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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal

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

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

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

• Since the new RfC began I have actually not debated the merits of any of the images. (Surely you've noticed that!) So I haven't said anything about liking any picture. I have certainly discussed censorship. Too many people here seem keen on that.[1]

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

Beyond that I want to give you a taste of his contributions to the discussion. He "strongly believe[s] everything [he] have posted on that page"[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AF you are missing a couple of key points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The personal attacks where not nice and did not address the matter at hand, hopefully all will WP:AGF in the future. It is unfortunate that the matter came to this. Believing that images of the breast changes in pregnancy are important I went out of my way to acquire this image which actually shows the changes [3]. Hopefully we can now finally get back to improving the content of this top quality article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with disruption in discussions about images lies elsewhere. A reasonable mutually agreed scholarly compromise on the use of historic images was worked out for the article Muhammad, involving careful exploration of secondary sources and current trends in academia. That is normal procedure in developing consensus. But now, after lying low for a period, a single user has reemerged, editing as if those lengthy discussions had never taken place. [4][5] Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start any RfC. So I have no idea how that is relevant to how Hilo addressed me, or any other user, except the one who started the new RfC. Whoever that was, I don't even think I was participating when that happened. Once again, there is a difference between a distrust of another person's actions and outright insults being hurled around during a discussion and repeatedly failing to answer a question despite it being the main crux of your argument. That is classic trolling 101. I only had about 10 contributions to the pregnancy talk, you're free to scrutinize them. I made a couple of good faith comments [6], [7], [8] and then Hilo showed up with his act. He become confrontational immediately, despite my just joining the conversation. [9], his first reply to my rather benign comment ended with Is that OK with you?. Despite my directly asking him to actually explain and back up what his point was (and a search of the page revealed that he had in fact NEVER explained what that meant, despite repeating it several times). When I again directly asked him to explain his argument, his response was to devolve into insults [10]. Despite his assertion that he could provide mountains of evidence, when further pressed all they would say was "it's the whole woman that's pregnant". No citations, no educational and pedagolical theory as they claimed they could provide, that's it. A day and a half spent trying to coax a coherent point out of him and that's all he could come up with. it was extremely obvious at that point that Hilo was nothing but a giant time sink, with a side of uncivil behaviour to cover up the shortcomings of the argument. The difference between Hilo and your standard person who gets involved in these debates is that Hilo appears to have repeated that behaviour excessively, with many editors and for a long period of time. That was the extent of my involvement in the debate, and I left with a sour taste in my mouth due to Hilo's actions. I've no idea why you keep addressing me as if I'm the person who started a new RfC, or did any of those other things.--Crossmr (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring & legal threats at Bay FM 99.3

Resolved

 – Apparently, the result of a disgruntled employee. Who has now been simply dis-sed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Two IPs are actively vandalising Bay FM 99.3. I've requested page protection and reported one of the IPs to AIV but since legal threats have also been made,[11][12] I'm reporting that matter here, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. There are indications that both of the IPs involved are one person, so we have some sockpuppetry thrown in.[13][14] The IP that I reported to AIV has threatened "Through our network we have acces to over 200 IP addresses and will continiue to delete information until this page is removed in its entirity"[sic], and has stood by his word, removing valid sourced content.[15] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the editor make valid complaints about the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the complaints seem valid. In fact, some are completely ridiculous, like this one, claiming to have "deleted unverifiable information". The owner's name and original frequency were sourced directly from the station's own website.[16] The IPs have also been vandalising disambiguation pages to remove records of the article,[17] or to remove links to the article.[18] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:203.45.50.147 per WP:NLT. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted by the OP and by the "owner" himself, they have endless IP's. 165.228.61.164 (talk · contribs) has currently taken over for 203.45.50.147 (talk · contribs). You need to semi-protect the page, and that will fend them off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, blocked User:165.228.61.164 for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Some of their posts are nearly illiterate and I'm not sure how seriously I take their threats of being able to manipulate IP addresses. But meh, it's semi'd, thanks Tim C. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both IP's emanate from Sydney, for what it's worth. The one item about an employee supposedly being fired because he couldn't get the article deleted needs to be added to the list of socking excuses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a blatant troll to me and so it is probably better to ignore, but I still think WP:DOLT is important to consider. Have we definitely verified that this information is not a copyvio? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I went right through the article and checked it to make sure it was all fine. I ended up fixing several extremely minor errors, mainly in the infobox.[19] Most of the content is actually sourced from the Australian government's public register of radiocommunication licences. Only a small amount has been sourced from the station's website but there's nothing in there that is a copyvio. There never was. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They have also taken their grievance to their Twitter account, which sticks out like a sore thumb among what is usually a humdrum rolling community calendar feed. As an editor experienced in mass media station articles there's absolutely nothing wrong here at all; all of the information is sourced to Australia's radio regulator except for the format, which is the only thing that could be argued out, however unlikely it is. The clipart station logo is also inarguable with all public domain characters and drawings. Nate • (chatter) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather oddly, that tweet has disappeared, along with the 'Bay993FM' account that posted it. Curiouser and curiouser. Is there some weird dispute going on here which we aren't aware of? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is very weird. The 165.228.61.164 IP is making some rather strange claims on their talk page, such as saying that the domain that is registered to the station owners and which has been the official website of the station for years, and which is the website identified by several sources including google as the station's website, is not the official website. He's also questioning the credibility of the stations website in reporting content about the station and so on. He has even accused me of being associated with one of the station's competitors,[20] which is rather silly given that a competitor would be more likely to be trying to have the article deleted, or filled with incorrect information, than trying to stop that happening. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tom Morris (talk · contribs) proposed deletion [21]. An elegant solution if it goes through. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, my mistake: I should probably have checked the history of the article before proposing deletion. Without disclosing anything, I'd suggest that an admin with OTRS access handle this case from here with reference to VRTS ticket # 2011112910012043. I would find an admin to handle it but I will be very busy for the next twelve hours or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I've picked up the ticket on OTRS and am attempting to handle it from there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'm starting to think that the email accounts and website of Bay FM 99.3 may have been compromised. User:165.228.61.164 has been making some pretty strange claims on his/her talk page and these, as well as demonstrated actions, just don't make sense. The IP claims to be the owner of the station and says he has fired the person who created the article.[22] Changing the station's url, then taking down both of the station's websites as well as the Twitter feed don't seem logical, as the website included advertising for the station, and the station has consistently been known as Bay FM (I live and work in the area) for the past 13 years. The comments made by the IP seem contradictory. The station's website now displays only the name "Coast 'n Country FM", yet when this name was in the article the IP removed it, along with other content,[23] and subsequently argued that that "Radio Bay FM" is the name of the station.[24] The IPs have complained about their logo being used here but, with this change to "Coast 'n Country FM", that really shouldn't be an issue. Given the circumstances surrounding all of this, I suspect that the person who was sacked may still be in control of the websites and other IT assets, possibly without the owner's consent, and that all of this is just a ruse to to destroy the article in retaliation for being fired. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  As if to confirm the above suspicions, the websites and Twitter account are now back online. Tweets indicates that they lost control of their servers.[25][26] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Should I send them a tweet checking on what they really feel about the article possibly? If there was a hack attack them I'm darned sure they're just as concerned about their Wiki presence being mangled as they are their website and social channels. Though to note it seems like their Facebook presence was never affected (I checked yesterday when I posted here and it was still just community calendar and station events on the feed, so they kept that locked down at least). Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  It probably wouldn't hurt to do so. I note that the IP seems to have gone quiet shortly before they reported being back online so they may not be aware of the full extent of what's happened. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Not exactly. The IP socks continue to post comments on the article talk page. I've been zapping them as being from a blocked user. If an admin thinks I was wrong to do that, I can put them back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, the IP went quiet a few hours after you deleted its last post on Talk:Bay FM 99.3. The post you deleted today was actually a legitimate post, or at least appears to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  It is, I did ask them to post on talk via Twitter when they were able to in order to assert they were back in control. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Twitter account has been informed and encouraged to check in on the talk page. Also to note, I thought it was fishy that a Sydney-based IP would be chiming in about a station well north and unable to be received anywhere near Sydney metro. Nate •(chatter) 16:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's not unusual for IPs in Australia to appear to be from a capital city, especially when it's one of the larger ISPs. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  I guess that makes sense then if it came out of Sydney; I thought the traceroute would've shown a subnode address though locating to Port Stevens or another nearby place such as Gold Coast or Brisbane (for instance my location is actually on a Charter subnode that identifies to "fdl" (Fond du Lac) rather than my city, though the main node identifies to La Crosse). Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Reponse from my message says they know about the Wikibreach and their IT dept. is investigating further. I think we can consider this closed and they're back to just being a normal old oldies outlet for a small Aussie vacation burg. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  And one more addendum; in my Twitter thread they requested their streaming link be removed as their provider only allows the link through their website for contractual reasons, so I have removed that with a note saying not to re-add. Nate • (chatter) 05:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes a lot more sense now we know it wasn't actually someone who acting on behalf of the radio station. Their behaviour was rather confusing even early on, particularly the claim about lawyers advising them fair use does not apply under international copyright agreements. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been resolved, at least on the OTRS end, with no changes to the article. I'm unable to comment either way on the identity of the IP or the sender of the OTRS ticket. Not sure if the OTRS resolution means we can close this thread up or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan

User:Off2riorob has, in the past, expressed rather strong views on who he considers to be a Jew, particularly if they are British nationals (see for example, this statement), and apparently believes "British" and "Jewish" are mutually exclusive (see, for example, this comment). I first ran into this at the Ed Miliband article, where Off2riorob was quite insistent that Miliband was not Jewish, despite Miliband's own explicit words to the contrary, and that no mention of his ethnicity should be made in his biography. He also removed Miliband from the infobox of the British Jews article.[27]

More recently this issue came up again at the British Jews article, where an editor added Daniel Radcliffe to the infobox. Off2riorob was quite insistent that Radcliffe could not be in the infobox,[28][29][30][31][32][33] despite the fact that Off2riorob was aware that Radcliffe himself had stated publicly "I'm very proud of being Jewish." Off2riorob also expressed very strange (and what many might consider offensive) views on various Talk: pages; he stated outright that Radcliffe was "not a British Jew" (indeed, that we were "falsely asserting he is a Jew"), that he was a "half Jew" at best, not a "full Jew", and insisted that we must "Get a better Jew for the infobox". As I pointed out on the Talk: page, I was rather surprised to see someone in the 21st century still applying the Mischling Test.

The issue arose again last week, when I copyedited the "Personal life" section of the Miliband article. My editing really was simply for readability and flow; I did not add any material at all, nor remove any significant material. Yet Rob reverted me, with no specific rationale other than it was a "stable version",[34] and that the WP:BRD essay gave him a "right" to do so.[35] In fact, he reverted the article six times in a span of four hours or so, continuing to revert even after being reported at AN/3RR. He claimed to "have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion" but notably refused to initiate such a discussion himself, despite being explicitly asked on his User talk: page to do so. He also reverted under the claim that the matter was "Under discussion - on the talk page", despite there obviously being no such discussion on the Talk: page. This seems to have become a persistent behavioral pattern when the issue of Jewish ethnicity of British nationals comes up; edit-war irrationally with multiple editors while accusing them of "tag-teaming" (see e.g. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On moderate inspection...

