Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day

User Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) is a user who has made some valuable contributions. He is an expert on Pink Floyd and has established a local Wikipedia group. However he also been at the centre of a number of conflicts and has an extensive block history including an Arbcom ban of one year.

Recently he has been displaying some very pointy behaviour regarding featured articles of the day. On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day, reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source beign substandard for an FA and claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

On 25 July, he inserted an infobox into the FA of the day. By the following week he was again making accusations of WP:OWN. There has been a long-running and boring dispute regarding the use of infoboxes in classical music articles. Andy's contribution to this dispute has led to some of his blocks. It was obvious that there could be no consensus reached to make such a change during the day that the article was FA of the day.

I think the attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day can only have a negative impact. The author of the first featured article mentioned is no stranger to robust argumentation, but that is not the case for all content creators. Spoiling an editor's pleasure of being on the front page can easilly affect their willingness to work on another FA.

I think a topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day is appropriate. Perhaps also a topic ban from all classical-music related article would be useful. I shall post a notice of this thread on AM's talk page imminently.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Andy inserted an infobox that was clearly within policy so you brought him to ANI? If having someone's article improved "spoils their pleasure" that's their problem, not the problem of the person who inserted the content. Ryan Vesey 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am sayign that an editor with an extensive history of disruptive editing and a block history to match is making WP:POINTy edits to the FAs of the day thus stirring things up when things should be kept as quiet as possible when somethign is FA of the day. There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware and he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Ryan, I see you are a member of WP:ER... I'm not sure if you fully understand the significance of your last post. Or, for that matter, of the "sniping" – to use Tim riley's exact word – that was going on in that discussion: including repeated idiolect digs from another editor at teh brilliant prose (Tim riley is surely among the best stylists and most capable copyeditors that Wikipedia has had). —MistyMORN 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Had. He retired today. Citing sniping. Very bad news for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post re Ian Fleming and it's referring to the whole focus of FA being intent on the original term for FAs and failing to deal appropriately with structural issues. I too am sad to see Tim withdraw his skills from the project and have said so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post ... Did I really read that right? —MistyMORN 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I take this accuation of trolling by User:Br'er Rabbit to be a completely unprovoked personal attack. —MistyMORN 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And this edit summary alluding to wankery the delights of self citation? isn't trolling? Or the badgering on my talk, yesterday? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a serious comment. And yesterday I politely let you know that I'd started a serious thread on Jimbo's page about the principle, not the participants. Since then, you have regaled me with multiple edit summaries of goaway and Bzzzt (whatever that's supposed to mean). —MistyMORN 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer, please try again. No good comes from starting threads on "principles" on teh Jimbo's talk. That's about inflaming disputes, as is this fucking page. This is all toxic snipping and drama-mongering. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I leave it to others to pursue this thread. I feel physically sick. —MistyMORN 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim's one of the few people who doesn't gush about my articles but gets into the bones of it and tells me what's wrong. This is very demotivating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm on good terms with Tim; believe I'm one of those he was referring to with and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above. It's quite unseemly for others to seek to use this as a weapon, as is on display just above. That is the sort of snipping that Tim's distressed over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? [1]. I don't think you have any right to put words or interpretations into Tim's mouth. —MistyMORN 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that I wasn't clear on this and have stricken my comment. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a total disregard for WP:CONSENSUS is the problem here, and when it comes to coordinates, Andy has a bully approach - anyone who disagrees with his view that they should be displayed as full DMS coords and linked within prose or added into tables is accused of ownership issues. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 4#RFC on coordinates in highway articles, Talk:Manchester Ship Canal, Talk:Ontario Highway 401#Coordinates and many more that I haven't witnessed or been involved in first-hand. It appears the insertion of infobox into TFAs is just another arm on the octopus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Would a topic ban or weekly 1rr be appropriate from this in line with what I suggested re classical music articles?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Astute readers will note that one of the above refers to a case where Floydian added coordinates to an article to overcome an issue raised at its FAR, only to remove them as soon as it passed FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing placed on probation, Andy is still on indefinite probation even though no actions have been taken under it for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have now found Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing where this was confirmed earlier this year.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, he was given a year ban in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I think a lot of Wikipedians don't realize how stressful "TFA day" can be for the people who have put a ton of work into the TFA article. It's not a bad idea to wait until the article's off the main page to propose potentially controversial changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  This editor doesn't propose though. They just implement their controversial change (often having made a similarly controversial change recently), then argue vehemently against numerous editors that they were in the right to make the change, and accuse those numerous editors of OWNership issues or trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy just determines what consensus is, and implements it matter-of-factly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That is exactly what I was thinking, Mark. The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. I have no idea why it couldn't wait, and allow the article, as it was approved, to be left more or less free of major changes while it is on the front page. That just seems a bit of courtesy and a way of gaining good faith from fellow editors. And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not mandatory, not required and generally all of this page-by-page debate is doing nothing more than stirring up a lot of trouble and pushing people away. To see this brought up at the Village Pump is absurd. Really. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• A simple topic ban from TFA for Pigsonthewing would appear to be the simple and easy solution here. It still leaves him 4,000,000+ articles to edit. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could look at the ownership issues, or the inappropriate local consensus issues. TFAs get a lot of edits from a lot of regulars. There's talk of an RfC re infoboxes on my talk. That's a better option. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, but for the one day that the article is on the Main Page, we don't need those issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the ban should be from the moment an article is proposed for a particular day or scheduled for that day until it has either completed its time as TFA or been replaced in the schedule for the proposed day. Otherwise we'll have the disruption merely pushed forward.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's it's "disruptive" is not established. I have good faith that Andy believes what he is seeking is for the best of the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to be bold and there is considerable support for the infoboxes (millions of them). Dunno about that table, though. This issue need a wider discussion (and a calm, reasoned one), not reflexive feeding of those churning up drama. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. Regardless of what the consensus is on infoboxes (or the other issues for that matter), making a WP:POINT on the article's one day on the front page is simply obvious attention-seeking. The wider discussion can take place when the article isn't the first thing that millions of people see when they log in. Especially when you're sourcing your POINTY edit to someone's TescoNet homepage. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Skipping right past that dead TescoNet hompage link, the infoboxes are quite arguably widely accepted improvements. I agree that these various infobox discussion are not productive. Part of the problem is that they're held on the home turf of the opponents of infoboxes. Everyone should mellow out and agree to a wide participation RfC. I will escort Andy there myself. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Except editors are not supposed to be bold when they know they don't have consensus to be so. He is clearly making a WP:POINT edit. Whether he thinks he is benefiting the project or not, when you don't have consensus or when something is controversial you stop and discuss first. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The infoboxes question is a red herring; he does this with coordinates too. --Rschen7754 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too, except its associated with a set of templates and not with articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Peter's comments. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

see: {{TFA-editnotice}}. "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}} on talk for FAs says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen it, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to make edits you know will be controversial without discussing them first. He was well aware the edits were controversial. Be bold only applies when you don't know prior to your edit that they will be controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• zOMG censorship. Although the whole thread is still probably going to be a train wreck, I think it took a *severe* turn for the worse starting here. I've simply removed comments from several editors, putting me in direct violation of numerous guidelines and policies I'm sure. If this pisses you off and you simply must restore them, please at least think of one single benefit to the encyclopedia for doing so. In the process I also removed a couple of harmless comments that no longer make sense once the silly ones are removed; no offense intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no benefit to any of this, it was train wreck much before it got here, but suppressing comments without linking to them simply allows more comments like the one below to pile up. The best thing to do would be to archive the "discussion". Truthkeeper (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But there's nothing wrong with the comment below; you may agree with it or disagree with it, but Disagreement is OK. I was just trying to nip in the bud the devolution into 100% snark, not stifle a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The snark has been going since last November with no end in sight. Would you mind at least linking to bit you snipped? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• But that would defeat the purpose of snipping it. I might as well hat it, then. The whole point is, I think those comments should just go down the memory hole. If snark has been going on since November, what possible benefit is there to restoring more here? However, I am not going to try to prevent anyone from linking, or restoring, or anything. Just be convinced you're improving the encyclopedia by doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. This has value. The rest has none, but it is important to remember that editors write these pages and only so much snark can go so far. Unwatching here now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy's contribution to classical music discussion pages is to be welcomed, not supressed. The classical music wikiprojects are very insular, with their own special rules about infoboxes, and they need to encourage outside criticism. If we ban Andy from classical music discussions it would at least have the appearance of stifling good-faith criticism of the projects. On the broader issue of making stylistically-controversial changes to featured articles while they are on the main page, I have no opinion. ThemFromSpace 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing is a great editor, with good intentions, but he's terrible at explaining things once confusion or disagreement has arisen (eg, and more, unrelated to infoboxes).

However, This really isn't (or shouldn't be, despite the page it's in) about the particular tempest.

It's about writer's voice. It's about knowing-your-audience, and grokking the context and background and nuances of a dispute. It's about personality archetypes smashing into each other, and not seeing the fallout. It's about retirees arguing with youngsters arguing with 'foreigners' (humans with entirely different mental intonations and landscapes). It's about empathy and insight. The only thing we have to encourage/enforce empathy is wp:Civility (and an entire navbox full of bitter&hilarious essays). And nothing can 'enforce' insight. But we do, desperately, need better ways to communicate with editors who are completely missing a point in a dispute. Like some of the consistently sarcastic afd nominators. It's acidic, and exhausting to others, in a subtle but influential way. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter cohen's original proposal, "topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". The infobox question (despite the insistence of some here) IMO is still open, and so too is the issue of coordinates. I don't find the argument that uniformity and metadata should override the preferences and consensus of those actually building the articles particularly persuasive. Especially in the situations presented here, Andy seems to be deliberately sowing dissension in pursuit of his aims. I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it. As a fallback to get consensus for a restriction, I'll also go for Black Kite's option, topic ban from TFA. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the original proposal because it's based on little substance and insufficient attempts to find common ground. If you want to ban folks who disagree with you, you need to be a lot more convincing. The core of the disagreement is Andy's belief that particular articles benefit from infoboxes versus Peter's assertion that Andy's view may be dismissed without consideration because a WikiProject has predetermined the rules for infoboxes for all of its articles. That brings us to the secondary complaint: that Andy has accused others of WP:OWN. The assumption there is that he is mistaken, but Peter's own second statement gives the game away. This statement, "he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article", is the clearest exposition of OWN that could be made. Nobody has the authority to give instructions of that kind - just look at what OWN says on the issue: Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain—perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. - and that is policy. I recommend Peter takes the time to read through Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and and try to judge dispassionately if Andy actually has substance to his view. I'd particularly draw his attention to the section On revert, as it does have many echoes of the arguments I've observed here.

I'll make a counter-proposal: If anyone believes Andy is deliberately focussing on TFA to make a point, try going to his talk page and politely explaining your concern to him. Peter certainly doesn't seem to have engaged with Andy in that way within the last 1,000 edits to that talk page. If Andy doesn't discuss the concerns, then you'll have convinced me to change my position. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence and you will see that people have been discussing Andy's WP:POINTy behaviour, his abuse of accusations of WP:OWNership and his edit warring over infoboxes for years. That Arbcom case resulted in the second of Andy's one year bans. It's not something that someone needs to go to raise on his page afresh. That's why Arbcom have left him on indefinite probation.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at that five year old case, and I see no sign of you discussing anything there. If you find a problem with another editor's behaviour, yes, you had better go to their talk page and discuss it with them rationally. I find it repugnant that you seem to think that you can instigate an ANI case questioning an editor's behaviour without having made any effort whatsoever to discuss that behaviour in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The only discussion of my referring to WP:OWN on that five-year-old page is about this, where I responded to a comment including "the editors... have discussed it" and "the primary editor's plan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support Peter's proposal that Andy stay away from FAs once its announced they will be on the main page, until they're no longer linked from the main page. That can be a stressful time for FA writers, and no one else should be choosing that time to make major changes. It's a question of respect, not OWN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose all of this. The proper outcome here is an RfC, as is being discussed on my talk. Frankly, the meta issue in play here isn't infoboxes or metadata (or coords), it's about the project having a coherency across topics. There are endless local prefs that groups assert over subsets of articles and little of it is helpful. Another desirable outcome would be to persuade Tim to return. Please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion is expanding very fast. It is impossible to read the whole discussion and understand where the problem is. Why the discussion whether to use a table or not was not discussed in the talk page of the article and the subject came to ANI? I am sure that the talk of TFA gets a lot of attention anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is Andy's repeatedly showing up at TFAs to make a style change, then insisting he has a right to because of [BOLD] and [OWN] and sophistry in quoting from P'sNG's. The issue is not the underlying merits of each discussion on which exact way of (prettying up / meta-fying) articles. I can see both sides of tables and boxes, but that doesn't matter. This is about gate-crashing done systematically, why in particular is WP:TFA being targeted? Hence the very simple suggestion of a topic ban, which does not prevent any of the underlying content discussions from proceeding. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

gate-crashing: "the act of attending an invite-only event without invitation". That sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of WP:OWN. The whole world is invited to edit the TFAs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense Br'er. It is obviously not constructive to show up and demand style changes after and article has been through a review process with involvement by multiple editors. You can assume that there is a solid consensus for any style issues in an FA and the only way that should be change is by trying amicably to form a new consensus on the talkpage - not by trying to strongarm your ideas into something that others have spent hundreds of hours working on. If Andy cannot understand such a basic example of collaboration he has no business editing here at all. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding and infobox is not a "style" change, it is a structural change and an addition of content. Style is italics; ephemeral stuff. The FA review process is *flawed*, it misses all kinds of stuff. I find problems in most articles appearing on the main page (most common is duplicate named refs). The whole process is focused on too narrow a criteria of our best. Andy is participating in a fair number of talk discussions about these issues; certainly far more than he is editing TFAs. ↓↓ FA "stewardship" can be a good thing (I've invoked it, at Brian's suggestion). I've not looked at just when that got added to OWN; it's a wiki, so someone drove a truck sized hole through OWN. Anyway, it's often abused. ↓↓↓ The FA regulars may have had a prior shot at most TFA, but most of the ones that go by are articles I've never heard of. I expect it's the same for Andy and most other regulars. TFA is often no party for the primary author. See the whole mess discussed on Wehwalt's talk re the immediately prior TFA Gregorian mission. No party for Ealdgyth: "My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)" Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant. Andy has to collaborate with those who reviewed it and wrote it not antagonize them. Making major structural or stylistic changes to a recently reviewed article on the day that it is on the mainpage without prior discussion or consensus on the talkpage is antagonistic in the extreme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. I'll usually work on them a day or two before (if possible;) as day-of is too edit-conflict-rich. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know we're not discussing you behavior here, but Andy Mabbet's. That suggests there is a qualitative different between how you approach editing the TFA and he does. Even so I do know that you have also gotten into conflicts because you have been to quick top restructure other people's work without involving them in the process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

/double sigh/. Maybe its time you begin then? You apparently also "fix" things that are not considered problems. And apparently you do so knowing that others don't consider them problems. That is not helpful but antagonistic and disruptive. It should be obvious to anyone that the lack of an infobox in a recently reviewed article is not a problem but a decision. Pleading ignorance in this case just makes you look...ignorant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And where, do you imagine, did I plead ignorance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

When you tried to excuse your antagonistic and confrontational behavior by saying that you didn't look at who had edited or reviewed the article before editing it and therefore presumedly didn't know against whom you antagonism was directed. It amounts to saying "its not personal" - when you ought to know very well that doesn't matter one whit to those who've worked on the article and decided not to include those features you want to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who is able to read can see you doing so two comments above this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree the review process is flawed, perhaps for different reasons. I would think that a great many of the huge blunders in FA-rated articles are picked up on their TFA day.

