University#Old_Debate_Reignited. What I removed because of policy violations, he accused me of "controversial actions against the consensus of the editors who are knowledgeable" here. When I tried to explain why he was wrong I was met with hostility and stonewalling. He did everything possible to keep "his" version live despite it being improperly sourced, and in my opinion Fountainviewkid definitely exhibited WP:OWNERSHIP and repeatedly violated policy despite being warned. Mojoworker (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This bickering over sources about progressive vs conservative is not useful, especially when a reliably sourced tribute article to Cottrell discusses this particular point. Outside the world of seventh day adventists, these matters are not much discussed; and the lack of free access to some seventh day adventist sources is part of the problem. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Doctrinal issues within a faith can be covered on Wikipedia, but only to the extent that they are adequately covered in published sources which are somehow available to general readers. Secret or confidential documents, even if published internally, cannot be used because they are inherently unverifiable (unless they turn up on Wikileaks). Also, the requirement for secondary sources limits us to covering those topics which multiple people have found worthy of coverage, an important filtering function.   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Mojo that the correct reference was added by Donald, as has been mentioned by Mathsci and others. I knew it existed I just didn't have the format all correct. Donald inserted it in the proper way though, both with the online and print versions. I was trying to explain that to Mojo, but it was difficult to do since he didn't know much about the source. That's why Donald was a better balancer, because he had the knowledge of both the policies of WP and the topic at hand. Fountainviewkid 14:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR?

I take no position on the content issue, though it looks like there is some productive discussion and even possible signs of compromise. Normally the best course with an article that has a long running edit war is to protect the article. However, there also seems to be some decent work being done, not least of which by User:DonaldRichardSands. So, the best course may be to put the article on 1RR per day per editor until some kind of consensus is reached on the controversial points.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. My only concern is that someone like Donald could be end up committing a violation since he has edited the article quite a bit. Granted, they're not all reverts, but still if someone really wanted to press the issue (as we obviously like to do on that page) it COULD be problematic. Also is it possible to restrict certain sections of the article? The "ideology" section has been the most contentious. Donald did great work on it, but it seems his compromise wasn't quite good enough as the edit warring has continued. If we could protect just the "ideology" section AND have the 1 RR/day we might be able to reach some consensus. As it stands now we're working towards that goal, but obviously aren't there yet. Fountainviewkid 03:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What if the 1RR was only applied to myself, FVK, Simba, Lionelt, and Tata? That would allow Donald to continue to work on the article and would not inadvertently snag an uninvolved editor. bW 04:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that placing a blanket 1RR per day restriction on the article applicable to all editors is a way forward that could help quieten things down. (The single purpose disruption-only account Tatababy has its own problems: if this type of editing continues, they are likely to be site-banned.) I suggest that Kubigula goes ahead and enacts the 1RR restriction for a three month trial period (or for whatever period he thinks is reasonable). Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Kubigula's suggestion. Mathsci is also correct, there's no reason to limit it to just listed editors. It's not a vandalism target. If IPs start appearing to circumvent 1RR then we can semi-protect the article.   Will Beback  talk  09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Limited 1RR proposal

Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) That the following editors be placed on 1RR restriction on the above article, per above suggestion by Kubigula and concern by Fountainviewkid:

• BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simbagraphix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tatababy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Additional names can be added by any admin (I would say uninvolved but none of the above are admins).