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

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

Unfortunately, my experience with Off2riorob on Boris Berezovsky is very similar. It appears that bbb23 and Off2riorob may act in tandem, and their actions on that and other articles relating that BLP were absolutely disruptive. Editors (me) wishing to insert information from scholarly sources relating to the BLP were reverted without question, and I was hounded by Off2riorob[44][45], which ultimately led to him being warned about trolling and harrassment by an admin[46][47]. I can't remember if he was warned about following of my edits, and acting in an overtly battled way. For example, referring to a request to a WikiProject as disruptive, as well as claimed that my report of bbb23 for edit warring was disruptive, and tried to portray my posting to the Russia and Biography WikiProjects, as well as to BLPN, and starting an RFC, as being disruptive, when in fact it is what is suggested editors do when there is a dispute. He obviously also tried to poison the well, by bringing up a 3 year old block of myself as evidence that I was acting in a most disruptive way. Of course, this was occurring after an editor was banned for actually being disruptive on the Berezovsky article, and whilst User:Kolokol1 (with an admitted WP:COI) was whitewashing the Berezovsky article in the lead-up to the court case which saw Berezovsky sue Roman Abramovich. His editing on this BLP showed a complete lack of good faith, and now that I refer back to this discussion, bbb23 was basically insinuating that other editors were adding anti-Semitic information to the article, when that was not so much the case at all, it appears that the 25% expansion on the article done by the now-banned editor was justified by off2riorob and bbb23 based entirely on the "Jewish" angle, and tried to pull the "anti-semitic" card in doing so. Given other information in this thread, some things now make sense to me, but whether it is a wider problem, well that is for others to determine. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collect, are you ignoring the sources?

"Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense."[48]
"My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am"[49]
"And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country."[50]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think Rob should be more careful, especially with 3RR, but don't see the need for a topic ban at this time. He has had to resist POV pushes from the opposite side which can drive anyone with an interest in BLP – where Rob has excelled – to distraction. I still remember the mammoth wars last year, both about adding a "Jewish atheist" category [51][52] and stating "Religion=Jewish" in Milliband's infobox [53][54], when Milliband had never self-identified as an atheist, and made it quite clear that he was not a follower of Judaism. Also, let's remember that Off2riorob took Miliband's BLP to GA status. --JN466 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I definitely remember the "POV pushes" and "mammoth wars" regarding Miliband last year.[55][56][57] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• You really can troll on Wikipedia for a long time with no consequences, but this seems over the top POV pushing. I support a topic ban of User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan from Jewish-related topics. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: - I hope those who were previously unaware of the scope and intensity of this issue have had their eyes opened a little bit. I think Off2riorob/Youreallycan made some pointy edits and deliberately provocative comments on the talk page, but the fact that the comments here range from dismissal to a topic ban suggestion shows the extent of the polarization in this particular area. This is one of the reasons that I proposed the removal of religion from infoboxes where religion is not one of the reasons for the person's notability (actually, the issue which prompted it was the use of "atheist" as the "religion" parameter, but this is related). These types of debates are ideologically driven and unlikely to be resolved by any amount of reasonable discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demi Moore discussion belongs on Talk:Demi Moore. 28bytes (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also agree that User:Youreallycan should be sanctioned. User:Youreallycan has harassed me in several ways today: 1. Removed my sourced and factual edits from the Demi Moore page; 2. then added a template that threatened me with blocking if I edited the article; 3. repeatedly changed the title of my new section on the TALK page of the Demi Moore article; 4. Deleted my request on his own talk page not to harass me, instead of replying to it; and finally 5. Removed sourced, good faith edits by another user from the Demi Moore page. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC) You insisted on posting an alleged "real" birth name without providing a valid source. That qualifies as a BLP violation and is subject to removal, no matter if it's in the article or the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that's 100% bullshit. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of reliable secondary sources listing Demi Moore's real name as "Demetria Guynes". Recently, several Wikipedia editors misinterpreted a twitter post from Moore which they imagined disputed this reliably sourced claim. This is another classic Off2riorob dispute manufactured from nothing, amounting to nothing. There is no source that disputes Moore's real name. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, you are still insisting that Demi Moore isn't a reliable source for her own name? Quote: "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!" - from Demi's verified Twitter account [58]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Again, misinterpretation by Wikipedia editors. To me, that means that during her life, she never used the name and was never called the name. It does not mean that it was not her given name. Please stop trying to interpret Twitter posts. We have multiple reliable sources that have verified her birth name. If they are all wrong, then why isn't there a single retraction, a single correction, and a single source saying "no"? Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I don't give a rat's arse what it means to you. We have Demi herself stating unequivocally that her name was never Demitria, and whether she said it on Twitter, or wrote it in blood on the back of the original version of the US Constitution, she is still a perfectly reasonable source, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 'Reliable sources' get things wrong all the time. They copy each other without fact-checking. Heck, they copy Wikipedia often enough. This ludicrous idea that a 'reliable source' is always reliable is one of the most pernicious misunderstandings (or worse) that cripples common-sense editing on Wikipedia. Why would she lie about it? Come to that, why are so many supposedly-rational people suggesting that it actually matters? This place gets nuttier by the minute... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC) She does not state that unequivocally in the context of the Twitter post, so your interpretation belongs to you. She has never said "I was not born Demetria Moore". Are you saying that we should interpret ambiguous Twitter posts rather than, let's say, the Almanac of Famous People (2011) published by Gale? There are dozens of publications that list her birth name as Demetria. If they are all wrong, why hasn't Demi Moore ever issued a correction? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) And, another one: "Demi Moore born Demetria Guynes" from Hutchinson's Biography Database (2011). Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC) "Born: Demetria Guynes in Roswell, New Mexico, 11 November 1962." International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers (2000). However, here is a reliable source that is finally at odds with the rest: "Born Demi Guynes in Roswell, New Mexico..." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture (2000). Strangely, both are published by St. James Press. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) What the heck? People are attacking Rob for supporting the position that Demi Moore is a reliable source for a statement that her name is Demi Moore, are they? Unbelievable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC) No, he replaced valid information that had been published in many reliable sources over he past 20 years on the basis of one "tweet" Demi recently made from her Twitter account. Please think about this... if we replace valid information from credible sources on the basis of celebrities claims, they would all claim to be years younger than their actual age, date of births would be off.. for some unknown reason, Demi has decided to try to change history and now claims her birth name was not Demetria Guynes, despite her statements in prior interviews, one of which I linked to on the talk page - a People interview from 1996 which directly quoted her as saying her birth name is Demetria and how her mother came to name her that. So then, if she "tweets" again in a year that her birth name was really "Demitasse" should we take that as fact too...? and change the article to reflect that? Or if she decides she was actually born in 1980 and is only 32 years old...? Think about this. Seriously. The issue is that one editor steam-rollered his view over everyone elses, deleted sourced information, and refused to allow good faith compromise edits. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) She didn't even say what AndyTheGrump and Off2riorob are saying she said. She just denied that she goes by the name, which of course is true. However, every reliable biographical source and index on the subject lists her original name as "Demetria Gene Guynes". This includes the most current Almanac of Famous People (2011) published by Gale. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry? You are claiming the link I provided to the quote I gave was false, are you? Or are you just basing this on what you think she meant, rather than what she actually wrote? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Demi Moore has never issued a correction nor has she ever said, "my birth name is not Demtria". Your interpretation of an ambiguous Twitter post is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Do you have a reading comprehension problem? What part of "it was never Demitria" isn't a correction? And 'Twitter' isn't the source - Demi Moore is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC) You're engaging in out of context misinterpertation of a primary Twitter post. That's hardly reliable. On Twitter, Demi is asked "What's your name? Demetria Gene Guynes??" However, her response is "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!" That doesn't necessarily mean it was never her birth name, but it could mean she was never called Demitria. As a rule, we don't go with out of context, ambiguous editorial interpretations. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC) "As a rule, we don't go with out of context, ambiguous editorial interpretations". Good - stop doing it then. Your guesswork about what it does or doesn't "necessarily" mean is exactly that, whereas Ms Moore's statement is unequivocal. She says her name was never Demtria. She doesn't say she was never called Demtria. Spin it how you like, she is making a factual assertion. She might be mistaken, she might be lying (though I can't think of one reason why...), but she stated it outright. There is no ambiguity, except in your imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) The quotes you're ascribing to her make it clear that her name is Demi, not Demetria. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC) There are dozens of interviews with Demi Moore dating back decades. Are you telling me you can't find one that disputes the birth name dozens of reliable sources have given her? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Where are these allegedly "reliable" sources getting their info? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Demi Moore's birth name, this looks like a pretty bog-standard and good-faith editor dispute provoked by contradictory sources. From what I can see in the article history, the long-time stable article version gave her birth name as Demi Gene Guynes. If it's been wrong for years, I don't see what the hurry is in changing it, without a proper examination of whether the change actually is an improvement or not. You could also call that due diligence. --JN466 04:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Just for reference, there are equally reputable sources stating her birth name as "Demi": [59] (H. W. Wilson Company), [60] (Hachette), [61] (New York Times biographical service), [62] (Macmillan + Time Almanac + Gale + Who's Who). --JN466 05:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC) "Most references say Moore’s name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes. [...] Recently Moore told her fans through Twitter that Demi, not Demetria, is her full name. It’s not clear whether she’s claiming she was born as Demi or has now legally changed her name." Omaha World-Herald, August 25, 2009 --JN466 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC) That is absolutely correct. "Most references say Moore’s name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes" and that can be verified in this 2006 book by show business author James Robert Parish who writes that Moore changed her name sometime after she moved to California and began attending high school. Therefore, her response on Twitter, is as I said above, absolutely true. Her name is no longer Demetria. However, that still does not change the fact that she was born with that name. When I read the Twitter message, I see a woman rightly denying that her name is currently Demetria. If she changed her name, as James Robert Parish, maintains, then we have yet another example of Wikipedia editors misinterpreting primary sources to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Demi Moore discussion belongs on Talk:Demi Moore. 28bytes (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Viriditas, how can we misinterpret this? Let me quote: "Demi is the name I was born with!". I don't think that can be interpreted in any other way. Put your ill feelings aside, and you stop trying to read into what she is saying. Nymf hideliho! 08:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Could you explain why virtually every reliable biography source, including James Robert Parish,[63] says otherwise? Parish goes so far as to go into detail, saying that her mother, Virginia King, named her after a beauty product in a magazine. According to a quote attributed to Moore that was supposedly published in Harper's Bazaar, she confirms this, saying that her mother named her Demetria because she saw the name on a cosmetics product and fancied it: "I had a very young mother and she was a little wacky. My name came from a make-up - that's where she saw it."[64] I'm going to try and follow this up. We're not talking about one or two or three sources that have made this claim over the years. We're talking about dozens, perhaps fifty or more, many of which are considered highly trusted and reliable, like Biography Magazine (Nov. 2000) 4 (11), p. 26. Now, if this is all made up and a complete fabrication, is there a reason we have contemporaneous interviews with Moore published in the last several years with the name "Demetria" still appearing in the publication? And why is there not a single correction to set the record straight? Instead, all we have are Wikipedia editors misinterpreting Twitter posts. Something is wrong here. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Now I think you are misinterpreting that source. She does say that she was named after the cosmetics line, but nowhere does she say that her name is Demetria. I could be named after "Calvin Klein", but still only be named Cal. It is impossible to misinterpret this post (by the obviously annoyed Demi Moore), however. So what do you propose? Is this all some kind of scheme by by Moore? Nymf hideliho! 09:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC) No, you're already confused. That source in particular says, "The actress insists she was born for just a venture as her "wacky" mother christened her Demetria because she liked the name on an early 1960s cosmetics line."[65] But, that is irrelevant, because we already have a reliable source, James Robert Parish, who has published that statement. This source, Bailey, S. (Sept, 2005). "Demi's Next Act". Harper's Bazaar. 3526, 340-347, only says the following: Aside from getting her comedy mojo on, Demi has other plans, which include launching a holistic beauty company with two friends, makeup artist Jo Strettell and skincare specialist Terri Lawton. "It comes from a much more organic place, really addressing your whole well-being and encouraging women to find alternatives so we do not become these immovable masks." There must be myriad opportunities for Demi to slap her name on a commercial product range, but she's determined that the project have integrity. "I really want it to be more about us, as women, coming together. I had a very young mother and she was a little wacky. My name came from a makeup--that's where she saw it," she says, shaking her head in fond disbelief. "She was always a little wild, but she never went a day without washing her face and using a little moisturizer." All this shows is that there is general agreement that Demi Moore was named after a 1960s beauty product called "Demetria". The question at hand is whether it was on the birth certificate. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Like I said, I could be named after Calvin Klein, but still only be named Cal. Moore herself disputes the name "Demetria" (not the story!), and according to Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, we are allowed to use her posts as a source for this. Nymf hideliho! 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) No, that's your interpretation of a primary source, namely a Twitter post. There isn't a single secondary source that directly challenges or casts doubt on her birth name, and she admits above that her name is based on the beauty product known as "Demetria". Secondary sources like the Omaha World-Herald have said that Moore's Twitter pronouncements on this subject are ambiguous and unclear.[66] Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC) The Twitter post that you and they are reading, is not the post in question that I am referring to. Moore explicitly says "Demi is the name I was born with!" (click it!). It is not ambigious or unclear. Nymf hideliho! 09:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC) We've already been over this. We don't interpret any primary sources. "Demi is the name I was born with!" does not directly address the question. That statement can be taken in at least several different ways. Again, I've already addressed this. What I would like to see is somebody question the veracity of James Robert Parish as a source or poke holes in basic biographical summaries like the kind found here. This information is widely available and unchallenged. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Humor me then, how could that be interpreted differently? How could "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!" be interpreted in a way that might imply that her name may have been Demetria once? When she says that it has never been Demetria? There is zero room for interpretation in these two posts. Nymf hideliho! 10:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) It can be interpreted in many different ways. It's completely ambiguous and unclear in terms of what her name was on her birth certificate or what full name she was given at birth. The number of different sources claiming her name is Demetria is staggering. For example, in a 2007 interview with journalist Chrissy Iley of The Guardian, Iley writes about Moore: Her mother was only 19 when she had her. She didn't grow up with her biological father. He left her mother before she was born. Until she was 15, Demi, named Demetria after a shampoo that her mother saw in a magazine, believed Danny Guynes was her father when in fact it was Charles Harman, a cocaine-addicted vending-machine salesman from Texas. Was she hurt not to have been told? Confused that the man she thought was her father for 15 years turned out not to be? 'Yes and no. It was the norm of a certain kind. It was what I knew. Certainly not what I would want for my children, but if I didn't step out of how hurtful that was, it would have been mind-twisting for me. There were many insecurities and doubts, but I know they made the best choices they could. They thought they were doing the right thing.'[67] This is not the only interview where this kind of claim is made in the article, and this information is uncontested in print. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC) But if it was on her birth certificate, why does she say that she has never been named Demetria? Why does she say that she was born Demi? Why does she say that she was born "Demi Gene" (there's your full surname right there)? These are odd claims for someone supposedly born "Demetria". Either way, the content dispuse has been settled by giving both versions. Nymf hideliho! 10:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC) (EC with above) It sounds to me like Demetria was probably her birth name although there is some dispute. I think the bigger issue is whether we should include this in her article, since it appears she has hardly ever been called by the name and doesn't consider it was ever her name. As with the other case, this should be resolved on the article talk page not here. It may be Youreallycan's behaviour is making discussion difficult, or there are problems with his behaviour. However his insistence that the name be excluded (or whatever) isn't in itself a problem. And it should be obvious these discussions are going no where if the only problems are these cases where he supports a view, that this talk page itselfs attest to a number of people support. In other words, these discussion needs to return to his behaviour, not the content dispute that lead up to the behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) It appears that the author Parish may well have made the same jump-to-conclusion that some are making here, namely that because she was named in reference to something, that that something was exactly the same as her first name. Unless Parish gives a source for his statement, then it can only be taken as his personal conjecture, and cannot be considered "reliable". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC) A Twitter post is never a reliable source for information. Regardless of the subject. In regards to Moore there are even scholarly sources which state it is Demetria Gene Guynes. Since when do we disregard even scholarly sources when some celeb decides to post something to Twitter. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Read Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves - this explicitly includes Twitter as a valid "self-published" source for personal information. And can someone please explain why they think that Demi doesn't know what her name is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC) That's a guideline, and we all know that celebrities make self-serving comments about themselves. Does the Twitter post state explicitly "My birth certificate was issued in the name of Demi Gene". Or does it say something else leaves ambiguity as to what they are talking about? Because unless it is the former, it has no place in WP. Russavia Let's dialogue 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC) What 'we all know' is utterly irrelevant here. Do you have any source that explicitly refers to a birth certificate? No. Do you have any source that suggests Ms Moore has a reason to want to change her name? No. Basically, this whole argument seems to be about whether the opinions of some Wikepedia contributors over what they think Ms Moore meant are of more significance than what she actually said. This has no place in WP. Frankly, some people seem to have a twisted set of priorities here in any case. This isn't a court of law. We aren't here to arrive at 'facts', or to draw 'conclusions'. Demi Moore is known by that name. If some sources insist that it isn't her name, it can be referred to in a footnote, along with a link to her assertion that this is incorrect. To attach any more significance to this bit of trivia is totally undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behavioral, not topic-based, problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yog(h)urt