Take for example this correction on TFA day of a wildly erroneous statement in an FA promoted only just last year. The date that's more than a decade wrong was cited to a single foreign-language source when the article was promoted to FA, accepted without question by nominator, reviewers and promoter alike. It's also a key fact (perhaps the key fact) in the "Reaction and aftermath" section, establishing the significance of the entire case itself. One of the most important facts in the article.

Some might think the 1990s are a long time ago. Ten to fifteen years doesn't make much difference? To compare great things with small, what if an article about segregated education said that it was still legal in the USA in 1981? Would it matter?

Now why do I think that so many errors are picked up on TFA day? Well because the genuine errors that are picked up, like the one I just mentioned, stand a very good chance of getting reverted right back like this, and then again without even looking at the edit summary for the first change, by the owner of the article.

Most of those making the correction, be they registered, unregistered, administrators or something else, wouldn't be back to check after the first "cleanup" restore of the error. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Br'er, that's the attitude that's causing writers to leave the project. OWN makes the point here that FA stewardship isn't considered OWNership in the negative sense, and that applies even more when it's on the main page. It's one thing for a new editor to turn up to fix punctuation, but an experienced editor making substantive changes to a TFA knows that it's likely to upset someone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What it actually says is "Featured articles ... are open for editing like any other... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership". It certainly does not say what others have claimed is the case, for the two articles in question, that (I paraphrase) "the editor who puts an article through FA review gets a veto over others' edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured someone might question that aspect of my link, but it was the best I could come up with for my intended concept. Congrats Jack on ferreting out the worst possible interpretation. Yes of course the entire world is invited, early and always - but here you show the sophistry I mentioned above. For Wikipedians who are already here, you, me, Andy, Slim, Maunus, whoever - we ALREADY HAD our kick at the can. Every single one of us knows the score and we all know damn well that if there are issues, then we need to discuss them well in advance. It's quite disingenuous for you to resort to wide-eyed innocence, that edits can be made to TFA context-free as though we are all newborn. So formally: NO, not at all and no-one OWNs anything. But FFS, on the day the TFA appears, yeah this should be a party for the people who made it happen, and this should be an occasion for all the rest of us to celebrate the editors who go that far. Even if you think it's a flawed process, take that up elsewhere, TFA is special. And deity knows that I've taken mucho satisfaction in correcting featured content typogrammos myself. ;) But to start up a war over a style issue like an infobox or microformat? I'm not saying your ideas aren't important, but why are they so important within that context? Franamax (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support peter's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support the topic ban, though I won't formally cast a vote that way simply because I've gone around with him more than once with the same problems. I can certainly relate to the frustrations, and if he is driving good editors away from the project, then I am finding it difficult to see why we should accept his continued presence here. Resolute 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support TFA topic ban. We are here for the encyclopedia, and that requires a collaborative community helping the content builders. Even if SOMEONE IS RIGHT, they need to avoid actions that drive away good content builders, and harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption (obscenities, vandalism and POV warring are relatively easy to handle—it is the drip drip drip of relentless sniping that damages good editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Johnuniq is right on one point: "harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption". If those who have only a narrow view of the full range of skills needed to build this project can't (or won't) understand the importance of technical aspects, like accessibility, functionality and re-usability, they need to step out of the way of those good editors that do. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Peter Cohen's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --JN466 13:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also support a topic ban. There is a competence issue here: if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project, he is per se incompetent to edit, and must be restricted from an area in which he is likely to offend such editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project" Since I have driven no top editors off the project, your point is moot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is your attitude, then move me to a formal support of this topic ban. Resolute 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The guy has already received two year-long blocks from ArbCom for this kind of behaviour. He's also apparently on indefinite probation. Maybe take this to Arbitration enforcement if necessary? --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per the comments above. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Wehwalt. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above...Modernist (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban No, a site ban. I'm sick of these uncouth bullies. Get rid of him.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Struck 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I take it back. I'd much prefer that you stay. You clearly have the best interests of the project in mind. It is important to you and you have a lot to contribute. What I want is behaviour change. That table you inserted into a TFA totally munted the page on my laptop. I ended up with a narrow string of words squeezed between it and another graphic. It was thoughtless, inconsiderate behaviour; utterly disrespectful of the writers who had created it. I want you to see that and recognise that that behaviour style is deprecated here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Peter cohen and Wehwalt's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the way to handle this. Secretlondon (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• So we juist continue to hand more rope? Life is too damn short for that. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Disagreeing with others is good. People can disagree in good faith about infobox usage. The way one disagrees makes a difference, and Andy consistently disagrees in a way that is not conducive to collaborative editing environment. Frankly, there probably needs to be further discussion about the usage of infoboxes (actually, I've never really gotten why we can't just drop it, but it's clear enough that we can't), but this editor doesn't need to involved, at least not when the article are on the main page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as Heimstern explains quite nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous observation that there is a proper time and way to disagree, and if you can't figure that out, you need to not be around it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ban'. Andy's approach is poision, and he knows it, I suspect gleefully, and shame that its gone on for so long and shredded so many others nerves. I see him as a net negative, in every respect. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ceoil's comment follows this edit (edit summary: "go pleasure your lazy self, seriouslyu"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • He has a point - if you shotgun {{cn}}s all over an article, instead of say using {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} on a section, it could be interpreted as laziness to find the sources yourself. I found a few sources myself and added them to the article in question. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support (and nodding at user:Anthonyhcole). I edit ANI maybe once a year, but I can't stay away from this one. The user in question seems driven too much by an agenda not formally acknowledged as part of the goals of Wikipedia, as far as I know. The whole business of "making articles more 'semantic web'-friendly" is, in my estimation, a pet project with a little value but not when pushed relentlessly and rudely and to the detriment of other editors. We need formal policy on the degree to which people who are now referring to the (technical) "structure" of articles as some kind of pinnacle of achievement for an encyclopedia are allowed to make idiosyncratic changes to wikitext through templates or otherwise—implying some invented convention or precedent—that scarcely change the reader's experience while making editing sometimes more difficult; as they defend the practice with reference to hypothetical software-mediated "re-users" rather than the basic textual re-use which is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind the project. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Don't be silly: hypothetical software-mediated "re-users"

  Try maps.google.com and turn on the Wikipedia layer. Amazon has all the books. They download the whole database, over and over again. That includes all the structure, templates, /everything/. Get with the information age, pls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  Or Dbpedia. Or the BBC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from TFAs, and would be willing to expand it to articles in the que for TFA. Andy seems to have a bit of a fixation with these articles, as per comments above, and it seems that his conduct of himself in the process is far less than acceptable. One does get the impression that these edits may be motivated more by an urge to get attention than anything else. And I think common sense would indicate that making substantive potentially controversial edits to FAs, on the day when they are most visible, is a very bad idea. WP:COMMONSENSE would seem to apply here. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Since when did single edits to just two articles, with one reversion, amount to a "fixation"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

Sadly, several editors commenting above have chosen to take Peter Cohen's asertions at face value; so it's useful to analyse them:

On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day,

I replaced a table which had previously been in the article for many months four years, but which was removed for no apparent reason prior to the FA review, and misleadingly, as "ridiculously sourced".

reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source being substandard for an FA

the reason given for the subsequent removal of the table was "anyone who wants this table included needs to find a better source than Tesco". The source given was not Tesco (it was a dead link, which now redirects to Tesco, and an archive version of the original has since been found). Further that source is used (as attribution, not citation) for only one column of the table. If it was a bad source then that column could have been removed, or a better source requested; it did not require removal of the whole table, most of which comprises features cited elsewhere in the article and coordinates which do not require individual sourcing per a prior RfC. Finally, after discussion in the article's talk page, consensus appears to show that the table should indeed be in the article.

claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

In the cited diff I did not claim there were "problems with ownership". I asked the editor who said: "Malleus and PoD were the main contributors who got this article up to FA and John and myself also made some contributions along the way. You have made one drive-by edit that changes the whole look of the article on the day it appears on the front page. As far as I'm concerned If Malleus doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and PoD otherwise" to "please read WP:OWN". The claim that I had only made "one drive by edit" to the article was false; I've made many eidts, adding content to the article.

again making accusations of WP:OWN

No; I said "We have a policy for this. Please see [{WP:OWN]]" in response to a reference to "consensus among those who work on articles in this category" (I removed the quote of "as the most frequent toiler in this particular vineyard", seen in the diff mischievously cited, within seconds, as I realised I had taken it out of context). The correct diff is this one.

attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day

No evidence is offered to support this false accusation regarding my supposed intentions. I have calmly discussed and justified my edits on the talk pages of the articles concerned. in the case of the ship canal, I made one singe revert of the removal of encyclopedic content, which is not otherwise available in the article, for reasons explained above. In the case of Solti, I made no reverts.

things should be kept as quiet as possible when something is FA of the day

I'd be interested to see the policy which enshrines this dictum.

There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware

Bunkum. There is no such "agreement", other than among a limited and self-selecting subset of editors. I am though, aware of the wishes of that group of editors; but the RfC which they initiated found no such consensus, as its conclusion makes clear. I made this point to Peter on the Solti talk page, but he chooses to ignore it.

he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article

Rexxs has addressed this point already. But really: an instruction!? Surely, it is the people who place such messages, or seek to enforce them, in contravention of their own RfC and wider policy, who should be facing sanction?

the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too

If this is intended to refer to me, then, again, no evidence is offered for this unwarranated slur.

Finally, for now, this page says at its head: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Where did Peter do this?

I'm out of time now; I may comment further later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I might agree with you conclusion about infoboxes, but I find your timing to be incredibly bad. That is my problem, that you couldn't wait until it came off the front page. You can quote all the policies and pillars you want, I'm relying solely on common sense here, which dictates that if it is controversial, just wait a couple of days and discuss it. It almost seems perfectly timed to create the maximum amount of drama, instead of being timed to create the maximum chance of your perspective being considered. As to policy regarding the day FA articles hit the page, no policy should be needed. Common courtesy and common sense should be sufficient, and that is what makes your timing look intentionally disruptive, and pushes the boundaries of good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There were over 50 edits to Gregorian mission during its time as yesterday's TFA. While a few were vandaism and reversions thereof, most were not. There is clearly no policy (explicit or de facto; "common sense" or not) against working to improve an artice while it is a TFA. Further, as already pointed out above, {{TFA-editnotice}} says "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}}, on the talk page of FAs, says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". One or both of those also link to WP:BOLD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the changes are controversial, they're not constructive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite untrue. People make a fuss over constructive edits all the time. For example: diff; that fixed diffs for users of the secure server. It was reverted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we by that statement supposed to infer that ownership digs which eventually end with the departure of FA writers are "constructive changes"? Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

quit trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we supposed to infer that "FA writers" are somehow different from ordinary writers? I'm an "FA writer", but I don't demand special privileges as a result. If you want a policy saying that no established editor may edit TFA (other than vandalism reverts) go and propose it at WP:VP and see how far you get. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record: To my knowledge, Tim didn't ask for any privileges either. But eventually he simply voted with his feet. —MistyMORN 13:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, your motives on the day, I feel, were not to "improve" but to enforce your weird ideology that all articles should adopt your preferred format. An infobox, IMO is not an improvement. Also, your timing was completely inappropriate and may or may not have been a primary factor in WP loosing one of its greatest ever contributors. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted: your feelings; your opinion; "may or may not". Nothing substantive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes, and if you would have read this novel you would have known what happens when you sabotage the individuals who create something. I'm not sure whether the departure of Tim riley was the intended goal for Andy & Jack, but their subsequent unapologetic behaviour does indeed give me the impression that they thereby have gotten a feeling of mastery. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

your bad faith is appalling: diff of User talk:Tim riley. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean to switch off your brain. That post of yours at his page was simply a politically correct message, so that you could continue in the same vein as before. Why didn't you simply apologise for your sniping at Talk:Georg Solti and Talk:Peter Sellers? Tim's last edit before the day of retirement was the addition of a comment to the former talk page; you ought to be somewhat more compunctious and not put the blame on MistyMorn. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not sniping. You and MistyMorn are not acquitting yourselves well here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So you mean that Tim was wrong in citing the relentless sniping/trolling of yours as a reason for his departure? Or that somebody else sniped him? Just curious. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

you're trolling; goway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Eisfbnore, the belief that Rand's fiction bears any resemblance to real human endeavour makes clear your disconnection with the reality of editing Wikipedia. This is a profoundly collaborative endeavour, not a pastime for divas who want to elevate themselves above their fellows. Tim was the very opposite of the model of "FA writer" that you are trying to promote. Indeed he most recently spend an entire day helping other editors as well as academics at the WWI Editathon – along with Andy as it happens. If you ever come to understand that content writers and the technicians who create and maintain the framework for that content depend on each other, you'll understand what Wikipedia is actually about. I see you're already familiar with Canoe River train crash; do you think that would be such a great article without the different contributions of multiple editors? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