• Support - as proposer. bW 04:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose BelloWello is far too involved to propose lists of users in this way. It was disruptive of him to create this subthread, which I suggest should be collapsed. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I appreciate the concerns raised by Fountainviewkid and Bellowello. I hope we can avoid this problem by noting the 1RR restriction on the article talk page and perhaps warning any established editor who runs afoul yet has not previously been involved with the edit-warring on the article--Kubigula (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose I don't believe there should be a specific list that restricts editors, or if there is one it should only be 2 or 3. I definitely don't think Lionel should be on this list or possible Simba as they have for the most part stayed away from edit warring. I would prefer a general block on reverting the Ideology section (except maybe by Donald) and a 1 RR on the whole article for everyone. Fountainviewkid 14:57 May 25, 2011 (UTC)

reporting user user:Active Banana

Resolved

 – Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User user:Active Banana Has removed everything from the page Uncle Ruckus I tried to restore this,(he has not given any reason on the talk page) and he undid my edit and game me a warning with out giving any reason, now the user has gone on too going to my edit history and is undoing every edit i have tried to do and saying i am being a vadel I know i am a IP but i am trying to be a good editor here this is not fair nor right. He is also posting all this stuff on my talk page to give me a bad wrap i want this issue resolver with someone in charge. (I removed this false infor from my talk page if i am found wrong i will resort it)96.244.254.20 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The only addition of yours I see him removing is a long, unsourced section of what seems to be your own analysis of a subject. Have you read WP:V and WP:SYNTHESIS yet? I can't find any edits that were removed that would have been appropriate to that article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You were trying to insert a completely unsourced passage into a biography page. User was correct to remove it. Do not edit-war. You now have more eyes on this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit being made was to a cartoon character how does it apply to a living person? 96.244.254.20 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. still unsourced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

thats what i mean i get a warning you put me on a list as a bad editor and this is not a "living person" it seems you all are out to get newbie...But whatever ill leave thats what this site wants no new people to be here, thanks for making me feel unwelcome (all the warnings sure seem that way so no biggie, schools are right this site is a joke and should not be taken serious for any information. Ill leave not to come back :) 96.244.254.20 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If that sounds easier to believe than that a new user might not know all of the rules, then you probably will be happier leaving. There are a lot of rules at Wikipedia, and in general, when someone tells you about one you didn't know, it's smarter to listen than to assume you are being persecuted. It's totally your choice, though, whether you decide to believe that other users are trying to teach you thinks you don't know, or whether you decide to believe that everyone else is just a big meanie. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of notes: (1) I don't think this was the IP editor's analysis; it's been in the article for a while, the IP editor just put it back after AB removed it. (2) As he notes immediately above, this is not a BLP. (3) Both editors were edit warring and should stop it. (4) On the merits, Active Banana is right, that unsourced essay does not belong in the article; there are much better ways to impart that information to new users, however, than templates. (5) The talk page appears unused. (6) As FQ notes, if you're a new user to the site, don't you feel some sort of obligation to learn how things work when something unexpected happens?

  It does bring up an interesting question, though. (7) Has it ever been productive when one editor involved in an edit war gives the other editor in the edit war a 3RR template? The warned party never takes it seriously because the other editor is doing it to, and it always seems to inflame the situation more. Really, I think those templates should only be used by editors uninvolved in the actual edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Re: #7 - I agree, and it should be written into policy for use of the 3RR template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Other edits by the IP are questionable, eg [42] where he deleted a key part of cited text text (the article was about "Do testosterone injections increase libido for elderly hypogonadal patients" and the text said "d is also effective in improving libido for elderly males." - the IP removed the word elderly. I'll revert that, but there are other questionable edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirection problem

Resolved

 – redirect created - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to create a redirect page for "Glorious Twenty-fifth of May" (to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_%28world%29#Calendar) in honour of tomorrow and Terry Pratchett, and got an automated message that said "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." and directed me to request help from an Admin.

Help?

(I already added a bit to the calendar page)

Thank you!