At Talk:Yoghurt there is a very long running discussion about what the title of the article should be. Having failed to achieve anything a few weeks ago when invited to the discussion by RFCbot, I went away again (as I really don't care one way or the other). I looked back to see if any progress has been made, only to see some gross incivility from several parties following on from an anon comment (that may or may not have been trolling). I've hatted the entire section [68], but having been previously involved (and having been accused of bias towards one side on the basis of my nationality) I don't want to get into it any further.

Completely uninvolved admins would do well to at least keep an eye on the page if nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Having read through that discussion... It's entirely unfunny how a single letter can generate such lengthy and acrimonious discussion. Do they really not have anything better to do :S --Errant ^(chat!) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and leave it the heck alone :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as that! About the only thing they agree on is that there are no national ties, so the relevant provision of ENGVAR is what title the article was established at. What they can't agree on is which title that is - it was started at "Yogurt" but has been at "Yoghurt" far longer, they do not agree on the relative importance of these facts, whether it is now "established" at "Yoghurt", whether it is (or has been) "stable" at the present title (whether move protection, reverted moves, and/or move discussions have any relevance to whether it is "stable"), or just about anything else. Except possibly that it vitally important for it to be at the right title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would in fact be why I walked away quite some time ago, almost entirely due to Born2Cycle's atrocious behaviour. The page remained on my watchlist, I saw the trolling, I removed it. And was promptly attacked by Born2Cycle for my troubles. His behaviour really has gone overboard. → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

True, B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Has any of the editors discussing Born2Cycle notified that editor that they are being discussed here? If not, please do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the discussion is not an editor; if you wish to discuss an editor, please open a section with an appropriate title. Uniplex (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • They hadn't, I have now done so [69]. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, this is a very long-running argument that has long been enshrined among the lamest edit wars ever. Not that that excuses anybody's current behavior, but I thought I'd add some historical perspective. Carry on... Zeng8r (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and this pathetically long history is summarized here: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. The talk page and subpage look like a huge wall-of-text that I'm not wading into but the clear proof of common name should stand on its own merit.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle statement

I deny engaging in any behavior coming close to being "atrocious", or attacking anyone, and submit no evidence to the contrary has been submitted, or exists. I admit to reverting and criticizing the removal of one user's harmless comment by a second user in a situation where the harmless comment is evidence that happens to support a view opposite of the position taken by the second user.

I also find Bwilkin's comment above -- "B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist." -- to be a personal attack on me, and completely unfounded. I request that Bwilkins refrain from commenting on what he believes others do or do not believe.

I also note the observation that editors who are genuinely not interested in an issue tend to stop paying attention to it. In general, if someone really doesn't care if an article is at X or Y, he normally does not participate in an RM discussion about whether the article should be at X or Y. In particular, if someone really didn't care if this article is at Yogurt or Yoghurt, he wouldn't participate in RM discussions about whether the article should be at Yogurt or Yoghurt. To participate in such a discussion, and then deride others for participating because "it shouldn't matter" is disingenuous at best.

For the record, I do care about resolving the very long conflict over this article's title. This issue has been debated for eight years now. The article was originally at Yogurt, but then it was surreptitiously moved to Yoghurt about a year later, on Christmas Day. There was an obscure notice about it hidden inside a comment, but no discussion. Within a few months the objections started, and there has never been consensus support for Yoghurt, despite eight years, eight formal RM discussions, and countless informal discussions. I'm sure it seems like a silly issue to many, but the fact is that dozens and dozens of editors have cared and have participated in these discussions over the years, and there has never been a resolution. I sincerely believe that once an admin moves the article back to Yogurt, per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN (which is designed specifically for a situation such as this - when all else fails return to the variety of English of the first non-stub version), the issue will finally be resolved. I find it ironic that the only obvious solution is the only one that has not been tried, and ferociously opposed by those who claim this is a silly unimportant issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the last RM discussion, and got nothing but endless grief from you, I can confirm your behaviour about this matter is very much churlish, childish and uncollegiate. fish&karate 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

B2C; over time I have come to the realisation that it really does not matter one jot whether article such as these are at one spelling or another (assuming redirects are in place). If there has been 8 years argument over a single letter I have to ask the honest question; who the hell wastes their time arguing about it? (Also; FWIW the point of RETAIN is meant to be to stop protracted arguments without a clear "right answer" - obviously it failed in this task.. so perhaps a relevant policy might be LEAVEASIS :)) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Errant, like I said, dozens have participated (BTW, I didn't start even one of the eight yoghurt->yogurt RM proposals - all of which have been decided as "no consensus", and I don't believe there is any person who started any two of them), so it is obviously important to very many, on both sides. We can't say RESTORE_ORIGINAL_TITLE has failed since it has not even been tried. We can say LEAVEASIS has failed because that has been tried, for eight years, and has clearly failed. I suggest LEAVEASIS fails in cases like this - where the article was moved from its original title for no good reason because those who favor the original title have reasonable objections that will only disappear when the original title is restored.

As a comparison, I should note that the similar Iodised salt (though the history of its title is not as long or as contentious) has stabilized now that is back to its original title, and that title was moved from it's original title through a legitimate/formal RM discussion that achieved unanimous consensus in favor of moving among those participating. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

f&k, I apologize for seeming to have been churlish, but I was quite frustrated with your closing and reluctance to explain it. It took you a week before you finally began to provide an explanation, and that only after several editors, including at least one other admin, made requests for you to do so, and you never did respond to my follow-up comment [70]. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

B2c, a pattern of persistent complaining and berating of administrators who closed move discussions in a way you didn't like seems to be a recurrent thing with you. This is something that should stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Complaining? Sure, once in a while. But berating? A persistent pattern? Seriously? Any evidence of that? I suggest you review WP:ADMINACCT.

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.