diff of Canoe River train crash && diff of Canoe River train crash. nb: teh Randian stuff flies well with teh Jimbo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that page was really nice before it was transformed into a mess of load time-expensive citation templates. Also, it would be great if both of you could have a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Then you'll perhaps realise that von Mises was right when he said to the Russian radical that "you have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." NB that I'm actually a Rothbardian and despise everything about the Ayn Rand cult; however, she, along with Schumpeter, understood that it is the innovative spirit of a few individuals that changes the world. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that Wehwalt asked me to fix the citations on that page (and many others;). And {{sfn}} is really fast ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, your lack of knowledge really makes the point. The 40 {{sfn}} templates increase the rendering time from 6.1 sec to 7.3 sec and you call that "a mess of load time-expensive citation templates". And 95% of our readers don't even see that slowdown because they get the page from the cache. It's depressing for anybody trying to improve articles to have such blind hatred of anything technical used as weapon, as is happening here. If you really don't understand what you're talking about, you need to take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To anyone who's been here awhile, this should be obvious: Don't screw around with the Featured Article of the Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been editing TFAs for some time; and often. This is the first time it's been an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's something obviously wrong with a TFA, such as gross misspelling (or vandalism), you should leave it alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That fallacy has already been addressed above. Though you're welcome to lobby for a policy change (and a corresponding change to the boilerplate in the relevant templates) to that effect, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "policy changes", I'm talking about "using your head for something besides a hat-rack." Why is there any need to muck around with the TFA? Is every other article absolutely perfect already, leaving only the TFA to require "improvement"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether you admit it or not, you're advocating a stance which is diametrically opposed to current policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that there is other important aspects of current policy that you are not really in touch with - not to mention basic principles of collegiality and sociality. Yes you have a right to edit the TFA - that does not mean that you must do so when you should be able to foresee that others might disagree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andy Mabbett is technically correct: other people's feelings don't matter, and anyone can edit, and TFAs often get good edits on the day they are on the main page. Since Andy is relying on that techincal argument, I agree with the comments above that a full site ban is required as it obvious that Andy will never let an opportunity pass to force his view, and will argue indefinitely that HE IS RIGHT. There is not sufficient proof to convince a court of law that such behavior drives away good editors, but this is not a court of law—we can rely on commonsense and consensus. Looking at the situation shows what Andy is doing, and it is not helping the encyclopedia. The community has a choice: remove troublemakers and support content builders, or enable troublemakers and spit in the face of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is beyond shortsighted to suggest that the dichotomy is between "content builders" and "troublemakers", and outright insulting to exclude an editor with 45,000 articlespace contributions from the former on the basis of that dichotomy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think what a lot of folks here want, and are not seeing anywhere, is for Andy to acknowledge that he made a bad judgment call - [in that: he choose to raise the issue of infoboxes in a classical-music article (which he knows is in a tense stalemate based on his many past participations and readings) on the day of TFA. Whether he did it through lack-of-foresight, or wp:pointy intent, is almost irrelevant. But does he recognize and understand why we all think it is a problem? why we're discussing it at length.
  If he refuses to acknowledge that, then it points towards a fundamental inability to work with others-of-opposing-viewpoints, and I'd support some sort of strong repercussions. If he does acknowledge that he made a poorly-timed decision, then I think it would demonstrate the empathy that is currently missing.
  I.e. the mistakes that are being made, are entirely based on (1) timing that he should have known was bad, and (2) the-specific-words-chosen-by-him-in-explanations (which often inflame a situation, eg regularly dismissing people's comments as, "straw man", which can often come across as arrogant and hostile). [tl;dr: His goals are good, but his tactics are sometimes very flawed, which he needs to acknowledge] -- Quiddity (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Andy? Any chance of a reply to this? I really do believe it would help the situation, for all of us... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm loathe to stick my oar into this too much, but I just want to pick up on this point. I don't really know Andy particularly well, I haven't seen any form of edit warring or any edits he's done that haven't improved the encyclopaedia from at least some angle, and his enthusiasm for the place is a great asset. I see his point of view that you should be bold and improve stuff if you have a sincere belief it will result in an overall benefit. What I am seeing a lack of is not so much that he made a bad judgement call (I'm sure he'd argue otherwise - remorselessly) but an acceptance of the other point of view. Something like "I believe my actions were correct, but you know what, I see why you'd be annoyed. It's not the end of the world, after all. Sorry about that." Exactly what we can do about that, who knows. Probably nothing. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Both: I told Quiddity in email I'd post a reply on Tues, but in the light of Georgewilliamherbert's request, below, I'm going to hold off for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question According to Wikipedia:Probation#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee, it states "Pigsonthewing may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." It has an indefinite expiry date. Does that mean we don't actually require a full consensus for a topic ban, and hence can quickly resolve this before this discussion goes on and on and on even more? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My reading is that the probation allows banning from individual pages as and when problems arise on those individual pages. A topic ban can be preventative. I also think thta we are getting consensus for the topic ban. SOme people want to go further but I think thta they will regard the topic ban as at least a start.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Close request

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

---

This has been running for 55 hours as I post here. I am and have always been a firm advocate of a two day running time for most long-term sanction discussions, to give everyone one turn of the planet to think about it, then another turn to give an opinion. Most discussions here attract a closer before that time, but I'm happy with this - and now it's time for someone uninvolved to step up and close it. I'm counting about 20 opinions above supporting an editing restriction, at least 3 opposes, and some comments that could be interpreted either way. The various policy bases are also laid out clearly. Obviously I prefer one outcome, but I really think the task of the closer here will just be to set the scope of the outcome I prefer. So who is willing to step up here? Thanks! :) Franamax (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not the right venue for the introduction of complicated editing sanctions at the behest of a mob (whose suggestions run the gamut from a ban on editing TFA to a full site ban). It's not at all clear that there is a consensus here, and it's absurd to suggest that this has somehow met some sort of upper threshold on desired community input (twenty editors, most of whom are either long-term advocates or opponents of Andy, chipping in over a weekend). This needs a formal resolution and not an arbitrary close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Close it. Clear consensus here merely confirms the findings of two Requests for Arbitration. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Thumper, while there are clearly related issues that need resolving, there is no consensus that there is an "Incident" here that needs admin action.

Propose the section is simply hatted and we move on. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Yeah. See Secretlondon's comment: "This is not the way to handle this." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban from TFA has broad support above, and it's not such a big deal as to require another arbitration case. 99.99% of editors wouldn't even notice being topic-banned from TFA ... JN466 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

99.99% of editors don't work on editing TFA. That means that the 0.01% who do (and that estimate is still several of orders of magnitude too high) are precious. They shouldn't be shed lightly on the basis of straw polls in which the majority of the participants have significant reasons to either support or exclude Andy's efforts on the project outwith the rather narrow domain of TFA. By and large straw polls on user conduct don't work after an editor reaches a certain threshold of fame / notoriety. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should Andy be allowed to continue editing TFA if his editing there is disruptive? I'd understand the need for an exemption if a Featured Article he had been a significant contributor to was at TFA, but as far as I can see, he's never written one. JN466 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

People who judge contributions to FAs on the basis of accumulated stars are why we shouldn't have a star-accumulation system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just assume that anyone who makes a nuisance of himself at TFA is someone who has made unknown but nevertheless vital contributions to Wikipedia's featured content, far more vital than the contributions of those who actually wrote that content. That makes a lot of sense. JN466 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that perpetuating the false dichotomy between "nuisances" and "those who actually wrote that content" indicates that you understand the point being made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misjudging the arguments. They aren't saying we should judge Andy based on his abundance or lack of stars; rather, they are stating that his lack of involvement in the process highlights the disruptive nature of his edits at TFA, and that he is not a "precious" editor to the TFA process by any means. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As ArbCom has ruled: Mabbett "disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation." Nothing has changed. He's still on probation (see ArbCom list here). This should be a routine matter of enforcement, despite what a small minority of his sympathisers claim. An editor who can't or won't moderate his behaviour despite repeated sanctions has to be reined in (again). Plus, we don't have vested contributors. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That essay describes ("long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority") not my behaviour, but the behaviour of your fellow classical music colleagues in regard to one ("consensus among those who work on articles in this category"; not to mention repeated references to a bogus instruction; see above), and others in regard to the second ("the main contributors who got this article up to FA... You have made one drive-by edit... As far as I'm concerned If [X] doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and [Y] otherwise"") of the two single TFAs mentioned at the top of this sorry thread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And that ArbCom statement describes your behaviour in this and other areas. --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If this were genuinely a "routine matter of enforcement" then it wouldn't be generating this level of heat. Rather, the matter is complicated by a) the significant period of time between the sanctions and the present and b) the quite obvious desire for certain notoriously insular wikienclaves to rid themselves of a perceived pest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

For the record, my tally (ending with Riggr) was, reading from my envelope, 5 +PC, 13 +TB, 3 +cmt, 3 +opp, 2 +ban. The range of solutions is not all that complex to analyze. Also I need to pay an instalment on my contents insurance. :) Franamax (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin (that does not include the admin who hatted the discussion) please close the discussion and implement any sanction which the community may have decided on?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Exhaustion of community patience?

Reading the specifics of the close request discussion above, I think that I have to restate this in terms of a "exhaustion of community patience" case. This is an established, if relatively rare, sanction basis. The specific incident that precipitated this seems not to rise to the level of actionable, by itself (though an argument is being made that the pattern of prior action and probation might make it so). It and Andy's response do seem to have raised a high degree of ire in a wide swath of the community.

We have been bad about setting up better criteria for when someone has exhausted community patience. Exhausting one users' patience doesn't count; exhausting a bunch of users' patience also doesn't count, though at some point a bunch becomes enough. Andy does have an extensive history of various sanctions, but also extensive good editing. It's clear both that the number of upset people is in the tens (at least); it's not clear if that represents a consensus across those who pay attention to these matters.

With this in mind, I would like to request that previously uninvolved editors and administrators get involved and read up on this and comment. Please look at Andy's edit history as well as prior sanctions and the current situation. A consensus of otherwise uninvolved users would be far superior to an attempt to find consensus of ones who largely seem involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Statement of history. I know nothing about any of this. I haven't even been following the discussion above. For my own benefit and for the benefit of any other uninvolved editor, I thought I'd try to list Andy's "bad" history:

1. Andy's block log. Note that it shows the largest number of blocks in 2005, decreasing over time but still robust, and then a large gap between 2009 and 2012. Other gaps may be partly explained by bans listed below.
2. At the end of 2005, Andy was placed on indefinite probation. According to the Remedies section, Andy could be "banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." On January 25, 2006, he was banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. There are other "remedies". Andy is still on probation.
3. On August 19, 2007, Andy was again banned for one year.
4. According to the block log, on March 22, 2012, Andy was indeffed because of "BLP concerns" and until he "agrees to leave Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) alone." On the same day, the block was lifted because of a "clear emerging consensus for topic ban; block hopefully no longer needed". On April 2, 2012, a Hawkins topic ban was proposed. On April 7, the discussion was closed as no consensus for the ban.

That's all I'm doing for now. The next step would be for me to figure out what's happened more recently. But at least this history might help some other uninvolved editors who want to comment on the proposed topic ban. (If I've left out anything relevant, please let me know.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no topic ban regarding Jim Hawkins (nor idneed anything else), as a result of or connected to the March 2012 block either, and the blocking admin was criticised by others for his actions (Example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In this connection, I do note that Jimbo said "At least in terms of what has been presented, it is clear to me that a couple of people should be topic-banned from the article for being annoying for no encyclopedic purpose, and it should be indefinitely semi-protected." and also said "I already asked with kindness for Pigsonthewing to steer clear of the article. The mind boggles at the poor judgment of him getting involved anyway. ... Both of them [Pigsonthewing and another editor] should at a minimum be topic banned for being annoying to the subject." --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There were at least three topic ban threads, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive233#Topic_ban, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic_ban_request and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Pigsonthewing, . They carried on for weeks and eventually petered out. Also related are [2], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Jim_Hawkins, [3]. In this section Jimbo Wales, Fæ, Kim Dent-Brown, Errant and Skyring pleaded with Andy to stop editing the article; he refused. --JN466 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Again, invoking my status as uninvolved, I have to say that Andy's comments about the blocking admin being criticized (and reiterating that there was no topic ban, even though I updated that in the history) and Jay's comments generally aren't helpful for this editor. I can read those kinds of comments in the discussion above. I can't stop you from commenting in this section, but I sure wish you wouldn't and that you'd remove them. They will no doubt provoke more of the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the editorialising, but left the links I researched in response to your earlier query about the topic ban history. JN466 00:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I regret to say that I find Georgewilliamherbert's comments to be rather unfortunate. He repeatedly characterizes those who have called for a sanction against Andy as emotional (and accordingly, not as clear-thinking as he sets himself up to be) by referring to "ire" and people who are "upset", and at the end is rather dismissive in terming them as "largely ... involved". Plainly Gwh doesn't agree with action being taken against Andy, but I wish he would not make characterizations about the positions of other editors in that manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that "largely ... involved" is an unbiased description of the activity above. If you want to break it down commenter by commenter in toto and that disproves the generalization, I will accept a correction.

I do not disagree with action being taken in the sense of registering an OPPOSE (either publicly or privately concluding such) - I have not been involved, and we want un-involved admins to assess and engage on problem discussions and community action proposals. My assessment is that a large group who largely are involved want Andy banned, in general and for an incident. My assessment of the incident - personal admin assessment, not overriding either the community writ large or another admin's judgement - is that the incident showed misbehavior (slightly disruptive disregard for other parts of the community) but not bannable behavior, even for someone under sanctions already and with an extensive record. My assessment of "in general" is that - as always - the community writ large can exhaust patience but a pool of involved editors cannot.

I understand where your and Jayen's frustrations are coming from. But we really, really need uninvolved input to determine community exhaustion of patience. Please. I am disregarding people because I see what appears to be involvement, yes, but that's the point: exhaustion of community patience needs that separation.

Again, if you want to identify specific people who commented earlier who aren't involved, if that stands up, their input is back in consideration. I would very much like to see additional input by others as well.