--Boomonsa (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That generally means you're running up against the title blacklist, though I don't know why. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect created, though I am not sure what filter the title was running up against. In return, you must tell me which book(s) it comes up in. I know I recognize the Reasonably Priced Love line, but all Discworld books merge into one memory file about five minutes after I finish reading one. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at WP:Article titles

Resolved

We could use some non-involved admin oversight at this policy page... an inability to reach a consensus is leading everyone to "take sides" and edit war. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What we have is one editor who very much wants to write his pet idea into policy. We've discussed this at some length at WT:AT#WP:NOUN and nutshell, and he has gotten a notable absence of agreement; he's spent two weeks writing it into policy every few days, and I have been the first to object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so what's been going on is that Pmanderson has been systematically altering WP:NOUN from the version that there was about a week ago (which has been consensus for over three years) which said that all article titles should be nouns. It has become very clear that Pmanderson doesn't understand what a noun is, which is probably why he keeps modifying it. In particular he doesn't believe that names are always nouns and so he has repeatedly (i.e. edit warred) to soften the policy, and has repeatedly added 'exceptions' which pretty clearly aren't, things like 'Try to Remember' which is the name of a song (a proper noun); he's added this as an exception to the policy! I keep reading his edits and facepalming. It's not just me reverting his edits, at least two other people have as well, and previous people were questioning some of their earlier edits, it seemed to be easy and natural to add 'titles should be nouns' to the nutshell, but blueboar and Pmanderson took it out, which was weird, and at least two other people Dicklyon and Rrr1 went to the talk pages to try to find out what was going on. It's just depressing and bizarre behaviour from both of them, and at no point do any of their changes seem to have reached consensus over and above the long standing version, and it doesn't seem to be just me.Rememberway (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been fully protected, so there is no more need for admin action here. Please discuss your concerns with the page over on that talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:RockSound at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

This follows on from a now-archived thread started less than 72 hours ago: [43]. RockSound (talk · contribs), although now contributing at the article talk page as instructed, is demonstrating increased incivility and rather excessive boldness in his edits both to the article and its talk page. Such edits have included moving whole sections of the article and lengthening section titles in an unencyclopaedic manner, all without prior discussion, and then edit-warring to restore the alterations when reverted. His talk page edits indicate little to no intention to listen to others' advice, and his contributions to a discussion on the article's "Further reading" section are becoming highly opinionated to the point of POV-pushing. I am reluctant to make further reverts, but I feel that the user is simply not listening and that a certain level of administrator attention is warranted here. Could someone please kindly advise RockSound, retreading some of the recommendations that have already been made at his talk page? Thank you in advance. SuperMarioMan 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or have there been severe problems with this article, and significant contributors to it, for quite some time? By which I mean years. Why continue to tolerate it? Either fullprot the damn thing and make 'em hash out a consensus before edits, or just topicban the lot. → ROUX ₪ 03:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ResponseThere are very serious problems on this article, which Mr. Wales has acknowledged and has tried to address, but SuperMarioMan and his cohorts won't listen. 300 people have filed a petition saying that there are severe problems with this article and the horrid way that editors are treated if they don't share the POV of a certain clique that has taken control of the article. Anyone who tries to join in who does not share SuperMarioMan's POV (which he shares with that small clique) gets harassed, blocked, banned, and reverted, reverted, reverted, reverted, reverted.

About a dozen or so editors who did not share the clique's pro-guilt POV were booted off en masse. But prior to that the clique harassed, file complaints and make their lives miserable to wear them down. I think that Mr. Wales's findings that there are serious problems with this article need to be addressed. I have started a discussion about this on the article discussion page. Unless and until these issues are addressed, the problems, bad feelings, and animosities will continue, and the article will remain in a very bad state. SuperMarioMan can blame me all he wants, but there are 300 people and Mr. Wales who were saying that there are serious problems on the article before I got involved. RockSound (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Non admin comment: All due respect to Jimbo, but his opinion doesn't really matter, nor does an online petition, so citing either of those as a basis for your argument is not really going to accomplish anything. Just saying... 98.251.215.185 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Whoops, that was me not logged in. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying you have an online petition to complain about it holds about as much weight here as saying the Tooth Fairy asked you to do it. HalfShadow 03:52, 25 May 2011

(UTC)