If you believe I've been uncivil, have been making personal attacks, or not acting in good faith, please cite those incidents and let's deal with it. But these veiled threats about vaguely described behavior with negative connotation that seem to have no purpose but to discourage this editor from engaging in questioning or criticizing administrator actions are highly inappropriate. To characterize civil and good faith questioning and criticizing of administrators as "persistent complaining and berating of administrators" does not improve the encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please. The only reason I'm not chiming in with diffs here is that I really have better things to do with my time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:NPA#WHATIS, that's a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

90% of Talk:Yoghurt is nothing but your endless rehashing of the same arguments because Something Is Wrong On The Internet, that's pretty solid evidence. The RFC, which cointains much the same contact, would be more. My talk page could be another. It's certainly not a personal attack. The point is that at some point you need to stop trying again and again and again to get the result you want just because you disagree with the outcome. The ceaseless campaigning until you get your own way is, while almost admirable for its ruthless intensity, very tiring for everyone to read, let alone deal with. fish&karate 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Would a topic ban from yoghurt and/or page moves/article titles be of value here? Note this is a genuine question, I don't know the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

F&K, so now merely discussing in high volume is uncivil or a personal attack? I questioned and criticized your actions as an administrator on your talk page because I found your close explanation to be worthy of questioning and criticism. You based your decision on the assertion that were "strong arguments" in favor of both positions, but you failed and refused, despite repeated inquires from others as well as me, to identify what the "strong arguments" opposing the move were. Someone else did it again just today. You want to blame your unexplained decision on the "whining" of others? Suit yourself. I'm sorry you resenting having to explain and discuss your decisions, but that's part of the job, per Wikipedia:ADMINACCT. No need to take that personally.

As to the volume I've been producing lately, especially since your unexplained close, my efforts regarding this issue have been to help resolve a conflict that has been going on for seven years that no one else has been able to resolve. I'm convinced what the solution to this conflict is. Yes, the solution happens to be the same as what I believe should occur at the article, but that doesn't mean it's not going to solve the conflict. It just means I'm more determined to see it happen. I have pursued this by clarifying and focusing the issues in order to reduce how much reading others have to do. I did this by creating and being the main contributor to both the history of this issue, at Talk:Yoghurt/spellinghistory, and a summary of the arguments at Talk:Yoghurt#Arguments_regarding_article_title. I did my best to represent both sides, and to invite others to contribute to make sure it's fair and NPOV.

Thryduulf, yes, hurry, hurry! B2C might actually persuade enough people so that the position others hold on the issue that "doesn't matter" might lose! Let's topic ban him before that happens, because it doesn't matter! Hurry, hurry!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that all the discussion on the page to date (most of which is your verbiage) hasn't managed to "persuade enough people" and has resulted in personal attacks and incivility (from all sides), it seems clear that carrying on in the same vein will not result in any significant progress. Also given the statements here indicating others are unhappy with your conduct, it's worth asking the question what can be done to improve the situation. If a situation is characterised by one very vocal person screaming that there is only one way forward, and most other people saying "it's not worth the fuss, let it go" then one thing that might help is to remove the screamer from the area so that other voices don't get drowned out and may be able to quietly work out a way forward acceptable to all of them. However good your intentions are, and whether you are right or wrong, your methods have not worked - it's probably time to walk away from the dispute, before you get banned from it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C has done nothing wrong here. He's not being incivil just because he's talking about stuff people disagree with. F&K's close of the RM was wrong, as he didn't really explain himself (in fact his whole closing statement is a joke, literally). An admin really ought to look at the underlying issue instead of just bashing someone for having strong beliefs. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf, you have not identified attacks or incivility in which I've engaged (unless you're thinking of the bias fiasco - but I thought that misunderstanding was resolved... no?). Yet you imply I'm somehow responsible for the "personal attacks and incivility (from all sides)" that you believe has resulted from my verbiage. Are you seriously suggesting I be punished for the attacks and incivility targeted at me? Wow. That's creative.

Anyway, my efforts to persuade others have only been concerted (compiling the history and argument summaries) since the last RM discussion; barely a month. Given the seven years this conflict has been raging, I suggest it's still way too early to judge whether my efforts have been effective or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I know that there is probably very little support for what I'm about to say, and I have only really mentioned this one other time, but this has been on my mind for a while. Even though Wikipedia, and we as Wikipedians, do relatively fine, most of the time, using two variations of English spelling, What would be the internal harm in actually splitting Wikipedia.en into two separate entities? A Wikipedia.en/British, and a Wikipedia.en/American. Of course we are doing fine now, despite the occasional edit war and heated discussion over spelling, but there's no real harm in discussing this. I'm not even really sure that it can be accomplished, even if we agree to do so. I have an informal plan in my head, but planning is only half the battle. Implementing something like this may be more difficult than it sounds.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for reminder about NPA/CIVIL

Here is some evidence that contradicts Thryduulf's claim above that all the discussion (largely my verbiage) at Talk:Yoghurt has not managed to persuade others [71].

This is important because Thryduulf is the one who opened this AN/I and suggested a topic ban, apparently trying to muzzle me from continuing to advocate a position with which he disagrees. It's ironic and fortuitous that this effort on his part has backfired by bringing attention to the issue and all the persuasive information and verbiage I've produced and organized, so that I can present evidence of its effectivity. What happens when such tactics are used to go after prolific opponents who aren't as fortunate as I am in this case? If someone tries to be persuasive, but the efforts are not yet fruitful, he can be blocked for failing to persuade others? Why is this blatant discouragement of genuine attempts to build consensus through discussion tolerated?

I should add that while several editors appear to agree with Thryduulf that my behavior is problematic, no evidence has been presented of any wrongdoing on my part, and all of the accusers, I believe without exception, just happen to have a history of disagreeing with me on substantive matters. Coincidence? Retaliation? Or am I missing something? You, uninvolved administrator, please let me know.

The allegations/criticisms about me, without evidence, alluded to just above, are:

• "... Born2Cycle's atrocious behaviour" -Roux
• "B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist." - Bwilkins
• "got nothing but endless grief from you, I can confirm your behaviour about this matter is very much churlish, childish and uncollegiate." - Fish and karate
• "B2c, a pattern of persistent complaining and berating of administrators who closed move discussions in a way you didn't like... This is something that should stop" -Future Perfect at Sunrise
• "Oh, please. The only reason I'm not chiming in with diffs here is that I really have better things to do with my time." (clearly agreeing with unsubstantiated allegations) -SarekOfVulcan
• "Given that all the discussion on the page to date (most of which is your verbiage) hasn't managed to "persuade enough people" and has resulted in personal attacks and incivility (from all sides), ..." -Thryduulf

I should add that I don't necessarily deny engaging in all of the behavior referenced in these statements. I deny that what I did was wrong or inappropriate, but this cannot be verified by anyone because the accusers have only flung accusations at me, without the evidence so others can review. My questioning and criticism of F&K on his talk page for example, is perfectly in line with what is endorsed at WP:ADMINACCT, but he chastises me for it here in this AN/I, as if I did something wrong. How is that okay, especially coming from an admin? I thought admins are encouraged to demonstrate exemplary behavior, not the opposite of it.

These allegations and criticisms (implied if not explicit), because none of them are based on any evidence, are all personal attacks, by definition, per WP:NPA#WHATIS, apparently motivated by a mere difference of opinion, or retaliation for legitimate and appropriate questioning or criticism of them by me.

Therefore, I hereby request that Thryduulf (talk · contribs), Roux (talk · contribs), Bwilkins (talk · contribs), Fish and karate (talk · contribs), Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) be reminded that making critical remarks about others, in any forum, without evidence, is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS and WP:CIVIL. This kind of flippant disregard for the policies that encourage civility needs to stop. These tactics will continue to be used to try to muzzle other editors in disagreements if they are tolerated and those who employ them continue along with no consequences, and Wikipedia will suffer for it. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Revised. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Really... this should go down in WP:LAME
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
8 freakin' years??? According to EO, it's "yogurt".[72] They don't mention "yoghurt", and they don't have an entry for it.[73] I would guess that "yoghurt" was someone's attempt to suggest the proper original pronunciation, which the EO article discusses. And it's pretty clear, from the wikipedia article itself, that "yogurt" is the most common spelling. Putting it at "yoghurt" is almost as stupid as what was done to Edelweiss. It's also harmful to wikipedia, as it makes wikipedia look stupid. But speaking of stupid... eight years wasted on this subject? OY!! GEVALT!!! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure if I'm more stupid than the 8 year argument for getting involved now, but I wanted to point out that the "yoghurt" spelling may be far more popular in other parts of the world. I've spent a lot of time in India and the H spelling is more common there as far I remember. Noformation Talk 07:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The pro-"yoghurt" crowd seem to see systemic bias in the insistence on the US spelling. And what's wrong with "yogourt" anyway? --NellieBly (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Funnily enough, I'm eating yoghurt right now. And yes I spelled it according to what is printed on the container. I have another brand in my fridge which is spelled yogurt. Clearly both are right and both are wrong and people who try to argue otherwise are one of the reasons we've been arguing for 8 years. The other big problem is that while we have general consensus to 'retain' the original spelling when both are right/wrong, we don't really have consensus on what to do if the article was moved a long time ago which evidentally happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Isn't the Oxford English Dictionary pretty much the authoritative source? What does it give as the primary spelling? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Webster's agrees with OED,[74] with the root being the Turkish yoğurt. How'd that h get in there, anyway? Doc talk 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Yogurt is now the most common spelling of the word in English and experts agree with dropping the "h".[75] (Doc, that link explains how the "h" got there) Could someone please move the article to the correct title and block anyone who continues this nonsense? Any argument for retaining the "h" is a minority argument at best. We don't name articles based on uncommon spelling. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC) We do if the title is uncommon in one part of the world and common in another (e.g. aluminium, Sulfur, Color, Offence (law), Offense (sports), etc). Both spellings of Yogurt/Yoghurt are the most common in different parts of the world. While "yogurt" is more common "yoghurt" isn't uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Yoghurt is still a very common (possibly the more common?) spelling in the UK, I think. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC) In the United Kingdom it does not appear to be clear-cut. Using the top four UK supermarkets by market share from our article List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom and searching for "Yoghurt" in each supermarket we find Tesco (Yoghurt), Asda (Yogurt), Sainsbury's (Yogurt) and Morrisons (Yogurt). In all cases, I tried the two spellings in all supermarket searches and the yoghurts/yogurts and I recorded the spelling of the items returned in each case. All those four accept either spelling in their search engines --Senra (Talk) 11:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) But the industry, companies that produce and distribute the product around the world, overwhelmingly use the spelling, yogurt. That's a good indicator of how we should name our article. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Not in the UK. Hence this dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) "Most British dictionaries use the American version as the preferred spelling."[76] Can we end this now? Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC) This is not an incident, surely the article talk page is the best place for this futile discussion about something that essentially doesn't matter. pablo 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC) "Yoghurt" is an archaic spelling according to the industry, language experts, and reliable secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Please, everybody, do not continue the content dispute on this board. Viriditas, this mostly goes to you; I see three postings from you on this board that do nothing but argue your side in the content dispute. This is disruptive; please stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not continuing any dispute because I've never been involved in one. I'm merely observing, as a completely neutral, uninvolved party, that the sources show there is currently no support for yoghurt as a primary title, and the people who have been engaged in this dispute for eight years are pushing a POV. That's not a content dispute, that's a dispute involving a type of behavior, and it needs to be disciplined. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC) It doesn't matter if you were previously involved in the content dispute. You are arguing the content dispute now, and you are doing it in the wrong place. Please don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC) No, that is not correct. I personally don't care about this topic, nor do I care about the name of the article. You seem to be confusing the map with the territory. I can, as an uninvolved editor, make the observation that this so-called "content dispute" has been ongoing for eight years because of POV pushing that ignores the sources on the subject. That has nothing to do with me or any argument I might make. It's a neutral observation. I can also observe, that the culture of do-nothing administrators has allowed this disruption to fester across the encyclopedia for years on end. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Adarsh9896