I'm not "in charge" of this - but I care about how the community sanctions process works and have been very involved with developing it over the years. I can't override other admins who may chose to do something, but I believe I'm doing the right thing here with this request and framing the question this way. If you think I'm being biased against action, the process is biased against action - by design, and explicitly. Enough uninvolved people need to comment strongly enough to establish whether the wider community really does want a severe sanction or not. Please respect the process. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add to it by referring to "your and Jayen's frustrations". It's the same style of argument. You're setting yourself up as the reasonable person and suggesting that those who don't agree with you are acting in an emotional manner. Very regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c w. GWH) Speaking as someone who you would have to invoke a multiverse with wormhole travel and time-distortion fields to consider involved in any way, yeah I'm not happy with the precise wording. But I do think that the previous commenters should back off, and that includes Andy, and let some more people chime in. Otherwise we're going to wind up with a "no result" as the same participants regurgitate, which isn't going to help anything. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• While you folk duke this out, I propose a topic ban for Franamax for articles related to wormhole travel, narrowly construed to only those articles on another Wikipedia on a different Internet far far away.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is community support for banning Andy from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day. Would an uninvolved admin please close this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The situation is more complicated than that. If I were as desperate to "get rid" of "uncouth bullies" as you in this case, I'd actually be keener on a formal resolution which might enact that than on the quickest punitive action that could be flung together at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it is more complicated than that or no, I think the community has spoken, and that a closing admin will bar Andy from the TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment As the original poster, I wish to popint out that the only other place I have posted about this thread is on Andy's talk page where I was obliged to give notice. I have not been to any of the classical music projects, the featured article project, to Wikipediocracy or to anywhere else to drum up support nor have I sent messages to anyone who had not already contributed to this discussion. Therefore the suggestion that this discussion involves more involved people than any other ANI ban discussion needs some justification.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would join with that. I found the comments referred to condescending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether editors were canvassed into commenting here or not (and let's point out that nobody has suggested any impropriety on behalf of Peter Cohen or anyone else in that regard), the overrepresentation of comments here by editors who have previously had some sort of major dispute with Andy certainly makes it less clear-cut that the current input represents the consensus of the general community. The classical music project, for instance, is plainly overrepresented, including one commentator who described himself as only coming to ANI once a year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And techies are overrepresented among Mabbett's defenders. --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But not in this discussion, which is the most important aspect of determining whether this represents the consensus of the community as a whole. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FA process

What FlyingPigs said earlier has merit, as follows: Rather than targeting some overly-"helpful" individual, it should be a matter of etiquette, and of "not harming wikipedia", if not outright policy, to act as follows: "Once an article is a Featured Article, don't modify it without consultation. It has gone through the FA process and been seen by many eyes. Don't take it upon yourself to subvert that consensus." Or words to that effect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA team have made clear that they explicitly consider the use of an infobox (or coordinates), or not, to be outside the FAC process's consideration. Surely, therefore, the fact that an article is an FA does not mean that that issue has been considered, or decided by the community, or has consensus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, I think you wrote "many" where you meant to write "at least three or four".

Also, as per the example I gave earlier, where I see something wrong in a Featured Article, I boldly fix it - I don't go looking for "consultation" first - unless the fix is likely to be controversial. All editors are encouraged to do the same. The original incident under discussion here, allegedly has factors making it a bit different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixing something wrong, such as an obvious misspelling or some such, is fine. Screwing around with actual content should be done with something resembling consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The example I was discussing was fixing a major factual error in the article. That certainly is "screwing around with actual content". But "don't modify it without consultation" is a non-starter here. Wikipedia policy hasn't changed on that, and I don't see a consensus to change it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A ghastly thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting the readers ahead of egoistic editors - yes, what a ghastly thought. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a better way of putting what Bugs tried to say is that you shouldn't make major alterations to a FA without discussion, or should not object to a reversion and be willing to talk it out. The lack of an infobox was not the same thing as a misspelling or a misused dash. And TFA day is difficult enough (especially since Raul's gone to a "just-in-time" scheduling practice) without having to deal with such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's already codified (1e in the FA criteria). This is a stronger proposal. I'm not even getting into the discussion about whether the addition of an infobox—routinely applied to every biography on the project without anyone batting an eyelid, unless the person in question wrote classical music for a living—counts as a major upheaval. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"be willing to talk it out" In both (yes, there are just two) of the examples given at the top of this "Incident", I was involved in the talk page discussion; I started one of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Surely the whole point of the FA process is to attract people to editing articles, isn't it? For example, we take pains to avoid protecting the day's FA so that we don't stifle new interest in editing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

... it seems that some editors, who have “bust a gut” producing an FA, even several years ago, get a little 'uneasy' when editors who are “too ignorant and lazy” to direct their attention elsewhere, try to improve it. Even when they open a discussion on the Talk Page to do just that. Perhaps what is needed, once an article has achieved FA, is a big permanent banner proclaiming who still owns the article – a whole new exciting direction for WP:OWN? I’m sure this would be welcomed by some editors. Although not by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Write one, and we'll talk again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're obviously mature enough not to be so flippant on ANI, so are you honestly suggesting that input into this proposal (made by another editor who hasn't any successful FA noms AFAICS) should be limited to people with stars on their user pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Read what I replied to.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I had thought the process was meant to be collaborative and not quite so exclusively competitive. But then, I used to have that view about the whole project. Still, good job we can't talk again, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sarcastic comments directed at those who write FAs are uncalled for, and as I pointed out, uninformed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Uninformed by the recent personal experience that has prompted my decision to consider leaving the project? Apologies for using direct quotes there, Wehwalt. And apologies to all the other, perfectly reasonable, FA writers. I do hope Andy is treated reasonably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. Let's all take a deep breath, relax, and wait for a closing admin. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think that while some such idea would have merit, this particular proposal might not. I haven't been that heavily involved in FA process, but there do seem to be, and perhaps have been, several articles which have been promoted only to be rather quickly demoted again later. This might be because few people were involved initially, or that there was a "trend" in the field which later faded, or whatever. I would myself favor having the FA process explicitly involve reviewing the content of similar published reference articles on the subjects, which I think would help reduce the percentage of demotions. But, without that, yeah, academic opinions do change over time, sometimes quickly, and I think it is reasonable to make allowances for them. Particular concerns might be about politicians who see a major scandal in the brewing who might want to get their pointmen to write their bio up to FA level without any indications of the scandal in the offing. If we could make review of extant reference sources more of a factor in the FA process, then maybe instituting a later step like this might be a good idea, but we should probably try to get things done in the right order. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolution: that User:Pigsonthewing be banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day

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

---

Above, Thumperward (talk · contribs) recommended a formal resolution be put regarding Andy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Based on the above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Same basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's not the time to start edit wars when something is TFA. The focus needs to be on fixing any errors or vandalism not on controversial cosmetic issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comment1 Should the header for this vote be changed to level 3 not level 2?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment2 There were some people above who voted for a ban. If they wish to do so again, could they consider doing this as a separate motion with a separate header so that !votes don't get split 3 ways which makes it harder tor each a consensus? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per previous comments (based on ArbCom findings). --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two instances of Andy making policy-compliant edits that the folks who WP:OWN the articles don't like. Despite Andy engaging on the talk pages, he's still pilloried. It's just a convenient means of silencing those who have different opinions. Additionally, it is now proposed that he be banned from editing any article scheduled as FA of the day. There has been absolutely no evidence brought forward showing any problems with Andy editing articles scheduled as TFA. If the TB is to be broadened that far, then it had better be debated first - rather than tacked on like a pork bill. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When I said "formal resolution" I meant ArbCom, not all the same people as the above section bold wording their opinions again just in case anyone had missed the bold text behind the original (bonus points for Peter Cohen doing it thrice). Lord knows how this was misconstrued. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I misunderstood. Shall we close this thread and take it to Arbitration, or let it run and see if this makes the consensus any clearer? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be best, lest some naive admin count heads here and be embroiled in what would seem to be the inevitable future ArbCom discussion on accounts on enacting a controversial topic ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it rather annoying that you would characterize an admin who closed this on the same side as the numbers are as automatically "naive", as I do your suggestion above that I'm part of some mob. You've basically tried to set this up as some "no reasonable person would close this with a ban result", and that's just plain rubbish and insulting to those who are just tired of Andy's behaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So you would suggest that counting heads is a sensible option here? I notice that you're semi-retired yourself, and that you've made less than a dozen articlespace edits since the start of the year. That doesn't do much to shift the notion that this is a petition rather than an assessment of consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, of course. If you can't discredit people's arguments, discredit the people themselves. Great idea. And no, I do not suggest counting heads, I suggest weighing arguments. If someone closes against a ban based on arguments, OK; as I'm OK with a close against me if there's an actual policy-based reason. Unsubstantiated mob accusations and insinuations that semi-retired (burnt-out, actually) users ought not to have suffrage are not policy-based. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out your lack of recent articlespace edits was not meant to disparage you, or suggest you are no longer allowed to have an opinion: it does, however, lend credence to the idea that the perceived support for sanctions here should not be taken on a naive (there's that word again) head count given that so much of it comes from editors who have long histories with Andy and that therefore less resembles a community weather vane as it does a petition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support it, as it seems to me to be within the bounds of the existing ArbCom ruling of the editor in question. But, if others wish to, I could see that this might be sent to WP:AE for input. I rather seriously doubt that it would necessarily be taken up by ArbCom itself, though, given the rather straightforward nature of their previous ruling on the matter. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly its necessary, but as John Carter says I have no problem with it being sent to AE. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I also have no problems with it being sent to WP:AE for input, and I feel that Thumperward's resolution is necessary to prevent further issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I put the resolution. I misunderstood Thumperward who suggested the case should be taken to ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. JN466 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, alas. I personally am in the camp of those who believe each and every article should have an infobox - however, as mentioned above, mucking about with an article that's on the front page sends wholly the wrong impression. If Andy would just say "whoops, my bad, I'll be more careful in the future - and remember that there is no deadline", this wouldn't still be going on. The fact he hasn't (as far as I can tell in all the nearly WP:TLDR debate above) said that, however, indicates that this is necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support and to be clear, based on the methodology of the edits, rather than on the merits. --Rschen7754 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, rationale already provided above. And I don't see any need to escalate to ArbCom here, unless we're going to suggest that the community isn't allowed to implement sanctions any longer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support for exactly the same reasons as The Bushranger. Actually, I wouldn't quite go so far - I agree that it can be a valid application of WP:BOLD to update TFA with an infobox (eg: "I don't have much time on WP so I had to do it now", "I wasn't sure of process, so I just did it", "I'd never heard of the article today and wanted to help"), but my sense from the above discussion is we don't have a reasonable excuse that addresses everyone's concerns. Even so, an apology would go a long way to fixing all this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support —MistyMorn (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - perhaps we can avoid escalation? GiantSnowman 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sorry Andy; the TFA process can't work if it's exhausting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - certainly not the place for pointy and contentious editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per RexxS. I observe Andy's issues always seem to come in conjunction with small cabals of editors who display very strong ownership tendencies; and who to my mind seem to prioritise the acquisition of badges - GA, FA - above improving article content to a point at which an article unambiguously deserves those badges. In effect we're seeing standards being lowered so that borderline articles can be forced through. FA in particular should be a very hard look at an article to see if it is part of the best of wikipedia. It is exactly the sort of place that I would expect to see robust discussion. Sadly, I repeatedly see proponents of an article achieving GA or FA getting very emotional about what should be a rational discourse. And so now, to forestall nasty Andy wading in to argue in particular for structured information such as for coords or infoboxen, you want to ban him because you don't like arguing the point with him? That's really disgusting, and very much the thin end of the wedge. It is absolutely legitimate for any editor to express their opinion as to an FAC. You may not like the opinion. You may wish to argue against the opinion, (but you should be aware that Andy will invariably argue right back). But you should in good faith respect the opinions he holds rather than seek to no-platform him so that your FACs can have an easier life. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that's directed at, but I'm going to assume it's not me. As I've tried to make clear from several edits, I have no problem with Andy expressing an opinion, and I frankly agree with him that he had the perfect right to improve the article if he had a genuine belief it would be beneficial. Below you'll see a solution I have for making this a much easier ride for everyone. Having done about 3 hours' work this evening on getting an article towards GA quality (and it's still far from ready), I couldn't disagree more that GAN and FAC are a walk in the park - absolutely not. I've spent 2 weeks reviewing a GA article, about 3 days doing another one, I've got another one on the go as well, and I'm still getting (albeit constructive and welcome) criticism from the first. I can only imagine FAC is worse. However, you are correct about one thing - there is strong evidence for people not wishing to argue with him. And why should they? Is not WP:3RR just a specialised case of an argument? There is a very fine but distinct difference between arguing and simply agreeing to disagree and deciding a consensus. In my years of managing web forums and bulletin boards, I have come across a handful of people who seem to possess endless enthusiasm for disagreeing at absolutely everything, pulling apart sentences to pick out the one fragment they dislike, and at no point in the proceedings do they stop back and think "Is it worth doing this? Why don't we just drop it?" They're very difficult to ban outright as it's extremely hard to point to any actual direct ad-hominem attacks. Almost without exception, the two endgames of that are that that person gets finally gets banned (after years of aggravation) or takes an extended holiday following the threat of one, or the community disintegrates into a heap. We haven't had the first with Andy, and we can't have the second because we're one of the few communities big enough to withstand such a thing. The ban, at least from my view, is to protect Andy from going off on the rails and ending up doing something silly like this sorry example. I would urge you to comment on my alternative proposal below. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon I don't see where anyone has suggested that Andy be banned from FAC, so even if this passes he will still be able to comment there. Weighing in a FAC is a much better idea than waiting for TFA, anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Off in my own little world, for whatever reason, thinking the proposal extended to FAC. Thank you, Mark. My oppose still stands, however. Looking, for instance, at the two articles cited by the OP, Manchester Ship Canal and Georg Solti, I see Andy adding a table of coords in one, and an infobox in t'other. I do not see any edit warring whatsoever. Stuff was boldly added. The additions were reverted. The matter got taken to the appropriate talk page. What's not to like about that? I'm finding it really hard to believe that anyone would want to bar Andy for having the temerity to do what we're all encouraged to do, merely because such a person doesn't happen to like coords or infoboxes or the style of Andy's argumentation. That sucks. @Ritchie333 ... if I understand your alternative proposal correctly, it is to require Andy to put together a GA or an FA, so as to increase his empathy for GA & FA writers. I don't support that, first and foremost because I don't see that he has done anything w.r.t. FAs that deserves any sanction at all. The evidence supplied by the OP is not ban-worthy. The idea that there are not ownership issues w.r.t. road & composer articles is risible; the fact that Andy will argue against ownership again is not ban-worthy. Of course it would be great if Andy - and any of us - showed more empathy. Including those who would ban him on such scant evidence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that Andy has certain standards and expectations w.r.t. wikipedia pages which are not always shared by others in the community. His interventions in the pair of article pages cited by the OP seem to me to be entirely blameless. And whilst I am a critic of his style of arguing I very much want him to continue arguing for the sorts of things he argues for - mainly accessibility and structured data. I'd like him to show more empathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per RexxS and Tagishsimon's observation. None of what Andy did was harmful, nothing he inserted was incorrect or poorly sourced. It was just went against the Wikiproject that owns the article. The proof is in the pudding, instead of discussing the merits of his edits, we're trying to topic ban him. ThemFromSpace 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, again, maybe I should get one of those stamps made as my reasoning has not changed. It's unfortunate to see the lineup along ideological lines ("oppose because all articles should have an infobox") when to me it's behavioural and more about WP:COMMONSENSE: sure, your ideas have merit and are worth discussing, but why here and why now? When you know TFA will be a contentious time to do it, is your thing really that crucial that you have to muscle onto centre-stage, stamp your foot up and down and say "I AM ALLOWED to do this"? IMO that is attention-seeking behaviour. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support POTW's refusal to act in a collaborative manner has been amply demonstrated in this thread and this is a proportionate sanction. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support While Quiddity and others make valid attempts to understand this behavior (leading to reluctance). Nonetheless, it appears we are limited in some ways in communicating the inappropriateness and/or disruptiveness (leading to support). - Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. So, Andy's edits at TFA caused the retirement of FA writer User:Tim_riley (see discussion of Andy's addition of infobox while the article was being featured in the main page, Tim riley complains about Andy's tendentious tactics, and he retires right after his last comment). When confronted about this, Andy plain denies everything[4]. Andy doesn't acknowledge any problem in his editing, and he refuses to compromise on anything. In these discussions he has been evading any responsibility for the problems he caused. And he doesn't intend to change his behaviour. No thanks, we don't want this sort of behaviour here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of the burnout and heartburn and frustration that Andy Mabbett's editing has caused and causes. It's not a novelty to suggest, as crazily optimistic people kindly people full of wikilove do above (and even more strongly below, actually), that he needs to try to now and then see some stuff from somebody else's point of view. The same thing has been said again and again and again and again over the years. If anybody's seeing any sign of it suddenly getting through, this time around, please point it out to me and I'll consider changing or removing or eating my comment. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC).
• Support - to prevent a repeat of Georg Solti which loses us quality editors such as Tim riley. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, again. Per my prior comments, those of Rexx and Chris, Tagishsimon. Note that Anthonyhcole did a huge extend from the prior discussion with "and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". Everyone pop a valium, pls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A suggestion