Well the problems are very serious and need to be addressed. There has been media coverage of these problems with the Kercher article. That isn't going to go away until the problems with the article are addressed and the clique in control of the article address their own behavior. But it seems that no one but Mr. Wales has taken an interest so far. http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/ http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/03/26/news/updatewikipedia-founder-jimbo-wales-reviews-page-

For those who might find it in their hearts to try to help with the very serious problems with this article, please read this plea for help signed by over 300 people:

Removed text of petition, as possibly a copyright violation, and TLDR anyway: provide a link instead please Fram (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

300 people have signed online petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html

RockSound (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Rapid cleanup by a subject-matter expert: Wait a minute, here, it seems that User:RockSound is an energetic subject-matter expert (having read several books on the subject) trying to remove poor-quality or defamatory links and text from the article, and in that case, I would allow the changes, for now, and debate what to undo later. The current crisis in that article ("Murder of Meredith Kercher") is that 2 of the murder suspects, which the article quickly calls "convicted" in the intro, are actually in an ongoing appeals trial (lasting until autumn 2011), as a re-trial (trial de novo) based on the evidence, with a jury of 8. From a U.S. viewpoint, this situation would be considered "conviction overturned". However, the whole article seems slanted to ignore the controversies which have granted the new trial, while filling the article with questionable sources and lists of self-published books, which many other editors did not fully understand earlier. More needs to be added to the article to explain the infamous controversies, published internationally, and stop the bias, beginning in the intro to proclaim those 2 suspects as "convicted" when they are "currently in a re-trial based on the evidence, with a jury of 8 judges". Let User:RockSound make whatever changes necessary, and then let's discuss adjusting those changes to keep the article in sync with the reality of the appeals trial which began in November 2010. The reason the problems have persisted since November, for months (count 'em: 7 months ago), is because the talk-page became a "paralysis of analysis" of suggested changes which few bothered to discuss for consensus. Instead, User:RockSound has gone WP:BRD, and that is what is being hyped here as a problem, when it should be viewed as, finally, breaking the paralysis to get the article improved (which is why "Be Bold" is recommended). I do not think "boldly adding text" is grounds for WP:ANI intervention. Give this a week to settle on the MoMK talk-page. Many admins are well aware the MoMK article has been used, often, as a excuse to come to ANI to conduct protracted pissing contests, rather than improve the article. Please stop this one now, and allow text to be added to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it is more a case of WP:BRBRD, given that the user edit-warred to restore the changes despite the concerns of others. And, at any rate, there was not so much "boldly adding text" or "trying to remove poor-quality or defamatory links" as radically re-ordering the content and flow of the article, while at the same time lengthening the section titles to little visible encyclopaedic benefit. Considering that this article is a contentious one, would it not seem inherently sensible to discuss proposed changes of this scale first, on the talk page, at a reasonable pace, before making them? SuperMarioMan 04:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

SMM is being false and misleading. He edit-wars against my work constantly. I don't do that to his work. He deletes my work constantly because he is trying to harass me off of the article just as he and his clique have driven countless people away from the Kercher article.

I merely added dates to sections of a long article that is very confusing, in part because the chronology is not set out sufficiently. I tried to add dates to some section headings so that the reader could get a grasp on when things happened. SSM went nutty again reverting my work and trying to turn a simple thing into a big drama. I only moved one paragraph that was out of chronological order and put it where it obviously should have been. These simple changes involved no change to language of the article. Yet he acts like he owns the article and how dare I add in dates without his permission.

I had earlier added a few sentences about an announcement by the Innocence Project yesterday that they had concluded that Amanda Knox is innocent, after completing their independent investigation. Well SMM apparently was bothered by this being in the article and he reverted some of my edits on this as well, possibly before the second wave of attack over my adding in dates. He or someone else moved my text to another spot without telling me or discussing it anywhere. For SMM and his group, they can make any changes they want, without getting approval first on the talk page. But those who are not part of the clique-- who dare to make any edits without arguing with them for hours on the discussion page-- are then reverted and chastized for acting without permission.