Why were my, and another User's, comments deleted from the edit history of User talk:Adarsh9896? The edits themselves were not removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears something was oversighted. You'll have to ask an oversighter why. --Jayron32 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How do I find out who the oversighter was? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was the oversighter, but I couldn't email you as you have not registered your email address. I could not discuss the matter on wiki because as non-public personal information the material qualified for suppression and I could not republish it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added the information that the user is 13 years old back into your post. That is the information that was oversighted, a self-disclosure by a minor of their age, which is oversightable. Please do not put such information back into Wikipedia if it has been removed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is too late now to remove it or to try to mitigate any harm done. 13 is a bit below the boundary line the oversighters usually draw. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oversighters are busy people. Perhaps they made a mistake, or perhaps they had a good reason. Does it matter? Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added the information that the user is 13 years old back into your post. I did not. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why TMOTB is making such a big fuss on the oversight thing but I have to agree with them on the revert. The user's talk page has not been touched since Fred edited and while FB removed the link to the user from ANI, they did not remove the age [77]. As FB has noted this question shouldn't have been asked here anyway although it appears TMOTB was originally not aware suppression was used. If information has been suppressed, the whole point is this is considered sensitive enough that it generally shouldn't be discussed publicly here. Also please remember that is with most of wikipedia, the audit subcommittee is composed of volunteers so it's resonable to expect to wait a while for a response. (Even when I'm paying for a service it's rare that I would expect a guaranteed response within a day.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's common for a revision to be hidden if its contents contain things that shouldn't be visible. This doesn't imply there's a problem with your edits, it just means that particular revision happened to still contain problematic material. There's a similar situation on the user page of the same user - I contacted oversight because there were things there that needed not to be there. I don't know what the problems were on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hello, this is that "another User". From memory, it was contact and personal details of a younger editor. There's nothing further needs be discussed here. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not contact and personal details. The edit summary merely pointed him to the discussion above on this page. And yes, it does matter, because it puts it out there that I made an inappropriate edit, which I did not do. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

See the history of the userpage; an edit summary by Demiurge1000 was also deleted. I can only think of two possible situations in which an edit summary is oversighted: either it's a problem with the user who wrote the summary, in which case s/he should receive sanctions, or s/he is quite innocent, in which case s/he should be told that s/he didn't do anything wrong. I see no reason that either of these things was done. Moreover, for a reason that I can't understand, your original comments about this user were redacted editorially with no edit summary, making them incomprehensible. This situation is inexusably opaque: when information is made unavailable to all but 35 people, explanations need to be given so we can understand why it was removed. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• The appropriate venue for challenging the use of the Oversight (suppression) tool is to e-mail the Audit Subcommittee (an ArbCom body), which will then investigate the action, determine if the suppression was proper, and report its findings to the functionary in question and the complainant. Conversely, as I am sure you will understand, it is inappropriate to discuss suppression in most cases on this public noticeboard: we should never carelessly draw attention to matters of this nature. I don't want to be seen to stifle public discussion, but I really don't think this thread should continue. I'm watching this noticeboard and can answer any general queries you may all have (I sit on the AUSC), and I can be e-mailed if you want to discuss anything more specific. AGK [•] 20:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the following: If edit 1 to a page introduces inappropriate material that requires revision-deletion or oversighting, and edit 10 removes that material, then edits 2-10 will also need to be rev-deleted or oversighted. This does not reflect adversely in any way on the editors involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Three edits were oversighted. Mine was the first. And I repeat, only the edit summaries were redacted, the information added is still there. If an oversighter thinks there is something that needs to be discussed with me, then if you don't want to address it here, please send me an email. Otherwise I will assume my edit is somehow inappropriate, but nobody wants to tell me what it is. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not registered your email with Wikipedia; we can't email you. Please do not simply revert removed edits in the future even if we can't notify you. This example was not terrible serious, but next time it might be. And please don't post personal information on Administrator's noticeboards. The effect is to broadcast the information widely. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. I am getting more and more frustrated here, as I'm apparently being accused of something that I don't understand. I sent a request to the audit subcommittee. But I'm getting really upset about this, why should I be accused of things that I haven't done? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Because we have no oversight log and the oversighter didn't get around to telling you what was going on. This is unacceptable: when an edit is oversighted without any wrongdoing by the editor, the oversighter has the responsibility to tell the editor that s/he didn't do anything wrong. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The effect of your editing was to associate a 13 year old child with his user name. Not the end of the world, but not good. There is no way to communicate confidential information to someone who has not registered their email address. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if someone's edits are changed it would be best to find a way to tell them they are not doing something wrong, but in fact posting on this noticeboard about a 13 year old is wrong. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I give up. OK, I guess I'm a horrible person. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just something you apparently had not thought about. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold on -- we're not prohibiting self-disclosure from 13 year olds about their age, are we? I mean I self-disclosed when I was 14. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a matter of judgement. Perhaps you were a mature 14 year old who fully understood the risks. Under 13 we oversight self-disclosure. After that, it is a matter of judgement with the apparent maturity of the user taken into consideration. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I hadn't read your comment and aren't involved in such matters but I was thinking the same. It may be Lgdp demonstrated enough maturity that people trusted their judgement on what personal information they should disclose. On the other hand with a user who left their birthdate and claims to be the something (can't remember, was it president? CEO?) of Microsoft, this probably doesn't apply. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• And lo', the discussion did continue... Mark of the Beast, we received your e-mail and will respond privately, in due course. AGK [•] 11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Idiotic crap"

In response to my having explained to a third user that a section title was the same since 2007, User:Jean-Jacques Georges arrived on the talkpage for the first time, and chose to call contributions by other users "idiotic crap", among other things. Here's the full quote [78]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cuza edit warring

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

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

Frederick G. Clausen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing and legal threat by User:FantageJapanRox

The user has repeatedly placed the same Speedy Deletion tag on Fantage.

I declined the first one explaining that it did not meet the given criteria. When they did it a second time, I asked them to stop the disruptive editing or they might be blocked from editing. I also suggested AfD as a venue if they still felt deletion was the correct thing.

They're reverted the decline edit with the summary "Getting in trouble… don't block me or I'll sue(FOR REAL!!!)"

I am here because I am involved and want other admins to deal with this (also, I'm at work using my mobile phone, so I'm not using my main - admin - account)

There's the legal threat and the disruptive editing - if I was not involved, and came across this, I'd block the editor - but I am involved. I will notify the editor of this thread after I post this.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 00:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: User has been notified about this discussion-- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's talk page inviting them to retract the apparent threat and discuss the situation on their user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And with a couple hours w/no response... blocked. Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Can an admin look at Edinburghgeog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a clear duck of Edinburghgeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) give both username and editing of G5 (education) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also can they consider if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G5 (education) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should be deleted CSD G5 ? BTW if it is retained, I will !vote Delete but wish to give an admin the chance to WP:DENY. Mtking ^(edits) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious duck. Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this also a clear case of conflict of interest, with the editor having a fairly blatant connection with the University of Edinburgh School of GeoSciences and somehow seeing the very existence of the G5 article as against the interests of the University of Edinburgh.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G5 (education) should be deleted CSD G5 given both the Block Evasion and suggestion of WP:COI Mtking ^(edits) 02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This user is still at it; two more socks overnight. Frantic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked) and now Maria1357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (SPI outstanding) - Do think that the whole AfD is in total bad faith and should be deleted WP:G5. Mtking ^(edits) 20:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked a couple of ranges for a bit, so that should stem the abuse of multiple accounts. I definitely think the nominator has an axe to grind, but it's incongruent to speedily close the discussion when you have posted a good faith !vote. WilliamH (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:M1$CR3ANT

This user has created a 'strange' userpage: here and is edit warring to retain it. Surely this is not allowed? --220 of ^Borg 03:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The page was created with their first edit. They have been reverted by at least three editors and removed a CSD tag. HERE--220 of ^Borg 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is pure spam and porn. Why start a discussion string instead of just removing the moron? Leo (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but 'removing' the editor, if necessary requires an Admistrator. --220 of ^Borg 03:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Trolling more likely. The user has made three reasonable edits, and a porn user page, and no doubt will laugh while Wikipedia's processes grind long into the night. Vaguely reminiscent of an indef blocked user recently mentioned on one of the wikidrama boards. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to also draw attention to the actions of User:Seahorseruler who deliberately misinterprets the Wikipedia policies to protect pornographic materials. Leo (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing it with him in a calm manner. I have only talked to him on his talk page about it, so I honestly have no clue what he is finding abusive about "my actions". The only actions I have taken are leaving a few messages on his talk page, and one warning template previously after he incorrectly and somewhat abusively blanked the userpage and replaced it with "Block this user you call an editor" instead of placing a speedy delete template. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 04:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure there was any criteria that the page could have been deleted under, it should probably gone to WP:MfD Mtking ^(edits) 04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the image from the user's page under the criteria spelled out atWP:User pages#images: Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned. m.o.p 05:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks by Phoenix and Winslow

Unresolved

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

• WLRoss
• Phoenix and Winslow
• Bilby
• Daveosaurus

Several of the edits in question [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] and [85].

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

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

Bilby took the matter to the Wikiquette assistance board on October 11, where Phoenix and Winslow was advised to strike out the comments and refrain from further mention of the previous dispute.[86] Phoenix and Winslow did not post in reply but a SPA anon who always supports Phoenix and Winslow’s edits did and not only repeated the accusations but made further accusations that had previously been discredited on another board. Phoenix and Winslow ignored this request to stop the behaviour and continued bringing up the dispute.

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

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

Vandalism-Only User

67.3.64.70 appears to be a vandalism-only user. It only has four contributions right now, but they are all vandalism. Alphius (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Report to WP:AIV, please. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, on second thought, don't--give them vandalism warnings. Then report them. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential blocking of user repeatedly violating WP:COPYVIO

I'm writing in to report a user for repeated copyright violations. It's User talk:Jerardmathew. As you can see from his talk page, he's repeatedly had pages deleted for copyright violations. He's been warned about this, but still continued to attempt to add pages that contained copyrighted information. I came to notice this while looking at an article that he'd had up for AfC. I noticed that he had a past of copyvios, so I decided to check into the matter and sure enough, this was copied off of a website. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kanjirapally_Pazhayapally_or_Akkarapally It looks like he isn't going to stop any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)TOKYOGIRL79

Proposing community ban on Marquis de la Eirron

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

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

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

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

• Support indefinite ban, per above and repeated warnings. This guy knows that what he's doing is wrong, but just this morning I confirmed another sock. My support is without prejudice to an unban if somebody can talk him into sticking to the one account. AGK [•] 10:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support its gone beyond warnings, It was I who first took a request to SPI back in August 2010, the type of edits that user:Marquis de la Eirron makes are very hard to spot unless they are spotted quickly because they often involved subtle changes to a person's title (eg adding a "Sir" when reliable sources do not use the title) without any supporting cite. If not spotted quickly then the history of an article has to checked thoroughly and it is very time consuming to find such errors. Marquis de la Eirron has spent a year and a half of using socks to continue to edit despite a block that is more than enough rope. I support a ban. -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 27. It points out the problem of a non-admin close of a category deletion/renaming discussion. It also illustrates the problem of an admin initiating a category deletion/renaming discussion, and then the same admin initiating the sequence that allows the bot to go around and delete/rename categories on hundreds or thousands of pages.

This allows the idiotic mangling of category names basically by any non-admin who chooses to close a Wikipedia category discussion. I have seen the problem of non-admin closes on article deletion discussions also. In the last case the non-admin closed the article deletion discussion in favor of keeping the article. I did not mind that as I and nearly all others wanted the article kept. But it felt wrong for a non-admin to close the discussion prematurely, and it was reversed by others, and people let an admin close the discussion in favor of keeping the article. And the admin did a much better job and used Wikipedia guidelines, and did not make up rules.

On the Wikimedia Commons we have these type of misguided category deletion/renamings that occur by people who don't understand English very well. They are usually corrected or stopped because you can't easily invent completely new meanings for English terms and phrases.