There's a lot of "attack! attack! attack!" in this discussion so far, so I'm going to throw this offer on the table as a more positive way of resolving things in the long term that doesn't go remotely near blocking anyone. I see a lot of (IMHO) justified criticism that Andy has not demonstrated any empathy towards others. One possible way of resolving this is to encourage him through getting an article to FAC himself, to see things from the other side. There's a number of Pink Floyd articles that aren't FA but could be - my eye's personally on Atom Heart Mother, though that needs a lot of work just to get it to GA status for now. Still, it's the one I think we can get the best story out of against the Floyd albums that haven't gone through FAC as it stands. I can't see any obvious evidence that he's been involved in the previous FAC reviews (Parrot of Doom seems to be the main driver), so what he does with the Floyd articles, if anything, I don't know.

Getting through the FAC review, as far as I can tell, requires research, diligence, and the ability to listen to criticism. If the FAC reviewer say "jump", you better jump. If you argue with them, you'll fail the review. Simple as.

If the ban carries, perhaps we could use getting an article through FAC himself as a condition of it being lifted.

Thoughts? Or this is just too much effort and a waste of time? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is his contributions to the TFA. Bringing articles to FA is highly laudable, but how does it address the issue? This isn't a punishment, for which he must do community service to atone, it's to address unfortunate interactions that have helped to lose us a valuable editor and friend. If your concern is that he might not be able to edit his own TFA, I think it would be a common-sense exception that could be addressed once the article was scheduled or nominated for scheduling at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've read that slightly differently to what I intended. The idea is that the act of getting an article to FA and through the review will hopefully make him understand what sort of constructive debate is required, and he'll realise that pushing back on things, even when he's sure he's right, isn't necessarily useful for a collaborative environment. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The concept of learning through walking a mile in the other guy's shoes is always attractive. My concern is that in real life, human nature usually intervenes somewhere along the line. Perhaps others feel differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Andy actually does understand, why the (infobox on classical TFA) timing was bad. Which is why I was suggesting an "acknowledgement" was needed, earlier.

There are logically two possibilities. Either:

1. Andy does understand, and is being tactical/stubborn. He is refusing to admit anything, because he doesn't want to "give an inch, lest they take a mile". (In this instance, he doesn't want to let the "article/wikiprojects can decide for themselves" infobox-precedent stand un-protested, for fears that it will spread...)
   • Possible Solution: He needs to recognize [acknowledge] the perspectives/points of other people, when the disagreement is nuanced / ambiguous / non-clear / subjective, just a bit more often. [he very very rarely does, which is part of why his conversations often become "adversarial".] It would also help if he spent more time editing his choice of words, avoiding divisive and inflammatory words as much as possible. ("straw man", "duped", etc). It will take longer, but work better.
2. Andy does Not understand the problem, due to non-neurotypical thinking, or similar.* If this is the case, then there are only two possible solutions:
   • Last-resort Prevention: community sanctions of some sort. He literally cannot be reasoned with in some cases, and in those cases we need a damage-control mechanism. (Like the 70+ biographical Featured articles without infoboxes, and hundreds of nonfeatured, that he'll eventually make his way around to (but "non-systematically" per the rfc).)
   • Possible Cure: find someone who can re-explain certain-things, in a way that does make sense to him, when he gets into a battle like this. (Wherein he sincerely doesn't comprehend the legitimacy of the other points of view.)

• *Note: I was reading this excellent essay (mostly by Pesky) recently, plus a number of books that touch upon similar topics and situations.**
• **Note2: See also: Exformation as brilliantly explained by zefrank. Our discussions (here, and throughout Wikipedia, and throughout life) are overflowing with exformation. It's a useful thing to understand. The newcomers don't have any exformation, and the oldhands have too much!

I earnestly hope that this framing of the situation will help. It's in the gray-zone of too-personal, which we usually and officially steer clear of; but it's a systemic/widespread set of problems (miscommunications that escalate), and if we can create a positive-outcome here (for everyone), then it could be immeasurably helpful in the future.

[I've done my best to keep this as short/compassionate/polite/impersonal/nuanced/short as possible; apologies for any/all missteps; choosing the 'best brief' words is hard (I've spent three+ hours refining this single post). We should be able to keep everyone editing, with more understanding all-around.] -- Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice on a failed RTV

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

---

Please see [5]

Short summary:

• • I see a user page on my watchlist deleted as a G6, but mostly as enforcement of a RTV
  • I ask Magog about the deletion
  • After discussion Magog restores the user page, though it stays protected (totally ok with that)
  • I also notice that the contributions are missing
  • Neither Magog or I know the proper thing to do/request
  • I come here

My preferred outcome would be to either link the contributions with the failed RTV account, or to the current account.

Opinions? Arkon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't necessarily thrilled with this whole vanish and start over thing, but this particular situation has really been talked to death about a dozen times, at ArbCom, at WP:BN, I'm sure at ANI... and I can't understand why we need to discuss it yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you could link me to those that would be great. -Removed previous bad reading on my part- Arkon (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  And by the way, this needn't be user specific. I tried to not mention names for that reason. In similar situations (SA), the contributions remain. Arkon (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The initial account was re-named to User:Vanished user 03, and that is where you will find the contribs (October 2003 to August 2010). -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah [6], I found that when I went looking for the SA situation. It's in one of my self reverted edits to this section actually. Arkon (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was just hatted. I reverted that. The rational given is that 'there is nothing to do'. I proposed 'something to do'. I'd appreciate comments. Arkon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. So, what administrative action exactly do you want here? Regards, — Moe ε 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's in the original report, right above you.

I quote: "My preferred outcome would be to either link the contribs with the failed RTV account, or to the current account."

I (or any non-admin) can't do this. Arkon (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for prior conversation about Prioryman and his RTV, there are discusssions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 9#Official Comment requested and a couple threads at the top of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 10 from a year ago, along with other threads at different boards I haven't been able to find yet. Like I said, ArbCom is already fully aware of who Prioryman is (as well as several other parts of community). Again, what is it exactly you intend to accomplish by restarting this conversation? Why is it necessary to have a link between the two or have the contributions moved? Regards, — Moe ε 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the links, I hadn't read any of that previously. Arbcom being aware or not aware isn't the issue. The issue at this point is the linking of the contributions. I see no discussion related to the issue in your links, but admit to not reading them fully at this time (will do tomorrow.) Just because the failed RTV has been discussed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to come to a consensus of what to do when RTV fails. The fail I've personally seen was SA, and contributions are fully available. Get back to you tomorrow on the details :) Arkon (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, several things need to be done to normalise the situation:

• User:ChrisO should be marked as indefinitely blocked, and redirect to User:Prioryman.
• The contributions history currently attributed to User:Vanished user 03 should be reattributed to User:ChrisO (or User:Prioryman, whichever he prefers).
• User:L'ecrivant should be marked as an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:ChrisO.
• Prioryman should tell the community and/or the arbitration committee whether or not he authored the material contributed to Wikipedia by User:Helatrobus (which, in case anyone is wondering, was not an arbcom-approved sock). JN466 13:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • More or less, that seems to be consistent with WP:RTV and would make sense, and I would support that. Vanishing should never be maintained by Wikipedia unless it is maintained by the user. I have no problem with Prioryman being here, but clarity and honesty as to the past should be required, as I would expect it to be for any user that unvanished themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why indefinitely block ChrisO? As long as the person running the account has done nothing to deserve such a block for all his accounts, couldn't it be marked as an alternate account? As far as I can see, the only situations when an indef should be applied to one account but not the other are (1) compromised password, or (2) disruptive socking or other problems that would result in a prohibition on Prioryman from editing as any other account name. Obviously the first isn't true, and I don't see a reason for the prohibition in the second to be enacted. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • User:ChrisO is indef-blocked already, per his block log. JN466 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing should be done here, because of the history of previous ArbCom cases that involved a lot of secret horse tradings. People have made compromizes and if we now want to do things according to the book, then you end up undermining these informal agreements. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't really grasp your argument here. "It's super secret, so hey, look over there"? Dennis and JN have hit the nail in their previous comments, I'd say. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are "informal, secret agreements" that contradict the book then they absolutely need to be undermined. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In an ArbCom cases, you can always propose some compromize, you can get off with a lighter sanction in exchange for a volunatry editing restriction. In some cases, off site harassment may have been an issue and that can count as a mitigating factor. Such issues can be discussed privately with ArbCom and you can get a reasonable deal that works. However, to outsider things are not so transparant. What we really need to focus on is creating an environment that both Prioryman and Jayen466 feel happy to work in; continuing to fight old battles for which the ArbCom sanctions have long expired is not a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

ChrisO invoked the right to vanish just before the conclusion of the climate change arbitration case, while sanctions were being considered against him. He then registered a sock, User:L'ecrivant, within hours of invoking the right to vanish. The sock was spotted a few weeks later by a steward, User:Avraham, who indef-blocked both the ChrisO account and the L'ecrivant account for abusing RTV. ChrisO then registered User:Prioryman; that account too was spotted by Avraham and blocked as a sock, but unblocked by an arbitrator (Roger Davies) after ChrisO came to an understanding with them about his continued participation. All that was discussed on-wiki at some length last year. The community did not learn that Prioryman was ChrisO returned until the summer of the year after that, when he began to involve himself in old conflicts (while pretending to be new to them). So the deal that got Prioryman back into the project was not part of any arbitration case. I don't have any problem with Prioryman working here at all; he has written some outstanding content. But the history should be transparent, if only for such cases where Prioryman argues that another editor should be site-banned on account of his block log, or other perceived infractions. Prioryman himself has a lengthy block log, and three indef blocks against his name, and he should not be able to pass himself off as a squeaky clean editor when proposing sanctions for others, which he is unfortunately fond of doing. Again, nothing against his content work, much of which is first rate. --JN466 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would put this to a vote at WP:AN (or move this over there) as a proposal to unvanish, and point to (and protect if needed). At least that is what I did with SA, the last (only?) unvanishing I am aware of. It requires a 'crat to do the actual unvanishing, and is easy to do but takes a bit to filter through the process. I haven't seen Prioryman comment yet and prefer to hear from him first. I assume he was notified, which is a little confusing for him not to pipe in. My interactions with him have always been positive, but I agree about transparency, consistency in policy and how it might look like avoiding scrutiny if we didn't link them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, notified him here. Arkon (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The CC ArbCom case was a big horse trade session where the Arbs did not consider the relevant facts and instead declared everyone who had a significant editing history in the controversial topics to be guilty. You could only propose a voluntary topic ban (like e.g. KimDabbelsteinPetersen did), or else you would be topic banned. The fundamental problem was that lacking good policies for that sort of topic area, the majority of editors by consensus decided how the topic should be edited, which amounts to enforcing policies that do not exist. The editors who didn't like that considered that to be "tag team reversions".

ArbCom failed to identify the underlying cause of the problems (the lack of good policies), and faulted the editors who did their best to keep the articles in an acceptable shape. This was too much for some editors like ChrisO and Polargeo. If ArbCom ends up to topic banning a scientist who works at ESA who is an expert at Earth observation from climate science articles because they don't want to get into the relevant editing issues, then the whole ruling is worthless. Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, none of that is relevant to the question. Arkon (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been tied up with some more pressing things.

The status of my former contributions has already been addressed and resolved by agreement with Arbcom. It would be highly inadvisable for editors to unilaterally seek to overturn arbitrators' decisions - they don't seem to like that for some reason.