This is how they keep a lockhold on the article. It is not at all in accordance with the rules and policies of Wikipedia. As a result of all of these shenanigans the article is highly biased. Mr. Wales determined that the article was unfair to Amanda Knox and that good sources containing positive information about her were being intentionally excluded from the article. Mr. Wales very harshly criticized this situation, but it flew right past the clique. This is why Mr. Wales is desperately need back on the article. I had already raised this on the Talk page just before I got a notice on this ANI--I guess as a further distraction from the any real discussion about what is really going on with that article.RockSound (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this case not being brought towards Arbitration? Why is nobody being banned over this? How are the stupid dash/hyphen or the stupid Pending Changes more important than this, given that we got users ready to slit each others' throats over this? –MuZemike 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound is fairly new to the topic. His edits have merit, but often go a little too far and so end up being reverted. Added to that he is strongly of the view that Knox is innocent, and seems to be trying to edit the article to reflect that particular view. RockSound makes some good arguments, but lets his opinions drive his editing. Wikid77 seems to have just switched to attacking editors:

• the hostile editors (Hipocrite, SuperMarioMan, etc.
• "Mother-May-I" invective

And spends his time speculating about seemingly unrelated/tangential matters on the talk page.

I don't think this is at arbitration level yet - we could have an RFC/U or several as the next step. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's exactly what this sort of situation needs, more hyperbole (this is in relation to the "given that we got users ready to slit each others' throats over this?" comment). Nice work there. Way to settle things down. *rolls eyes*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any better ideas then? Because every other day I look here, this article is at the forefront of pretty much everything. When is this going to end? –MuZemike 12:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it will only end when the pro-innocence editors successfully slant the article to their POV or ArbCom gets involved. And I'm not entirely sure on the latter. Resolute 15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds about right. They've chased me from ever getting near that cesspool. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned it in the previous thread. The fact that 300 people signed an online petition means diddly squat. I'm sure if you did some digging there's probably another petition which has 300 signatures that say the opposite and that too would mean diddly squat here. Rocksound, bringing up the petition over and over again is not going to make your case any stronger. Your continual claims of a "clique" operating on the article is an assumption of bad faith especially if you go into a controversial article, by which I mean the sbuject is controversial rather than the article itself, with a confrontational manner. All that will do is raise everyone's hackles. If you read through the reports regarding the editors who you claim to have been harassed off the article, of which there were quite a few, their removal was necessary as all they were doing was refuse to discuss towards a consensu and fought everyone tooth and nail. There's no deadline for the article so take about a day or two off the article, refresh yourselves, look up some sources and discuss them on the talk page before adding more material. Rocksound, there's nothing wrong with being bold, but on prickly articles like this one, being too bold can become disruptive. -- Blackmane (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Blackmane has said it best. In response to RockSound, I would suggest that the issue only became a "big drama" only when the questionable changes (which altered the article structure) were restored without any discussion or much justification, prompting a second user to revert. Whether sections of an already-contentious article are moved for "chronological" or other reasons, such changes are bound to attract the attention of others, and it is unrealistic to believe that such changes can be made both instantly and permanently without a certain amount of prior discussion. SuperMarioMan 11:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This clearly needs to go to ArbCom, or at the very least to RfC. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to hat this and send them off to a RfC. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan and his clique repeatedly abuse Wikipedia's policies to retain control of the MoMK article and take new editors who differ with them straight to AN/I in an attempt to get them topic banned. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• An RfC or ArbCom may soon be necessary, but let's not get distracted into thinking it is all because of one new-to-the-scene user, RockSound. The short time I have spent there trying to puncture some of the more ridiculous arguments has found a very tight and very resistant collection of editors who are, to put it bluntly, acting like the PR arm of the various external Amanda Knox-is-innocent advocacy groups. Personally, I don't care about the case itself one way or the other; if she's found innocent on retrial and she goes free, cool; if not and she spends a few decades in Italian prisons, oh well. But there's a serious problem here with external pressure on the Wikipedia to focus more on detailed forensic evidence, floor diagrams of the flat, casting aspersions on prosecution witnesses, and so on and so on. The damage being done here isn't contained in one article, either; note the attempts to insert criticism of the case into the Perugia city article, as well as the Italy article. ErrantX has done a commendable job with pushing both sides towards reconciliations but I don't know if one hand is going to be enough in the long run. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Tarc is one of the main culprits who repeatedly violates Wikipedia policies including WP:OWN and WP:CIVILITY. He is also a liar, as neither of the edits he cites mentions the Kercher case. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The above response is a large part of the problem; anyone who weighs in on the article and disagrees with these people is instantly branded a "culprit". I first heard of the case via Jimbo's talk page when that blog posted the now-infamous "open letter" soliciting intervention, went to see what was going on, and found quite a tempest. It isn't so different from the Obama-related articles or even the Israel-Palestine topic area; people come here with their notion of "The Truth(tm)", demanding that said truth be reflected in the Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm branding you not a 'culprit' but a liar, which objectively speaking, based on the evidence, you are. But this thread isn't about me, it's about another of the clique's victims. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • (ec) Looking at those diffs, I would say Tarc is bang on. Do you really think people here are so stupid that they can't tell what an SPA is alluding to with those edits? Looking at your comments here, on your talk page, and on the article talk page, it seems rather clear to me that you will routinely attack anyone who does not share your personal POV on the subject. In fact, on the current version of the article talk page, you have several comments posted, but not a single one constructive. Personally, I am rather surprised that your consistent attacks and insults have been tolerated as much as they have. Resolute 15:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Just for reference, CodyJoeBibby's conduct was raised at ANI (here and here) about a month ago, although the discussion produced no concrete result. Under normal circumstances, I would be inclined to launch into a thorough rebuttal of claims that I am the ringleader of a "clique", or a "culprit" therein. However, since this is hardly the first time that such accusations have been levelled against both myself and others, and refuting such concerns again and again quickly becomes tiresome, I shan't bother. SuperMarioMan 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my conduct was raised at AN/I. By you. And absolutely nothing came of it. Now you are raising somebody else's conduct at AN/I. A person who, unsurprisingly, you disagree with. You should be topic banned yourself for repeatedly wasting Wikipedia's time with frivolous and vexatious actions against people you are trying to silence. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone else think the best solution here would be to full-protect the bloody article until after the trial, and in the meantime have the involved editors hash it out on a compromise version in userspace somewhere? This is one of the most contentious articles we've had recently, and there's a distinct drive by SPAs to skew it. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be the best solution. In general, the atmosphere at the talk page and around this topic overall has been much more constructive of late (compared to how it used to be). Some of the discussions have been fairly productive. However, the situation has a tendency to worsen dramatically when one or more editors arrive on the scene with a strong POV about the subject matter and then demonstrate a refusal to listen when either their bold proposals are rejected by consensus or their similarly bold edits are reverted. It is certainly the most complex and disputed article that I have worked on in my time at Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Exeter International Airport

User:O_Fenian is involved in an edit war on this page. The user had made 3 changes to this page without any discussion. I have requested that he join the discussion page and make a case for his change but he has ignored this plea. Another User:Mo_ainm has also made the same edit without discussion. Both Users seem to appear on the same topics. Could be meat puppetry. All I ask is that they join the discussion but this is yet to happen and I am unable to revert their change as I have made 3 reverts. Can you revert the page to its original state and request they join the discussion first.Homebirdni (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop. O Fenian (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And much as I shouldn't waste my time with this sockmaster's disruption, the "original state" is prior to this partially incorrect edit made by an IP editor, yet Homebirdni/Factocop insists I "Please discuss before making an edit", and similar summaries without even saying what the problem with the edit is. The sooner the sockpuppet case is dealt with, the quicker we can all go home. O Fenian (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, please when making a contentious edit, discuss first. That all I asked. Given that the BAA uses the Union Jack, why have you only changed the flag representing Northern Ireland?