But this is English Wikipedia, and this category guideline creation method is idiotic where a non-admin can create a new Wikipedia category guideline that bans or allows certain phrases, prepositions, or category names without wider Wikipedia discussion. You don't invent Wikipedia category naming guidelines in an obscure Wikipedia category discussion, and especially by a non-admin. But I know better than to expect logic from many deletionists and their followers. So I point out the problem here with little expectation that admins will do anything about it. Wikipedia is going to hell lately. Deletionists again. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I should point out that the complainant was the only editor to oppose the change being referred to here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Punitive Block

I was subjected to this punitive block after reverting/warning/reporting an editor making contentious edits to an article right after the consensus was established on not doing such. Even if I do agree that I was editwarring, I had made it very clear in the WP:AN3 report that I filed that I was not going to revert, unilaterally stopping edit war (although the other user still continued to make edits on top of that which were even more contentious). Both of us were instead given an equal length of 48 hour block which I appealed twice but the reviewing administrators (like the reviewing one) did not stick to WP:EXPLAINBLOCK and even more so I was given the impression that this was based on WP:COOLDOWN.

Two of my review appeals went this way with only (debatable) explanation of a part of the appeal while still not explaining how my block was preventive. Infact all the explanations (to the editwar part) given by the administrators are clearly pointing out that it was a punitive block. A third appeal was left unreviewed till the block expired.

Further more, the block archive has proofs given that I pointed out some of the obvious vandalism (on other pages) during my block (from my watchlist) and that was the only thing the block prevented me from reverting (as well as my first revert after the block was previously noted vandalism to pages). I don't see how by any means was this block preventive?

Archive page: User talk:TopGun/Punitive Block
Permanent link: [87]
Permanent link of WP:AN3 report: [88]

Involved adminstrators:

Blocking: User:Bwilkins (blocked on basis of editwar to which I had made clear I would not participate anymore)
1st review: User:Boing! said Zebedee (gave a one liner decline reason only addressing editwar)
2nd review: User:JamesBWatson (gave a similar reason as the 1st review but later acknowledged that I had a case for the block being punitive)
3rd review: (left un-answered)

(Incase I shouldn't be filing on this noticeboard, then please give me the right link.)

Users notified. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Has there ever been a time when it turned out well for a user whose first action after being blocked is to come onto WP:ANI and complain of admin abuse? Especially when 3 different admins were involved? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. There's always a first time. I don't think there has been a time some one did this before. And my reasons are very clear and obvious. 3 admins vs 1 user should still not involve prejudice as far as I know. Actually, my first action was to revert obvious vandalism after the block expired, which I couldn't due to the block though I still pointed out some on my talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Having never given a punitive (or even cooldown) block in my life, I'm not sure how to answer.

I responded to an AN3 report. Both editors had been equal partners in an edit-war, one claiming they had the right to do it, because of past consensus. As both parties were equally involved in the edit war, in complete fairness I blocked both for the identical period of time: 48hrs. Those who report at AN, ANI or even AN3 know full well that their own actions in the incident will always be taken into account. I revisited Top Gun's page once or twice afterwards due to my monitoring of unblock requests. While there - although I did not obviously action the unblocks - I corrected some of his misbeliefs surrounding the WP:DR process, most especially when he claimed loudly that he asked for WP:RFPP. He should have requested Protection before engaging in the edit war. This was an attempt to better engage him in the DR process, and prevent future recurrence. Nothing punitive here - all preventative, all within policy, and I actually cannot fathom how anyone could claim "punitive" based on the obvious circumstances. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that clearly I have no issue with the editor. This past AN3 filing that involved him was closed rather differently. I have no need/desire/background in "punishing" this editor, and the previous AN3 handling pretty much shows how level-handed and fair I have been on these regarding Top Gun (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bwilkins on that and his previous fairness. Although the fact that he was lenient with the case above which included trivial personal attacks but not where I declared of not continuing before any hint of block does not help me be any less indignant. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing that I should have reported at page protection instead of AN3 (which I cleared that I indicated protection in AN3 report - which you replied to as this one clearing your side on that - fine) but after I already made it clear (with proof that I did not revert again with the other user further escalating) how was this block preventive is the fact I have not been made clear to. Not then, not during any of the appeals, not now. The point you made about me being too late to report at AN3 since I was already in an edit war, is itself an indication of the block being punitive, I did get your point of RFPP which you clearly explained but that couldn'tt be undone then and there was no reason of blocking on those basis. To be more simple, I edit war (claiming a violation of consensus - which is not the topic of discussion here) and then I report to AN3 saying that I won't edit now, and I get a block. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The OP seems to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes an edit war. Looking at the article history I can see how Bwilkins would've been preventing further warring. Also, the OP's assessment ofJamesBWatson's review is seriously over-simplified. Tiderolls 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of edit war has been made clear to me by the three admins now, and that's something I would be more careful about in the future even if I do have consensus, maybe I was confusing it with "revert, warn & report" which was due to the violation of consensus I claimed (to be neutral here). But all that is not what I filed for, I've not simplified the admin's review discussion (since I added the link to the original piece), rather I included only the part relevant to this report. Which is, no explanation given, the block giving impression of a cooldown block and obviously being (with proof) a punitive block. I don't know if I can include the fact that it was accepted as a punitive block by the blocking admin after expiry. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins explains how the block was not punitive above. I do not see where the acceptance to which you allude is stated. Another misunderstanding perhaps? Tiderolls 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, he didn't explain it and he didn't state how it was preventive even in the replies below. Here is the acceptance after expiry "accept reason here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)" on this page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary explains that Bwilkins was simply closing an expired unblock request. "accept reason here" is an unblock template parameter. So you see, a misunderstanding. Tiderolls 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So that is the default text after accepting an unblock? If not, his text contradicts edit summary. Incase what you say is the case, it stands cleared that he didn't accept it and we can continue with the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no unblock; the block had expired. Tiderolls 18:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got it, he didn't replace the default parameter while removing the request. Probably should have been careful since this report was already filed when he accepted and it was to be taken as text by me or any unaware readers. But no harm done. Refer to my bottom comments for the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: To be clear, my report here is not about the editwar itself, but rather on the blocking being punitive/non-preventive and unexplained on that after repeatedly asking for it till the block finally expired. In short, how did the block prevent me from doing something I had declared not to do before getting a surprise block? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But, it becomes about the edit war itself - the block and the edit war do not exist as separate entities. Just like your own actions in the EW became important to the the whole AN3 report, your actions in that edit war are the true antecedent to this ANI filing. They will always be looked at in toto. You're not the first person who was blocked similarly at AN3 - indeed, there's a template that states "both users blocked" - it happens a few times a week. When two independent admins both decline your unblock, you've already got your answer. After all, what exactly are you hoping to get from this report - the block is expired, you've learned a few things, nobody is going to be desysopped ... all you've gained is additional eyes on your edits for awhile. Not sure it's worth it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As a reference, yes sure it can be related to that edit war and I'm sure it happens every week. The fact that three admins decided to keep me blocked for 48 hours is not a justification of block itself. You have to come up with a real explanation somewhat less equal to "I was edit warring because I was being reverted" from a user side. Let me quote this:

"Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

I hope you take blocking as seriously as I do. This is not a vandalism only account that I wont mind being blocked at any time. I've been using wikipedia from this account only since 5 years (probably reading more than editing) and I took the unfair block seriously. Why is it that after the block itself and 3 appeals (two attended) and this report with a wider attention, I've not been told how did the block 'prevent' me? Is it the fact that people usually quit or leave so as not to mess with admins? Seems a bit oppressive to me. I've been answerable to all my edits at wikipedia and I think so should be others, even the admins. I have no problem with additional people reviewing my edits as far as they are not wikihounders, so that's fine by me. My point here is the block was disruptive itself and what was that worth? You accepted my block reason after the expiry, so the block was wrongful. I don't know whether this ends up into desysoping or just an appology (so I have no specific motives here), this has to be corrected. I do want a record in my block log that this was not correct. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your block was was wholly and fully as per policy. I didn't accept your unblock after its expiry, I merely actionned it because the block was expired, and the unblock request was therefore invalid...it was also not on your talkpage, it was in a subpage - and was therefore showing up oddly in the list of unblocks requests. When 2 or 3 additional, unrelated admins review the same actions and decline your unblocks, you honestly have your answer. I anticipate not needing to say any more on this matter, as others have also said the same thing. Move forward with the positives you have learned from this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, I'm not an admin and so maybe you will not consider me qualified to answer, but as a completely uninvolved editor I'll try to and say it as I see it, and maybe that'll help.