However, I don't have any objections if someone wants to redirect my old username to my present one. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, the community cannot overturn an ArbCom decision, but there's absolutely no reason why it cannot impose a more severe sanction than ArbCom considered appropriate, or one that runs in parallel with it. Your "warning" in this context is quite inapppropriate and, considering the totality of your history, you'd be best advised to hold your peace and not make any more veiled threats. If ArbCom wants to warn admins against taking a certain action, they're quite capable of speaking for themselves without you chiming in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever agreement you had with ArbCom became moot when you revealed your identity by returning to areas of prior dispute, rather than avoiding them. And you never clarified whether or not the contributions made by User:Helatrobus were authored by you or not. Neither the arbitration committee nor the community were ever given a clear answer. Could you answer the question now? JN466 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that the appropriate route to resolve this would be through Arbcom. It would be inappropriate to try to use a community process to overturn arbitrators' decisions. Their decisions are not usually subject to amendment by community processes. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If it were a clear and specific decision made by ArbCom, you would have a point. "Horse trades" madeby ArbCom are not, howeverm in that category. ArbCom, for example, does not have the power to say "Editor X is exempted from Policy Y because we made a deal and for no other reasons" which is the case at hand. This is not an "amendment" to an ArbCom decision, and thus is properly discussed here, whether one likes it or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the community may now feel entitled to take Prioryman's continued refusal to answer the question whether or not they authored the contributions of User:Helatrobus as an admission that he did, and that this was yet another account he operated after the RTV. The Helatrobus account stopped editing a while ago, but should probably be indeffed as well. JN466 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Take to AN and Vote?

Dennis made a suggestion for the next course of action. Unless there are significant objections, I'd appreciate an admin taking the lead on this. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I second the motion to take this to AN for an admin vote. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Significant objection. See above. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As the subject of the potential action, you would be expected to object, so your comment is irrelevant. You do not control here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also second this motion. --JN466 01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much benefit here. We are interested primarily in what editors are doing now and in the future. If there was contested behaviour in the past that is documented a Arbcom case, then the additional benefit of spending admin time on attributing every single edit seems slim to none. Seems like something where we can usefully move forward, rather than living in the past. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Apparently the effort involved is minimal according to Dennis above. I don't really see the rest of your comment as an argument against correcting this. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't personal, and I'm not beating a drum over the issue, but unless there is a specific reason that Arbcom has to handle this, then it would be a function of WP:AN, not Arbcom. The policy clearly says it can be reversed by the community, not by ArbCom. Again, it has been a slow process, to allow plenty of time for someone from ArbCom to come in and present a reason, assuming you would ask them to. If not, an editor has asked for it to go to a vote, and I've just said that WP:AN is the proper venue, based on the fact that the last unvanishing was done there. That doesn't mean it will be unvanished, but there is a policy based reason why the editor would like to start the process, and regardless of how I feel about it, I don't see any policy based reason to deny it. Once again, no one has rushed here, and we are all ears as to how this is counter to some previous agreement, even though it is doubtful that an ArbCom agreement has the authority to bypass policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours, to allow ArbCom to respond if they choose. My understanding is that they have been informed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. JN466 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't help but feel that this AN issue has been initiated due to some other cases that may be under discussion elsewhere involving Prioryman's participation. In the interests of getting on with other stuff, I don't believe there is anything to be gained at this stage by revisiting the RTV issue at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Feel as you wish, but I posted the diff of the reason I brought this here at the very top. Arkon (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Again, if we can just wait a day, I'm told there is an ongoing discussion and I'm always for a simple, peaceful resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  I feel like I'm being a pest, but the innuendo of secrecy is supremely annoying. So:

• "...I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours..." - 2¢ © Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Again, if we can just wait a day..." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• May I ask what super secret conversation could be ongoing that override a community granted courtesy? There has been no comment from this group of cigarette smoking men. This should be elementary. Arkon (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear about two things: AN (or AN/I) doesn't have the authority to override Arbcom, and as Kudpung suggests, bringing this issue up now is quite blatant retaliation by individuals involved in the Youreallycan RfC/RFAR. However, I agree that at this stage there probably is not much point in maintaining the RTV. I've therefore asked Arbcom to agree to amend the earlier agreement to permit unvanishing. They have said that although they do not feel this is purely necessary, they have no objections to it, and the unvanishing has been carried out at my request. I think that resolves the matter. Prioryman (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unvanished

After consulting with Prioryman and receiving input from ArbCom, I have unvanished the ChrisO account. The user contributions that had been attributed to User:Vanished user 03 have now been re-attributed to User:ChrisO. As part of the unvanishing, I have unblocked the ChrisO account (the entry for the block, "Vanished users do not need to edit", being no longer applicable), and have redirected both User:ChrisO and User:Vanished user 03 to Prioryman's current account. I will defer any action regarding any other accounts to ArbCom.

I hope this is sufficient to allow all parties to put this behind them and move forward. Feel free to ping me on my talk page with any questions or concerns related to this. Thank you to everyone for your patience while this was being sorted out. 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Jack Merridew and the main page featured articles

Jack Merridew, user:Br'er Rabbit, has been harassing me for the last six months or so. This is continuation of the same behavior (harassment and sockpuppetry on a grand scale) that caused him to be sanctioned by the arbitration committee for the last six years or so.

For the last few weeks, it's gotten especially bad at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests‎, a page which exists for the sole purpose to help me coordinate requests for main page featured article scheduling. Jack has been trolling there something fierce over the last few days.

I removed some of his trolling from that page, and he began revert warring with me. So I've taken the unusual step of arbitrarily banning him from that page. I've removed all of his posts to that page, and protected the page until he's dealt with.

I know I'm not the only one he's harassing. He seems to go from harassing one person to the next with alarming frequency. I think it's about time we discussed a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that an interaction ban could be a more helpful alternative. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it keeps him off the FA pages, that's fine where I am concerned. It doesn't really help the other people he continues to harass. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

better to fix the FA process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FPP for snarky remarks? Not consistent with involved, and since when can a single admin declare a ban? Nobody Ent 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(misuse of tools;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Full protecting the page on which you are having a dispute with another editor is not supposed to happen. You have used your tools inappropriately here, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - using admin tools in a dispute in which you are clearly involved is an abuse of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, at least Raul didn't simply block Jack. I agree that he has gone overboard with the full protection, but it is also obvious that Jack is both disrupting the process and acting in a fashion designed to piss Raul off, likely to make a WP:POINT. I think both need to back down here. Resolute 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it.

And I did it not just because of the snarky remarks -- it's that he's graduated into actively subverting the rules (rescheduling featured articles himself [7]) and encouraging others to do likewise [8][9]. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The discretionary powers of the FA director cannot extend to the abuse of admin tools. Not gonna happen. -- Dianna (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being FA director does not mean you can ignore the admin rules that the rest of us have to abide by. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The FA pages don't operate like articles do. It's not abuse - it's reasonable discretion. And note to anyone reading that DIanna has been one of Jack's long-time apologists. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean I'm wrong. -- Dianna (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I respect the job you do, but man, you've gotta accept that you've overstepped yourself here. Please reverse your protection. The only thing you are accomplishing here is to let him bait you into becoming the focus of attention. Resolute 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with unprotecting the requests page provided other measures are taken to curb his trolling. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rules regarding the use of admin tools are not restricted to their use on article pages - they apply to all pages. And you don't get to impose conditions before you agree to follow the rules regarding use of admin tools - you need to reverse your abuse of the tools unconditionally, and then *ask* for help, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict x4) Just looking over this case from afar, I can see a case to be made that Raul's removal of Jack's comments and subsequent lock of the page meets the "only involved in an administrative capacity" exception given by WP:INVOLVED. However, indefinitely full-protecting the TFA requests page because of one user's conduct seems... unwise, to say the least. And I'm also not certain that Raul has the authority to "ban" Jack from the page in question; that would seem to be something that should be decided by the community at large. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The rules regarding the use of admin tools also acknowledge the existence of discretion, like the clerks on arbitration pages, or the FA director on the FA pages. So you can shout "Abuse!" all you want, it does not make it so. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bans can only be given out by the community-at-large or arbcom. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is flatly untrue. Arbcom clerks can ban people from arbitration pages. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

At least in my time as a clerk, we have only banned a person with arbcom's consent. I see us as the messenger. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean from the Arbom pages, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is at least partially incorrect. A lot of decisions have been kicked up to the Arbitrators, but individual clerks have the authority (and probably should use it more) to ban disruptive editors from ArbCom pages. I'm actually surprised here that everyone seems to be against Raul's original premise that he has the authority to remove Br'er from the TFA/R pages. Is the office of FA director powerless? NW (Talk) 09:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Teh Power. Taht wut tihs iz really all about. Wiki is not supposed to be about Power™. It is supposed to be about collaboration. FA is supposed to be about our best. The office should be abolished. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Raul, would a well-structured RfC produce sufficient evidence of disruption to justify a site ban? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Any look at Jack's behavior over the last six years would show an extensive history of harassing others. Whether this would justify a site block in some peoples' minds, I cannot say. Long-term harassment isn't exactly easy to demonstrate in a few short diffs, and RFCs don't have the best history when it comes to long-term compliated misbehavior. And Jack has a pretty well-established cadre of apologists. (Witness this very thread). So I think it's much more likely to turn into a huge time-consuming drama-fest. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be time-consuming, and may not result in a community consensus to site ban him, so that would require then taking it to arbitration. But it's worth doing, if there is enough evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried that in May. The arbitration committee's response was appalling. Essentially, they invented out of thin air exceptions to their own previously imposed sanctions. So the previously imposed sock puppetry prohibition became a green light to use as many sockpuppets as he wants. And when it was shown that he violated what few sanctions they did leave intact, they simple ignored the complaint until it was archived. Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to my comment below, I do think that indefinitely full-protecting this page is a misjudgement. AGK [•] 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The FA director has discretion with how FA administrative pages are administered. That's why I can do it." No, you don't, and no you can't. You don't WP:OWN the FA pages and using your tools in a dispute you are involved in is a clear abuse of admin tools. ArbCom have just desysopped someone for less. There are processes to deal with disruption and that isn't it. You should have come here first. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• And you also need to stop spraying the word "apologist" around as well. WP:NPA applies to the FA director as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am on the record as supporting Br'er Rabbit's return to the community, and I recused in the most recent committee proceedings which concerned him. Therefore, I do not say lightly that Raul is probably able to exclude editors from that specific page, that in this case he was justified in excluding Br'er, and that Br'er urgently needs to avoid this type of behaviour. Trolling such as that is completely at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. I must confess I am surprised: Br'er usually knows better than many that we are here to build an encyclopedia. AGK [•] 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Disregarding the appropriateness of Raul's actions, comments like this one from Br'er Rabbit seem quite out of line to me. Don't make snarky remarks about other editors, especially not if you're accused of hounding them. It might give those accusations credibility. --Conti|✉ 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• As a regular contributor to WP:TFA/R, I am outraged that the page has been fully blocked (or whatever the term is), and believe that Raul, whom I usually respect, is far overstepping his powers. Br'er Rabbit has often been a useful contributor to that page, and the big deal that Raul has made about him is far too POINTy for my liking. I request, at the very least, that TFA/R be open for editing again. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Temp page protection upon removal of disruption of process pages is arguably legit (per uninvolved) but I don't think there can be a page ban, unless it's endorsed by the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• this is an abuse of both admin powers and the authoritah of the post of Featured Article Director. pablo 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• History or not, admins should not be using their tools in disputes, and not one single page on this entire project is under the unilateral control of a single editor. This is flagrant abuse of both the admin bit and the general sentiment behind OWN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Raul has obviously been involved with regards to Jack/Alarbus/Br'er since the RFC last winter. This is a transparent abuse of tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a joke, right? That RFC was started in an attempt to find areas of improvement. Jack, Wehwalt, Dianna, et al hijacked it to try to replace me. The community sentiment was 90% in favor of keeping me. Since teh RFC didn't go his way, Jack decided it didn't matter and he would simply ignore the result, which is why he's now trying to do the scheduling himself and encouraging others to do likewise. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The long-term history is irrelevant anyway. You two edit-warred at that page and then you locked it in your version and removed his comments. A clearer example of using admin tools when involved I don't think I've ever seen. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That's false. Show me where I ever said that I wanted Raul out of office. What I said is that the Featured Article Director should do more than he does. Which at present seems to be picking the daily article and engaging in heated discussions, see here. I was expressed no preference as to whether that was Raul or someone else, so long as more was done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • His long term misbehavior is certainly relevant to this discussion. And as has been previously stated, the rules and established precedents allow certain people to have wider discretion on certain pages, ala the arbcom clerks. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Please feel free to indicate exactly where it is stated that you are allowed to circumvent protection policy on certain pages, otherwise undo your protection and then the community can discuss your original point instead of your actions. AFAIK the only situations where a single editor can impose page bans are your example and also on pages where general sanctions are active. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
          • The FA process has always operated with a great deal of directorial discretion. If you need this written down at the top of the FA administrative pages, I will be happy to oblige you. Raul654 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I'd suggest you'd need a community policy discussion to alter WP:INVOLVED first. No-one is saying that the FA director isn't influential at those pages, but that does not extend to IAR'ing policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
              • As has already been pointed out like 15 times on this thread, the involved policy explicitly excludes administrative involvement. 'Involved' does not apply when someone sets out to troll the administrator. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
                • I count at least eight admins here disagreeing with your interpretation of that policy. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
                • Balls. You feel that you are being trolled so you make up your own rules? pablo 23:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • @Raul § 23:19: Be that as it may, you're still involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of "featured articles", Raul654 is correct about the discretion he has. Jack's known for his provocations, despite being given a clean start on condition that he behave in future. As for Mark, well he's about as trustworthy as they come and has demonstrated good judgement for an extended period. If he's suggesting a community ban my response is that we should consider it seriously. --TS 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust, Tony, I'm honored. But I don't think we should ban Raul. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

While it's nice that you are so eager to bask in Tony's compliment, the "Mark" he was referring to was me. Raul654 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

_{I wondered what I did to impress him so much... Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)}