I took a sabatical as I was fed up with users such as yourself.Homebirdni (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

O Fenian is right that the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland - it has not been officially used as a symbol of government since 1972 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a sabatical as I was fed up with users such as yourself; is that an admission to being Factocop? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

2+2=5? Homebirdni (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Only for very large values of 2. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That is worrying - I thought 2 was an integer. eek! On the topic of Belfast City Airport - I've not actually seen any flag fly there so why O___Fenian is so keen to use the Union Jack is beyond me. He must be a Unionist with a really ironic name. ha ha ha. get it! very witty! I get it now. ha ha ha! He's a laugh.Homebirdni (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

2.9+2.9=5.8 - Confused!(head scratch)Homebirdni (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's not possible to agree on which cute-little-national-flag-picture best represents an airport, removing them altogether may be a better solution. WP:MOSICON is worth a read, although it might be updated soon. bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the only compromise. As BAA uses the Union Jack I think that all the British Airports should use the Union Jack, not just Belfast City. Although I've not seen any flags at Belfast City Airport other than a wind sock. O_Fenian must of seen a Union Jack there.Homebirdni (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, the other UK destinations have the flag of their home country - England, Scotland etc. The current WP:MOSICON style is that in this context NO flag is appropriate for institutions in Northern Ireland and I suspect per bobrayner above this may be the best solution. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Belfast, WP:MOS-IE applies. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removals of content from the Battle of Königgtätz article by user rpeh

Resolved

 – Trouts all round Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User rpeh keeps removing one of the commanders from the infobox of the Battle of Königgrätz article, under various explanations and "explanations". I'm open for discussion on the topic, but he is continuosly supporting his position with quoting non-existeng guidelines from the Template:Infobox Military Conflict, reverts the article to "his version" and accuses me of "losing a previous discussion" (an unrelated case, in which I did not take part at all).
I must confess that at one point I called his edit vandalism, because I did not realise what he meant by his rationale for removal (i.e. that not being C-i-C in his opinion excludes a commander from said infobox) and assumed it was some strange prank, with edit summary explanation just made up to look serious. I've already apologised him for it.
I am asking for restoring the previous version of the article (as I don't want to violate the 3 reverts rule) and keeping it so until the issue is settled on the talk page. Thank you. Tom soldier (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI is the wrong forum for content disputes. Please see WP:DR for other venues. Favonian (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm still lot of a beginner on Wikipedia. (And I believed it was more of a question of rpeh's uncivility than a content dispute, as he hardly disputed the question of content). Thank you for your explanation, and your edit, too. 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom soldier (talk • contribs)

The only person who has violated any kind of civility guideline is "Tom soldier", with his inaccurate accusation of vandalism - something for which he has still not apologised. Since then he has thrown around several policies whilst clearly not having the faintest idea what any of them mean. A lack of COMPETENCE is evident on his part, and I tire of trying to educate him. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I did apologise.Tom soldier (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I already told you that's not an apology. Hypothetical statements are not apologies in any sense of the term. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an apology. Tom soldier (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You both deserve a diet of fish for several reasons. Tom, this wasn't the right place to bring a content dispute. Resolve it at the talk page and unless someone is writing "Prussians smell of poo" in the article, be very wary of using the term "vandalism". rpeh, while you may be correct in your arguments you have not been measured in how you deployed them and the conversation between you has been markedly uncivil from the start on both sides. Furthermore I did not read Tom's apology as remotely hypothetical. You could have graciously accepted it and we would not be here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)