By your own admission you were edit warring, and wikipedia policy indicates that those engaging in edit warring should be subject to a block to prevent further disruptive editing from damaging the encyclopaedia. If, after this has been established, the guilty editor claims "sorry I definitely won't edit war anymore lol", that does not make them exempt from the block. If this were the case, then any editor could use this method to avoid a block for just a little longer, and then continue edit warring against their promise. Though you made a statement that you would discontinue edit warring, no admin can be sure you are being truthful – they can only consider the facts. In this case, the fact is that you had been edit warring and this warrants a block per policy, in order to prevent you from edit warring further, particularly in light of the fact that you've been warned for such behaviour in the past. I can appreciate your frustration; we've all had to deal with idiot editors who refuse to get the WP:POINT and it's sickening to be tarred with the same brush as them in terms of a block. But instead of nurturing bitterness here on ANI it would be a lot better for you to take this one on the chin and learn from it; you'll be better at handling troublesome editors in future because of what happened to you in this case! Hope this helps in some way. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, I cleared that with Tiderolls above that you merely added the default parameter so it seemed that you 'accepted' the block (refer to comments above), but that still doesn't tell how the block was preventive. You have just repeated your reason here to which I objected. It is no justification that my block was kept by three admins so I don't deserve a proper explanation of the block which inherently doesn't seem to prevent me from anything. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Basalisk, I appreciate your input in this. I admit editwarring by defination (and I also pointed out that wikilawyering applies both ways since my intention was not to editwar - even in that case to I do admit that I reverted three times and I explained why). If I say that I won't revert here again, I file at AN3, and I don't revert while the other editor still makes top on edits, it means that I wont revert. The "lol I won't edit war" case doesn't apply here. At worst the admin didn't assume WP:GOODFAITH or give me the benifit of doubt and at best, he just got rid of both the editors giving me a negligent block along with the other one. I assume you reviewed the AN3 report. I'm not nurturing bitterness here. The fact that the admins after 3 unblock appeals ignored a part of my unblock requests and only explained the editwar part and that the blocking admin still stands on the point that the fact 2 other admins kept the block is a 'reason' or an 'explanation' of my block tells they have no answer to it. Neither is the fact that I editwarred and they think I might edit war again, because I made that clear. Yes you are right, it's bad to be tarred with the editors not adhering to WP:POINT and the block was wrong and amends should be made, that's all I asked here. They're telling the newbies to assume good faith and not ready to take the word of an old editor for not reverting again, that is not preventive in anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't respond further...but if we followed your argument, since you supposedly weren't going to revert again, then the editor you reported wouldn't need to revert again either, and therefore neither block would be needed, and indeed your AN3 report was completely unnecessary. Either that or you were asking someone to punish one edit-warrior but not the other. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, you are talking on it. No, the other editor still continued to make edits. That was the purpose of the report, and I did indicate protection along with it. So I was only asking for, whichever, preventive measures. And I'd make the point yet again, it was not 'supposedly' I showed it by not reverting him during the report's own processing. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so as you say they kept editing not reverting therefore although you expect good faith that you had stopped edit-warring/reverting, you were not extending the same good faith to the other editor. Got it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, editing after a warning in the edit summary (which I explained I didn't make at talk for given reasons - another debate since the editor saw it). This only proves that he would still revert me because he reverted me then while I stopped after that and said that I wont. There's difference between loss of good faith and assuming good faith. Even so, I left the decision making on you clearly pointing out that protection was an option so it is not that I really still lost good faith in the other editor (although he was editwarring after consensus). Please don't wikilawyer on it just as you wouldn't expect me to wikilawyer to claim my self clear of an editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, I understand your frustration. You did the right thing by (1) agreeing to stop edit-warring and (2) reporting the edit-warring to an admin noticeboard, and you got blocked anyway. It seems punitive to you because you cannot see any preventative aspect, since you agreed to stop reverting. But that's not really what's meant by "blocks should not be punitive." Punitive, in that context, means retaliatory, disparaging, etc., as in the blocking admin "had it in for you" or wanted to make you look bad. From my perspective, the blocking admin simply wanted to ensure that the edit war did not restart, thus from their perspective, the block was preventative, e.g. preventing additional edit-warring. Sometimes the blocking admin will take into account statements that the edit-warring parties won't resume or continue the edit war; sometimes they discount such statements. In either case, an edit-warring block is not to punish you. You may disagree that the block was necessary to prevent additional edit-warring, but that doesn't make it a bad block according to policy. Again, I understand your frustration, but please consider that the reason for blocking might appear very different to the blocking admin as it does to you. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the few persons who are actually reasoning here, I accept your reason, but even by doing so the admin did not assume good faith on my part. Lets assume that everything was done right. What about my next two appeals. The block was stale, a discussion at the article talk page was started (which is almost at its conclusion hours after the blocks expired - along with our participation). There was no point in keeping the block in the next two appeals. It's not like I asked to desysop them. I only asked to make amends at the least that could be done is to correct my block log for the wrongful block. And the blocking admin has actually helped me once before so this is not at all personal. But in the previous case he was quite lenient with the editor who was making personal attacks on me, no hard feelings - it actually settled, but comparing that to this - this block comes out to be non preventive. I hope you understand my point like you understood the rest of my arguments. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I do understand your point. I don't agree that it was a wrongful block, though. Blocks are a standard admin response to edit-warring, sometimes even if the edit-warring party or parties say they'll stop, or even have (recently) stopped. Does that mean that sometimes good-faith editors such as yourself get a block log entry even if they are completely sincere about stopping the edit war? Unfortunately, yes. But it's not the end of the world. Many well-respected editors have an EW block or two over the course of their careers here; it's not the end of the world. All it means is they happened to be caught up in an edit war. It happens. Heck, one of our current RfA candidates has a block log, and he's overwhelmingly passing his RfA. But to your other point: realistically, we don't typically "correct" block logs except in the most extreme of circumstances. Realistically, I think the most you can ask for here is an acknowledgement that your concerns have been heard and understood, and I hope I have done that for you. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see TopGun's point of view, and I do fully understand why they think the block was punitive. I thought long and hard about whether to accept an unblock request, for that reason. However, I decided against doing so. The block was stated to be for edit warring, and TopGun did indeed say that they would not continue to make the same reverts. If that were all there was to the case, then I would agree that the block was punitive, and would have unblocked. However, that was not all there was to the case. In fact had I made the block I would have given the reason as something like "disruptive editing, including edit warring". There were other problems before the block too, such as abuse of claims of "consensus" which might well have been included in the block reason. Also, TopGun's comments following the block included denying that they had been edit warring. How much faith can we have in a user's assurance that they will not edit war if at the same time they deny that something is edit warring when it plainly is? If someone says that they will not edit war, but makes it clear that their concept of what "edit war" means is at odds with the way the term is used on Wikipedia, then it seems reasonable to give less weight to their assurance than would otherwise be the case. Another point is that I have seen cases where an editor deliberately and knowlingly edit wars up to the point where they think they can go without being blocked. (Usually they stop at 3 reverts, because for some reason there is a very widespread belief that it doesn't count as edit warring if you don't break the 3 revert rule.) Often such people get away with it, but sometimes they don't. Time and again I have seen them complain that they were unfairly blocked, because they didn't edit war, and sometimes they also say "even though I didn't edit war, I won't continue to do what you wrongly call edit warring if you unblock me", which is what TopGun wa saying in this case. Alas, however, my experience is that such people very often do go on to do the same again, perhaps not in the same dispute, but later in other disputes. It is perfectly clear from TopGun's comments, both at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring before the block and on their talk page during the block, that they had deliberately stopped reverting at the point where they thought they wouldn't be blocked because it didn't count as edit warring. To unblock under those circumstances would have conveyed quite the wrong message, namely "yes, you are right. It is OK to edit war as long as you carefully avoid trangressing the 3 revert rule. Being blocked under such circumstances is wrong, and if it happens you can be unblocked. So feel free to do the same again." It was essential to leave the block in place to convey instead the message that such actions are not acceptable, and to deter such behaviour in the future. Thus it was preventive, not punitive. Please note that there is no assumption of bad faith here: I am 100% sure that TopGun truly believed in good faith that what they were doing was not against policy, but they were mistaken. So, to summarise: (1) There were other problems, apart from edit warring. (2) The repeated denials of edit warring were themselves problematic. (3) Edit warring exactly up to the point where you think you will not be blocked and then stopping is not acceptable, and any editor who thinks it is needs to learn otherwise. If they persist in denying any wrong doing then the only way to deter them from doing so again is likely to be to show them that doing so means they will be blocked and stay blocked. For that reason both the block and the declines of the unblock requests were preventive, not punitive. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) In the last two months, you've had two blocks for edit warring, and one more close call (where Bwilkins could have blocked you, but instead cut you some slack when you were in a fight over a talk page's archive settings). In both of your blocks, you've been insistent that everything is the other party's fault. Warning another editor about edit warring when you're in the process of edit warring yourself ([89]) seems to demonstrate a certain lack of self-awareness. Using your third revert to warn another editor about edit warring demonstrates chutzpah, but not a firm grasp of why Wikipedia has a policy against edit warring in the first place.

The block here was earned, and letting it run to its full length seems quite justified. If nothing else, the full-length block was preventive because it might encourage you to consider alternatives to edit warring when you're on your first revert rather than your third. It's to prevent the next edit war, not necessarily the resumption of the current one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I declined an unblock request that claimed the user had stopped edit-warring. When I checked the article history, I saw that TopGun had been ahead in the war at the time - so I didn't feel I could have a lot of confidence there (everyone stops when they are in the lead). I also saw there was a previous 3RR block, which meant TopGun should by now have been familiar with WP:3RR and WP:EW. I felt the continued block was necessary not just to make sure the current war really was stopped, but also to get over to TopGun that if you edit-war you get blocked, period, and thus prevent future repeats of edit-warring. I'm happy to accept the edit-warring was done as a good-faith mistake, and I hope TopGun now properly understands that 3RR is not a right, and that you can't edit-war up to the 3RR brink, then report the other guy, and escape yourself with no comeback. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Ceoil and User:Truthkeeper88

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 action - this is to everybody's advantage. All heat no light. We are building an encyclopedia here - don't look that focus. Everybody behave better in the future or I will get really angry. Behaving nice means talk nice to and about each other. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

---

are edit waring with me over my own talk page. Ceoil has been making vicious attacks on me for weeks. Someone please help. Alarbus (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave you an olive branch. You threw it away. I tried to strike. That's all. Let it go please. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not all by a long shot. You, meh; Ceoil should be removed. Alarbus (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus, you're not innocent in this. I would suggest both you and Ceoil drop the stick and back away from both the horse carcass and each other. This is counterproductive. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've disagreed, expressed myself in a civil manner. Ceoil, along with Modernist, and Moni3, have relentlessly insulted me, edit warred with me. Pages to see would be Template talk: Ernest Hemingway, Talk: Ernest Hemingway, User talk:Ceoil, User talk:Kafka Liz, User talk:Diannaa; my talk. Enough. Alarbus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus, calling someone a "rolling barrel of bile" (for example) is not civil; Ceoil has also been uncivil, agreed. Now, based on what I see on those pages, I could justifiably block both you and Ceoil. I would prefer that that not become necessary. Can you both not just back off? Your involvement in the Hemingway article is at this point not helping anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this particular "discussion" is futile and echo Nikkimaria's suggestion. This thing is bad enough on its own, and more than a little discouraging to the bystanders. For the record, I don't see any attacks on Truthkeeper's part. There's a lot of tension here, but from what I see, she is trying to de-escalate things. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He said far-worse, and many, many more times. Truthkeeper only edit warred with me on my talk. Alarbus (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to strike the comment and said as much in the edit summary. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you want an admin to do, Alarbus? I would start with warning you to make your comments on Talk:Ernest Hemingway about the content instead of the contributors. Your passive aggressive commentary as what I saw last night on Truthkeeper's page is problematic. You encourage an editor who worked very hard to leave Wikipedia and insult her. Then you include something else about content in the middle of all your bluster about Truthkeeper's role in writing the article. It looks to me that your primary objective is insulting another editor and you mask it with minor mentions of minor article issues. Truthkeeper88's behavior is not problematic here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban Ceoil would be a start; admonish you for calling everything I said 'Asshole-language'. You people gang-up like flies on shit. Alarbus (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Asshole language referred to the person who wrote about me on an external website, calling me a neo-nazi, premenopausal nun and linked to pornographic images. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And to handle your behavior what would you suggest? --Moni3 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't do this stuff. I can diffs about your behaviour but I won't. If the ani crowd decide to block me and Ceoil and back you then we know where we are. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Moni3, an admin could block both Truthkeeper and Ceoil for edit warring on Alarbus's talk page. If Alarbus wants to remove comments, that's his right, per WP:TPG. Alternatively, an admin could block Ceoil for disruptive editing (see this edit summary) and incivility (see previous edit summary and this comment). At a minimum, everybody needs to back away from each other and stop the edit warring and attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't mean to say that Alarbus doesn't also have poor behavior that's blockworthy; I've only looked at what's happend on Ceoil and Alarbus's talk page so far. What actually started this mess? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It started here. This began over TK reverting structural changes done per WP:HLIST over a colour preference. She and the others have been all over me ever since if I comment anywhere about anything they think related. Like the navbox talk on Liz's page. Too many edit conflicts on this page, and I have to go. Alarbus (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, he's also removed comments from other pages, not just his own. I would strongly disagree with blocking TK here, and would suggest that if anyone is to be blocked, it would be both Alarbus and Ceoil. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I remove Ceoil's trolling, that's all. Alarbus (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Remove me"; thats lovely, but will it be a gentle bullet to the head or a loving stab in the shower?. Get a grip. If we followed your reasoning to its logical conclusion all wiki editors should be "taken care of" because they dont know mark up as well as you, and are thus "a problem". Ceoil (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I started putting stuff together; it's incomplete.

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:14, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: proper structure: new section

• Long post to Kafka Liz that makes no reference to Ceoil

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:37, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: proper structure: lord jesus the work you could have done in the time it took to type that
• GET.A.LIFE.

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:45, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: remove trolling

• removed prior post

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:47, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: i beg your pardon

• restores "GET.A.LIFE."

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:52, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: Yes, I called you a troll and removed your personal attack

• removed prior post

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:30, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: re lith; O and dont worry about the tool below; it takes all sorts to make the world spin.

• 'tool'

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:32, 3 December 2011

• Alarbus: 'tool'; tool yourself. You're just a rolling barrel of bile.

• nibbles at the bait

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:37, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: zz; I can go worse than tool if you wish, prick.

• 'prick'

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:38, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: s; No, I'm just exhausted by agressive but essentially simple people like you.

• 'simple people like you'

Kafka Liz makes an alternative offer to calm things to Ceoil on his talk:

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:11, 3 December 2011

  Kafka Liz: Past noon: new section; ... so beer for you. Darker or lighter is available, of course.

• beer for you

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Ceoil: Past noon: not enough; Coffey would suit me better at the moment. I was robbed blind by childhood friends and their wives at a poker table last night. Strong black coffey, a plan and a gun is what I need. Do you have any of these.