Arsten, meet Mark-- most folks who know FAC, its history, its functioning, know the man's name. Please stop tossing around terms like flagrant abuse of tools if you don't know the history of the trust and authority that the community has conferred upon Raul to manage the FA process-- trust and a position that has been validated time and time again via RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was a "flagrant abuse", you must have me confused with someone else... Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a whole bunch of editors with a sysop bit have commented on the inappropriateness of the protection, but I'm still seeing "View Source" instead of of "edit this page." Nobody Ent 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• And a whole bunch of others (including an arbitrator who previously supported Jack) have said it's OK. Raul654 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Does having the sysop bit grant them some particular ability to know nothing of the FA process, past RFCs, etc? The protection was not inappropriate-- Merridew has in the past mentioned he planned to intentionally disrupt to challenge authority the community has trusted to Raul to prevent exactly this kind of disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• • There is a clear majority (including AGK) saying that your protection was a misjudgement. Please undo it so we can have a discussion on the main issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Raul, I'm hoping you will undo this yourself, but the consensus here is clear, and if you don't lift the protection, I will. You're letting him make you disrupt your own process. Resolute 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• "This page isn't a community hang-out. It exists to serve a specific purpose -- to help me coordinate the featured article requests If it's going to be a forum for trolling, then it's no longer serving its purpose" what a joke. And what exactly is this alleged trolling? Hot Stop 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• While I don't know much about the background of this dispute, I am seriously flabbergasted to see Raul saying that since he runs FA, he can do what he wants in violation of admin policy. No, you can't - you're an admin and an editor, and you have to abide by the same standards we hold other admins and editors to, even in your fiefdom. If the way the role of FA director has historically been treated has had something to do with why you now think you're not bound by our policies, then maybe it was a good idea for people to try to run an RfC on the topic of that position. I daresay if you stick to your guns here, insisting that you aren't bound by policy like the rest of us, another will be forthcoming rather quickly. Raul, please, take a deep breath and reconsider what you're trying to do here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with Black Kite and Flutternutter here. PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Do whatever you want -- I think I'm going on wikibreak. Raul654 (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I have collaborated with Br'er Rabbit on numerous areas, but I have not been involved in any arguments about the FA process. What is clear to me though is that bad blood has existed between Raul and Br'er/Jack for many years. I am also concerned that I've seen editors whom I respect greatly being put under stress by having very short notification of an article that they took to FA appearing on the main page. The process needs to be helped along and it is quite wrong for Raul to cause problems and then strike out at those who want to see those problems alleviated. This is what is actually being complained about:
  • "This article has been scheduled to appear on 21 August, four days before its 150th anniversary. Was this a random article selection? Hawkeye7, who nominated the other 25 August article, has said he is happy for it to wait" - Tommy20000 TFA/R
  • "I moved it to the right day. The staff can fix the bottom links once they figure this out. This section should be removed, soon." - Br'er Rabbit TFA/R

Br'er fixed a mistake (Tommy's article clearly scheduled for the wrong day) and even pointed out that the bottom links need to amended. In any other featured process, he'd have been thanked for helping out. Somebody needs to figure out why that doesn't happen in the TFA process and then fix it. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to broaden that disclaimer about your typical support of your avowed friend Merridew? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Although Jack/Br'er/(insert name here) can be abrasive at times, he generally has the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Right now I think that protecting TFAR is an overreaction that is doing more harm than good. Unprotecting it so we can discuss this somewhat rationally is a good start, methinks. There may be need for an interaction ban, but Raul should know better than to react like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Moot now, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I hate to wade into this because I always get hammered and don't like being hammered but just have to say that the constant drip drip drip seems to be affecting content editors and the FAC process. If Raul's gone (maybe the desired outcome), SandyGeorgia's gone (maybe the desired outcome), others such as Dabomb and Ucucha, and many more, apparently no longer editing, at some point the question is whether the loss of either key content contributors or those facilitating the FAC process is important to the project. Does a line need to be drawn, or is it okay that we're losing contributors? I dunno, but I do on the one hand see editors such as Casliber pushing content building with the Core Contest, while at the same time see that we're losing editors who write content. Just saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that Raul does have the authority to protect the page as FAC director; this was done earlier this year at WT:FAC. Now, in this particular scenario, this probably was not the best idea, as it locked everyone else out of the page. --Rschen7754 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• If the page exists for the sole purpose of planning FAs, and Raul is the FA director, and a user is making disruptive edits to that page, I don't see a problem with him taking action to prevent that user from disrupting the page. I don't think he's trying to make a grab at power over any user on any page; I see him trying to stop disruption on one page he uses for a specific role he has on Wikipedia. Kcowolf (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

Based on the agreement I see above, I ask you all to consider this proposal:

Raul654 (talk · contribs) and Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs), or whatever username he holds at the time, are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other, or commenting in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia.

I think that this should cut down on drama. Feel free to rewrite this as you see fit. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Impractical unless Jack is also topic banned from FA processes that Raul directs. Is that an intended aspect of your proposal? Resolute 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's starting to strike me that we may need to make better provision for when Raul has a conflict of interest in the FA processes. The delegates are good people, but they're his delegates ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with this apparent rash of disrespect for the FA process? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not disrespect, but it shouldn't be an autocracy. It should be based on community consensus, so an arbitrary banning of an editor violates that need for a consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. If an editor screws around with an FA, then he's exercising autocracy and violating community consensus. Or is that not what you meant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm? Definitely not what I meant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)s It amounts to the same thing, as long as Raul is the FAD. And thus is just a restriction on Br'er Rabbit alone, seeing as Raul's exalted position seems to allow him to make it up as he goes along. pablo 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict X100) My first draft included a sentence that said something to the effect of, "due to Raul654's long standing position as the Featured Article Director, this restriction applies to Wikipedia:Today's featured article and all of its subpages." I thought that it was redundant so I removed it. In addition, a delegate can handle a request if Br'er significantly comments on it. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Resolute's observation adequately points out how disingenuous this proposal is given the context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See my comment directly above. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was disingenuous myself as this was a pretty standard proposal for two squabbling editors. It is an unintended consequence that Guerillero may have overlooked due to a failure to consider Raul's position. But even without a formal interaction/topic ban, I hope Jack will realize that his... zealous... actions are causing disruption and voluntarily back off from edits at TFAR other than commenting on nominations for the time being. Resolute 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Or not, heh. Resolute 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that given the amount of bad blood that's clearly (oh, so very clearly) gone between Raul and Jack, some sort of interaction ban is necessary. However, as Resolute points out, Raul's position makes that very difficult to enact. I would hesitate to say that he can't help at FA because Raul works there - this is not a divorce, and we don't "give custody of the children" to one editor and not the other. If Jack wants to participate constructively in FA, he should be allowed to. Same for Raul. Obviously Raul can't be handling Jack's requests, and vice versa - so what can we do here? Bar them from interacting even in FA space, and say that someone else needs to handle FA-space in regards to Jack's requests/submissions/edits? I understand that Raul is basically king there, but even kings must have advisors, regents, and crown princes who can step in if something needs seeing to and the king isn't available. Surely there's someone else who can speak to Jack in the context of FAs? If there's not, and Raul is unable to treat Jack neutrally, then we have a larger problem here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - how about adding User:Mark Arsten as a "facilitator", not a "delegate" but more independent, as Mark is always around and really reliable and wouldn't abuse tools, so he could prevent the situations where 59 minutes notice for main page appearances could be prevented—since the delegates and Raul654 aren't around that much. Then all this friction could be prevented. Just a suggestion, as I don't know the right procedures. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable, and could also deal with the situations at TFA, FAC, and FAR where Raul has a conflict of interest. For example, Raul's article, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima recently passed through FAR and lost its star. Deciding the director's article was no longer worthy of the star must have been uncomfortable for the delegate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me, guys. The position isn't something that particularly interests me, but I'm willing to help if the community sees a need/people think it's a good role for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Interaction ban is unnecessary and almost unworkable. Why not all admins from this point on consider this a Delicate Situation and consider a (1) Low Threshold for Blocking for gratuitous Snarky Comments or Disruptive Conduct, and (2) Low Threshold for notifying the Arb Committee for Use of Tools while involved? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, evenhanded. On the one side "give us a call" and on the other "block for snarky comments".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much from anyone, not just Br'er. The situation has inflamed tempers. Sarcasm isn't helpful either. The above discussion has pretty clearly delineated appropriate admin conduct from this point onwards so obviously any repeat will head our way. Yes, the FAR on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima might have been uncomfortalbe but due process was followed, so I am not sure what your point is in raising it. I am ok with Mark Arsten facilitating.....or really any admin can keep an eye on proceedings really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to have someone designated for the situations I mention. I think the point is clear: the delegates derive their office from Raul and so it would be helpful to have someone for those cases, especially in close cases, which Iwo Jima was not of course. As for the sarcasm, I do see your point, but I also read your comments about Jack in the arbcom leaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Meaning what? He's aware of my concerns (which presumably you are referring to) - I am trying to work with the positives of what he has to offer (which is alot), before this gets out of hand and everyone calms down. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Raul has misused tools re myself. He overrode admin actions of both Amalthea and Wehwalt regarding my user pages and blocked over their declining to. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A Featured Article topic ban for Jack Merridew would resolve this problem efficiently. --TS 01:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So would any manner of weaponry. However, neither would be appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A FA topic ban for Merridew and his socks is long overdue, but it should be understood from the outset that there are about four other editors who will consistently and always have spoken for him, regardless of his sock status, so coordinated editing must also be accounted for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We certainly need a facilitator right now, as Raul has announced a wikibreak and his sole delegate has not edited since the 27th of July. Mark Arsten is an admin, he's level headed, he's familiar with FA. This is a good idea, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean for TFA? As far as I am aware, the other FA processes seem to be running... --Rschen7754 01:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bullroar. Diannaa, you have been as involved as involved gets in these attempts to unseat Raul and install your preferred delegates regardless of their experience-- please hold your horses, the man isn't dead yet. Should another delegate be needed, that discussion would happen at FAC where some folks who actually know how the process works tend to congregrate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you've been on vacation, some folks who know how the process works have voiced support for a new delegate. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; the different sectors have different delegates; promotions, reviews, featured list candidates, etc. For quite some time now, the only task Raul has done personally is select the daily featured article. -- Dianna (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured lists are not part of the realm. They are proudly democratic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We have articles selected for a week in advance, and we also have some emergency standbys, so this sin't an earthshatteringly urgent situation, but I'd be happy with Mark too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"proudly democratic" - Wehwalt, that is not helpful here. Can we try and bring everyone together without extraneous stuff? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's no secret that I support making the FA processes democratic. That's what I said in January and I've seen nothing to change my mind. But I agree, let's push on.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Say, something like this. That Mark is the FA facilitator, empowered to act in the event of a COI or in the inaction of the director/responsible delegates (i.e. the late notifications). That we'll let pass what happened earlier and hope that everyone will keep the peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Creating an FA facilitator to act in cases of "COI" (defined how, exactly?) seems like a significant change to the FA process. This probably isn't the right venue to propose substantive changes to the FA process, especially as it was just recently affirmed in a large RfC earlier this year. I don't see others raising COI as a concern here, and in the case you mentioned it seems that Raul's article was de-featured - which rather suggests that COI isn't a barrier to objective assessment. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this is not the place for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then I'm not sure we can do much more here, and I guess we will see what happens next.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All Raul needed to do was the standard procedure whenever there's a hint of involvement—ask another admin to review and act if necessary, in their opinion. This system is looking very fragile if it blows up because of one difficult editor. Everyone get a grip and move it back into good working order. And could I add that this shows up the weakness of policy in the area of alternate accounts; I had a push to tighten it a few years ago, and ironically it was admins who resisted. Talk about making a rod for our backs. Tony (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus on who will prep the TFAs if Raul doesn't return in time and his delegates are not active? If no, I'll help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticise arbitrary Power™ and get teh stomp? That would be convenient... for Raul. The issue here isn't my comments, it's the underlying issue of old-guard cabalism. And his being retired in place. Br'er Rabbi (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see complaints about Power and that FA should Not be an autocracy. Sorry, but no. The only relevant question to this noticeboard is whether Br'er and Raul are capable of interacting; they obviously are not. We have discussed this subject for quite long enough. Please ban them from interacting with one another, then close this thread. AGK [•] 10:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You've heard my comments on interaction bans before. They're a no-contact slow-dance. They actually tie users together. Mostly they're about avoiding addressing the underlying issues. They're a failure of dispute resolution. My criticisms are spot-on. The Emperor has No Clothes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• An interaction ban would be a de facto ban on one party from the TFA process, and so I oppose. (And AGK presents a false dichotomy - though Wikipedia is not a democracy, it also isn't supposed to be an autocracy) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• We really need WP:AUTOCRACY. I think its jest when we call Jimbo the ultimate overlord, but if autocracy is allowed here then... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's what WP:VESTED is (supposed to be) for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is a long history of antagonism towards Raul654 from a small group—that is to be expected as FA generally involves skilled editors, many of whom are high achievers in real life and who may not be able to get along with other opinionated people. Br'er Rabbit is expert at using casual chat to needle opponents, and when editing as Alarbus was part of a small group pushing wildly against consensus at WP:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. Wikipedia is not an exercise in fairness or free speech, so the issue is quite simple, and boils down to this: Does it help if Br'er Rabbit continues to poke Raul654? Since Br'er Rabbit's criticisms consist of slogans with no content (see this discussion and the RfC), the answer to that is no, and there is no need for Br'er to interact with Raul, so support interaction ban. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing about Encyclopedia that implies a front page or featured articles. It's supposed to a reference work. It's not like I go to look up caterpillar and say, oh, it's not a featured article, I'll go read star instead. To the extent Wikipedia works on a sort of follow your own muse principle, if editors want to challenge and encourage themselves to push the writing above average, that's a good thing. Alternatively if folks want to standardize the separator between Mexican and American, that's fine. The fineness stops when such activities become disruptive to the project as a whole. Given that there are two high churn threads going on related to FA -- the Rabbit/Raul and Andy Mabbett on top of the page, where behavior that would be fine elsewhere on Wikipedia is a big deal because it involves FAs, we ought to take a step back and assert the the needs and norms of the project as whole are what's important, and no subgroup, however passionate or filled with high Wiki-cred editors, gets to have their own set of rules.