• a plan and a gun is what I need

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Kafka Liz: Past noon: don't bring your guns to town, son; Ask and ye shall receive. Coffee is available chez Liz. As for the other two... I don't know if it's the plan you had in mind, but it's a plan. ;)

• don't bring your guns to town

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Ceoil: Past noon: bonny and clyde; This my plan: we'll go in and shoot everybody. We can figure it out after.

• we'll go in and shoot everybody

Alarbus (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I will explain what started the mess but can't because of edit conflicts. Will come back later when things calm down. Alarbus has been extremely uncivil to me since before Thanksgiving. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec again) For instance, I note that Alarbus was removing comments on User Talk:Kafka Liz, which xe should not have been doing (for the same reason that Truthkeeper and Ceoil shouldn't have been trying to make edits "stick" on Alarbus's talk page). Maybe all 3 or 4 or whatever of you need to spend some time away from each other for awhile. If you can do that voluntarily, then there's no need to make any of you involuntarily spend time away from wikipedia completely. Anyone willing to just back away? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really willing to back away; Alarbus is dangerously stupid and a problem. At the very least I'd like to make a big deal to wave a flag for others unfortunate enough to come across him. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He won't discuss. Twice I've offered olive branches and which have been reverted. It's about the Ernest Hemingway page and the FA crowd who are so full of themselves, according to him. I've just put back the page after more than 200 edits that four editors made to improve it. He didn't agree with the improvements and is willing to pull me to An/I. I'm not willing to put up with this. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss Hemingway? I gave up on that; drop it. I made two minor edits to the article. But I don't agree with you, so you can't drop it. Alarbus (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet this morning the first thing I see when I log into Wikipedia is a disparaging remark on the Hemingway talkpage. Please discuss your issues in a substantive manner instead of going around saying that editors, who by the way have made over a thousand edits to a core article, have ruined it. Please. If you can't discuss and you want me to be blocked for a single revert with a very clear edit summary then something's very wrong here. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I just said, I have to go. Question is, really, why should I stay? This place is awful. Alarbus (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice how most of your quotes are out of context, and were examples of friends just flirting/bantering. Game often, liar. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• (several ecs). I concur here - I've been trying to say that I don't think anyone here needs an enforced break. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil does; he's been pure troll to me. Alarbus (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO you must be so proud! Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Ceoil, I know the words, too. Alarbus (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking a rather enforced wikibreak for at least 2 of these editors. For Ceoil to actually state "Alarbus is dangerously stupid and a problem" right here on ANI when they have a block history as long as my ... erm ... for exactly the same behaviour? Alarbus should realize that although someone else's incivility may explain your own behaviour, it never excuses it! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have said a few rash things, but nothing compares to Ceoil's invective. Alarbus (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins you obvuosly havn't read the half of it and dont know what the fuck you are talking about. But here's re cap for your plesure. Alarbus is a troll with a small amount of knowledge of html and java script. And nothing else. He has balooned the fact that he know html, in his mind, to degree that code trumps content. And anybody who says actually, I'm he's a troll that needs to be taken to the internet hell of wiki/ani, policed by mostly mornic idiotios just above the complaint's iq level, needs to think. Ceoil (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That would explain why my most edited page is MediaWiki Talk:Common.css, where I've made a lot of helpful suggestions to User:Edokter and User:WOSlinker about getting all the navboxes fixed to use WP:HLISTs. And all the template edits. Just my misfortune to step into your group around Hemingway. I only like a few of his stories, anyway. Alarbus (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet somehow, what you did that set all of this off well before Thanksgiving-- which was more uncivil and damaging to editors and articles than any "invective" used by anyone-- hasn't even come up. hmmmmmm ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Background. Alarbus has been consistently aggressive and refuses to discuss. Now, because of him, two weeks of work by four editors has been wiped out. Please consider the reasons for why people are upset. Because of him, I have no interest of being part of this project anymore. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Just to add - I could have brought this to ANI myself much earlier. I can find many diffs of Alarbus' incivility and aggressive behaviour but have never resorted to AN/I and won't start now. That Alarbus believed he needed to bring this here when I left an olive branch on his page to try to open a discussion astounds me. And the bottom line is that this is all about TCO's "report" and what Alarbus perceives to be the "attitude" of FAC writers. I'm willing to meet him half-way and hear his point-of-view, but he has to understand that people can only take so much. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good summary. Its iornic that the edit war that brough us here was a post on his talk titled "Olive brach". Ceoil (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I had not realized that Alarbus was a relatively new user, when he started making his conspiratorial claims about fiefdoms, etc. (only caught this now based on a statement above). Strange conclusions for a new user who mostly works on templates. Should we be looking at meatpuppetry with TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), returning user, or some other such thing that admins deal with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's behaviour pre-dates the release of TCO's report. Here are seven diffs from 19-21 November:

• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• Diff of User talk:Diannaa
• Diff of User talk:Diannaa

--Dianna (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can give as many or more diff regarding Alarbus, but that's a timesink. And you Diannaa are very much involved here. Just fucking block me and put me out of my misery. This place just sucks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am posting merely as a victim of Ceoil's bile, not as an administrator. --Dianna (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Opportunist; my dismissal of you, and your bad faith trawling for ref incosisenticy in the Hemmingway article SO YOU COULD SPITE TK, is a worse thing. At the end of the day I called you on substance and formed the opention that you are a petty, no interest in content, motivated by the small things tool. And here you are now capitalising. Nice. Hang me so. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a pretty toxic situation when experienced editors are asking to be blocked because they're so sick of what they've had to put up with here. This just highlights the problem that editors who are not collegial or collaborative can do far more damage here than any "invective" or foul language employed after tempers have boiled. And that some offenders are likely to get off with not even a warning, in spite of block logs as long as Ceoil's and equally offensive language,[90] edit warring and name calling,[91] and misogyny and personalization.[92] The same ole same ole at ANI-- if you have a block log already, it's used against you, only depending on who you are and how many people are watching you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a Pot calling the kettle black and should be ignored or handled per WP:BOOMERANG. Alarbus initiated a conflict with Truthkeeper, who was attempting to improve one of our important articles hassling her with irrelevant objections condescension. This behavior is the most detrimental to the project since it is what causes productive editors to leave. Alarbus should have supported Truthkeeper's efforts but chose confrontation from the start. Ceoil stepped in to support Truthkeepers efforts against Alarbus' aggressive approach. He should be commended for this. I am not going to defend the way in which Ceoil supported Truthkeeper88, but it is immensely important that he did it. Alarbus's behavior here represents the most problematic aspect of wikipedia: Some editors apparently derive pleasure from harassing working people, and when they get back in kind what they stash out, they run to ANI to start a debacle. This shouldn't be encouraged. There are only two sensible options for proceeding here: Either no action is taken, or Alarbus and Ceoil are told to find a better form of interacting. If anyone is to be blocked it would fall back on the original poster - who has caused damage to the project by disrupting on going article work, and continues to do so by wasting our time here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, you can't seriously think Ceoil should be commended for this kind of behaviour. --Dianna (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I heartily commend his intentions which may have prevented wikipedia form loosing a valuable editor, although I don't condone the way in which he acted on those intentions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, let's commend TCO and Alarbus instead. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad language is one thing, but incivility takes many forms. Some examples in the past week:

• Over consensus Diannaa lectures that there's so much work to be done on Wikipedia
• Diannaa decides to do a mini review of citations and refuses to engage in discussion
• Diannaa tells me to practice a Buddhist sense of zen after challenging citations on a Featured article
• Alarbus incivilty about me on another talk
• Alarbus blanks an attempt to engage in discussion
• Alarbus blanks an olive branch message repeatedly
• Uncivil and unnecessary comments from Alarbus to my talk
• Continued incivility from Alarbus on Ernest Hemingway talk

I think Alarbus and Diannaa need to understand what they've done here before casting aspersions. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I can't claim to have examined all these diffs carefully, in principle I agree with Maunus. (To Dianaa, I would point out that Maunus specifially said I am not going to defend the way in which Ceoil supported Truthkeeper88.) Might I propose (as a minimum diffusing of the situation) that TK and Ceoil agree not to post to Alarbus's talk page; that Alarbus agree not to post to the talk pages of TK and Ceoil; and that TK and Ceoil further agree not to discuss Alarbus on their own or each other's talk page. Again, I agree with Maunus's overall assessment (and while I thank Ceoil for introducing me to the word fuckwit, I think I shall practice using it offsite). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As I read Maunus's comment, he is concentrating on substance rather than style. As an aside, I sincerely wish that Maunus or some other admin would put this topic out of its misery, take action or no action, and close. I also wish Maunus would use different colors on his userpage (very hard to read). :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would go further TK and say that admins like Diannaa are the problem, and waste the time peoples with content to add with games. Lokk at her "contibus" to the EH talk and wonder, what the fuck? I see only spite and I'll get ya, which is even even too kind a view. Here today you have her nursing trolls, who even a fool could see through, for spite. I respect Cynwolfe, but to say that the timeline is such that the troll reverted multiple times on our talks before we brought it to him. But yeah, I'll back off, with gravy. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I thought this was hatted. Since Ceoil has been blocked I'd like to be blocked to. Any admin willing to do that? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh and talk page revoked too. Let's just shut up the troublemakers. Seriously, if no one on who read this thread is will to mete out the same judgment to all parties involved, I'll find someone who will. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take a wikibreak, don't request a block, blocks are not handed out on request. You can use the wikibreak enforcer if you really need to, tho I'd advise finding some other solution. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't need a wikibreak - I need the wiki hypocrisy to stop now. I'm willing to take my first block for it. If there are any admins here who have enough brain to read the thread above, that was hatted, and stand by Ceoil's block, then I want to be blocked. If you can't figure out the logic, then none of you deserve to be admins. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about that "blocks are not handed out on request"; they sure were for TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (revolving block and RTV door there, returning to launch this whole matter, why not for others who request an enforced break from the lunacy?) Perhaps someone can help me understand the different applications of the tools by different admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe someone kicked the plug out on the Wikipedia Hive Mind Generator and every admin is using her or his own personal temperment, intelligence and experience to interpret the rules as best they can? Or perhaps they're not clones of the WikiMaster Admin after all? I dunno, it's hard to figure out just what might be going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Duke of Mantua

Resolved

 – Indeffed as vandalism-only account by User:Smalljim.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block this user; their history shows a number of vandalisms done to the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Duke_of_Mantua Rucha58 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, reports like this should go to WP:AIV instead, but thanks for bringing the user to our attention. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Adult supervision needed on Talk:Fisting

There is a rather heated discussion occurring at Talk:Fisting#Image of Guy Getting Fisted following an edit war in the now-protected article. The issue is about whether or not to include a photographic image of a man with a gloved hand inserted into his anus. The two main participants have strong words and the discussion has now attracted trolling well-meaning IP editors. Can someone with a strong but gentle hand try to settle things down? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "strong but gentle hand" is an unfortunate phrase choice. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, a banned sockpuppeteer is also there. I've blocked the account. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me we haven't violated WP:NOTHOWTO on this specific article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, parts of the article violate the policy (the Techniques section, for example). But I admit to being biased as I hate these sorts of articles and I hate reading them - it's hard to see what encyclopedic purpose they serve, except at the very outer margins.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed an unverified paragraph, and a paragraph advocating Crisco but not based on reliable sources. I guess I could have added a cn-tag for the lubrication sentence, but at least I hope I won't be accused of OR by not having tagged it. I haven't looked at the list of editors but I did note that Carlos Sanchez was seriously overstepping some boundaries on the talk page; Bbb23, thank you for having warned them--it seems to have worked. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a history merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat by Doktorb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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