Since Raul appears to be unwilling play nice with the Rabbit, I endorse the concept above the Raul recuse himself from interactions with BR and Mark Arsten (or someone else) sort out any TFA concerns raised by BR. Nobody Ent 12:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. FWIW, I've worked a bit with Mark Arsten (and Crisco 1492, who similarly offered to play a role in FA), and think either (or both) would be a fine addition to the process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason Rabbit can't follow his muse elsewhere? If the community has set up a process, and the community has asked a volunteer to manage that process, and another user wants to help, but the first does not find it helpful, why shouldn't the second user just go help somewhere, else? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that Jack/Rabbit's recent attempts to help out at TFA were prompted in part by complaints by some FA writers about late notice when their article was TFA. Raul has said that he realizes there is a problem and will work to remedy it, though, so hopefully there won't be a need for anyone else to help out. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't have editor hierarchies here, no matter how much some people seem happy to go along with them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest a "hierarchy." Wikipedia does, however, have processes and different ways of managing particular processes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You did, although inadvertently. Some of those processes are robust and others have single points of failure. When you create a process where that single point of failure rests with an individual, then you create a hierarchy, whether you intended to or not. Wikipedia works best as a collaborative system. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The community consensus is in control, regardless. As I understand it, some of that was tested last winter in an RfC. But one user, saying to another user, in effect, 'you are failing my standards of properly managing your responsibilities', and the other user replying: 'no I am not, you are interfering with my ability to properly manage within my assigned duties', is not a hierarchy. It's a process disagreement, which needs a process solution, which is usually done by customary usage, in the absence of other valid methods being employed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is all fine; however the next step -- the FPP and declaration of a ban, was not. Nobody Ent 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with hierarchies. They're everywhere. We recognise competency and delegate decision-making to those that demonstrate it, all through every aspect of life. Raul has demonstrated his competency. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's true, he set it up competently, in 2004. What about the manner in which he, as Alan puts it, demonstrates "different ways of managing particular processes" today? Can you opine as to that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to. I read the RFC. I realise you disagree, but the arguments at the RfC in favour of Raul continuing in the position were compelling. I was convinced. And the vast majority of editors there, most of whom were familiar enough with his performance to be able to make an informed judgment, endorsed that view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Raul demonstrated a lack of competency with the FPP, ban declaration, and opening of the ANI. Nobody Ent 20:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That was then. There have been significant changes since then. Certainly the present threads raise concerns which may affect the feelings, especially when you consider that Br'er is not a troll, but has probably done more to improve the technical side of FAs than anyone else in quite a long time. The argument then, as was widely accepted, was that things were running smoothly, there was no reason for a change and that an autocrat who administered fairly and remained above the fray was preferable due to the nature of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Things certainly have changed since then. When I expressed my view at that RFC I was considering the FAC process, not TFA, and I've got more than a little tired of receiving 59 minutes warning of an imminent TFA. Added to which SandyGeorgia did almost all the heavy lifting both at FAC and at TFAR, but she's no longer around. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen complaints about lack of warning on TFAs but couldn't tell how significant a problem it is. I don't think I've read your thoughts on what to do. Do you have any suggestions? (I wish I'd seen your post before I proposed a topic ban just below.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly rocket science. The only TFA delegate is Dabomb87, who hasn't been active for almost a month now, and Raul is largely an absent landlord. This whole topic has more than a slight odour of shooting the messenger IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indulge me. What's the way forward? It might be obvious to you but it's not to me. Do you favour replacing Raul, appointing new delegates, both or changing the system? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What he said, on both. I am hoping for the appointment of someone who can get in the middle, and whose job is not at Raul's pleasure.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity Wehwalt, can you be more specific about this. Do you want a new RfC? Do away with the existing delegates? Personally I'm upset to see the number of editors we've lost since last January and carry a huge amount of guilt because all of this seemed to blow up with my dispute with Alarbus, but I'd like to see concrete proposals instead of complaints. Bridge mending is more constructive than bridge building and a lot of bridges were burned during the winter, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote what I meant. That's what I'm looking to do. In the future, I'd like to find a way to make this whole thing less dramatic, so we don't have to have conversations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what you've written is cryptic. Perhaps it's so unintentionally or maybe I'm just stupid, but what exactly, clearly, do you propose? And how do you propose going about it? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted a simple proposal to help the process, it would be easy to ask Brianboulton to take on some of the work that Sandy and DaBomb have been doing. If you wanted a radical proposal, I'd ask Malleus to do the same and simply give him admin status against his protestations. Considering how much he's been on the wrong end of admin actions over the years, there's nobody I'd trust more to know how to avoid abusing the tools. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd Support that in a heartbeat. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lovely suggestion about Brain Boulton there from folks who haven't been paying attention-- those of us who do and have, have spoken with Brain many times already. Can we stop speculating about the FAC process, which is nothing more than another attempt to disrupt a process which is functioning fine by the same crowd that did it less than a year ago? And why is this discussion about the FA process being held here without the involvement of FA people, and driven by the same group who seeks to unseat Raul via disruption, when they know multiple RFCs have already favored Raul's leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

FAC isn't the issue here, Graham and Ian are doing a stellar job running things there. It's not that people want to unseat Raul, it's his inactivity that has been the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously my question isn't getting across. Personally I'm not at all in love with the TFA process, so could care less. But is the discussion to change TFA being held here, now; will it be held elsewhere; and why are names being bandied about (no problems with Brian and Malleus) but it all seems so out-of-process. Just wondering whether there is a process, whether a process will be put into place and how. That's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

/I/ suggested to both Brian and Mally that they get more involved (and that is a lot of why we're here). Others have made such suggestions; Wehwalt, Rex, you. MarkA and Crisco have been suggested/offered. Really the only one with a problem with that is the guy that's disengaged, getting way behind, offering no leadership, and is abusing tools in a battleground manner. The FA process without him would improve considerably and quickly. Who's going to bell the cat? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been here long enough to understand exactly if a process is needed and if so what the process should be. What I'm wondering is whether AN/I is the place to make these decisions? Or run another RfC? Or maybe have someone knock on Dabomb's door and find out whether he's coming back. It just seems to me like decisions are being bandied about and people jumping on them quickly. To be honest, we need to be smart about who is in charge of TFA - it involves some sort of logic in terms of choosing pages, writing skills for the blurbs, and a daily commitment. I'm not sure this is the place and the manner to make these decisions is all I'm saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been here plenty long. How many processes on wiki have a director? One. We don't need one person, we need collaboration, cooperation. We need good logic, like running Olympic games the day they open, logic like running train stations on the 150 anniversary, not four days before. A group that doesn't slack and not put stuff up until hours before it's live, who make a daily commitment and don't take wikibreaks when their misuse of tools is called. That's all I've been saying. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, we seem to agree. In which case maybe all this churning achieved something? Truthkeeper (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what makes it all so interesting...Modernist (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As TFA has absolutely nothing to do with the FAC process so far as I can see I don't see why it ought to be within Raul's remit anyway. And as TFAs in my experience simply cause aggravation for their editors by and large I'd be quite happy to see them disappear from the main page altogether in the proposed main page redesign. So I'm not so bothered about whether an additional TFA delegate is appointed or "democratically" elected, but clearly there needs to be one. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Would it be true to say Jack drove Sandy off the project? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea; it may have been a factor, but I doubt it was the deciding factor. You'd have to ask Sandy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack's last interaction with Sandy was on Talk:Sean Combs. Who was trying to drive who where, I leave as an exercise for the student. -- Dianna (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is typical incorrect information that I have come to expect from Diannaa, which is the norm for these Alarbus/Merridow sock farm discussions and the usual band of supporters (Wehwalt, PumpkinSky aka Rlevse, recently Crisco and Arsten). The Sean Combs situation, by the way, was a continuance of Merridew's long-standing issue with Gimmetorw. Post-data: no one drove me off the project-- I'm enjoying my summer but not missing any of these usual antics, which I watch, and for which the same crowd always appears ... the six or eight of them travel together, consistently. Re AnthonyCole, below, yes, when Alarbus and PumpkinSky turned up at FAC (and eventually DYK) where they harassed Raul and disrupted the process, were joined by this same group of supporters (Wehwalt, Dianna, in a bid to install Wehwalt as FA director), yes, we knew they were socks (no one BUT socks and this handful of six had an issue, and the agenda was to install Wehwalt as FA director) but Merridew and Rlevse had the support of some arbs who stifled discussion and eventually welcomed Merridew and his sock Br'er when he returned, so the disruption was enabled and we weren't able to say or do anything until FOUR DIFFERENT RFC's launched by this same crowd were broadly defeated and Raul's discretion and position were again supported. Why one or two arbs support Merridew/Alarbus/B Rabbit and his socking and disruption is something that will have to be dealt with in the next arbcom elections-- a separate matter. The FAC RFC's definitively yielded broad support of Raul and the way FAC is run with the only naysayers being this very same crowd that is disrupting TFA/R today-- the Merridew supporters. The disruption of the FA process should not be allowed to continue, as it seems to have the same goal as the failed coup against FAC almost a year ago had ... for a small crowd to gain control of mainpage scheduling. The FA process is one in which Raul's discretion has been upheld time after time, and if anything is likely to drive many off the project (and likely already has), it is this newfangled acceptance of cabalism and bands of disrupters, supported by folks who weigh in at ANI who don't have the background or take the time to review the history before opining in ways that will undermine longstanding well functioning processes. In the past, before several good old fashioned cabals were dealt with by the arbs, at least the cabalistas knew how to write articles and were concerned with content-- now the unbridled drive for power that we see surfacing in roving bands on Wikipedia isn't even related to producing quality content-- just power for the sake of power. No interaction ban-- it is time to remove the disruptors from FAC ... four RFC's is enough. Yes, Alarbus, Merridew, Br'er, Rlevse, PumpkinSky et al and their band of supporters have done enough bullying around FAC ... and waterskiing is more fun than engaging disruption, as it's unpleasant to watch this continue. Please remove Alarbus/Merridew and all of his socks from all FAC pages, and let's begin to treat the small support group as the coordinated editing that it is-- the recent TFA/R disruption is meant to undermine exactly what makes the process work (Raul's discretion, Alarbus threatened to do this in the past), and has already been addressed via RFC. And Mark Arsten as a facilitator of FAC? Absolutely not ... he is a consistent supporter of less than quality articles, and not someone who has been around long enough to understand how FAC functioned before the recent disruption or how it functions best. Raul has discretion, he is the reason FAC works, this band is most often the reason FAC falters, and those who are saying Raul has acted improperly need to dig up the multitude of RFCs validating Raul's position and discretion. Please review history ... if someone would post it, there's alway a remote chance that 1) folks other than the AlarbusMerridew/RlevsePumpkinSky/Diannaa/Wehwalt crowd will opine (they are all involved up their eyeballs in the long-standing harassment of Raul and FAC) and 2) someone will actually read the RFCs and understand the history before further empowering this crowd's long-standing disruption of the FAC process, where Raul's discretion and authority has been validated mutliple times over many years by the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll do some reading. Any diffs that come to hand without too much trouble would be appreciated. Otherwise I was just going to search project space for "Jack Merridew" and browse through the results. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You go, Sandy! I support the FA director as a special case because I think the FA process is special. Raul should be supported in his wish to run FA without disruption. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When Alarbus turned up at FAC, did everyone know it was Jack from the outset? --Anthonyhcole (talk)

No. Obviously people knew from back channeling, but I for one had never heard of Jack Merridew until quite a while after Br'er Rabbit appeared. Whenever that was. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not clear why you would say "Alarbus"? Do you not mean "Br'er Rabbit"? Alarbus has not edited since March. As to whether "everyone" at FA knew, I dunno. Lots of people knew. Here is a thread at the AC showing that Raul had known Br'er=Jack pretty much since he started editing as Br'er Rabbit. -- Dianna (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think PumpkinSky was involved at FA for quite a while before anybody knew he was Rlevse. Was Alarbus engaging in disputes with people at FA that Jack Merridew had been in dispute with, without telling them he was Jack? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea who Alarbus was until after he was banned, and I also had absolutely no idea who Pumpkin Sky was either. I told Raul about Alarbus being banned - and it was the first that he heard about Alarbus being a sock...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus was never banned, to my knowledge. Are you talking about when Raul blocked that account, some months after the RfC during which Raul had some unkind things to say about Alarbus?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever - after he was busted and stopped editing - until he came back and started editing again under his current name. As far as Raul goes - he can speak for himself...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Jack Merridew never edited any FA type stuff; he mostly edited pop culture, actresses, some political stuff. The interest in featured articles was new as of August/September 2011; he was not in contact with any of the FA crowd before that point. -- Dianna (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the editor in question with the current user name of Br'er Rabbit came into contact with the FA "crowd" when as Alarbus he ran into a dispute with me last November. That began an unfortunate series of events. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. He started improving FA articles in August and September, like I said above. User:Victoria and Albert; User:Portuguese Man o' War; User:One Ton Depot. -- Dianna (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper is correct - it all started at the talk page at Ernest Hemingway; and I pointed out that it was a FA and shouldn't be changed without consensus...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you and Truthkeeper were not the first FA editors that Jack came into contact with; those would be the editors he met when working as User:Victoria and Albert, User:Portuguese Man o' War, and User:One Ton Depot in August, Sept, and October. I gotta go to the gym now, ttyl. -- Dianna (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I never even knew until now that Victoria and Albert was part of this until just this moment, and didn't find out until much later about the others, so that makes me wrong, Diannaa? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Gawd. Good night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Were two or more of User:Victoria and Albert, User:Portuguese Man o' War, User:One Ton Depot or User:Br'er Rabbit ever in dispute with the same editor? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: How far do we push this interaction ban? If Jack simply comments on a specific request at TFAR, does that thus disqualify Raul from exercising his role as director for that article? Resolute 15:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove Merridew from the FA process-- four RFCs is enough, the disruption has gone on for almost a year, and the poking and provoking of Raul is intentional, just as it was before the RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Move that Jack Merridew/User:Br'er Rabbit be banned from Featured Article pages

"A Featured Article topic ban for Jack Merridew would resolve this problem efficiently." (Tony Sidaway, above: 01:21, 15 August 2012). I agree with this sensible suggestion. Perhaps the ban could be limited to certain pages that Raul and his delegates nominate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony has been dogging me for 7 years; he's like totally involved ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I've got a lot more reading to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) It looks like you're going to scrape through this one without a ban :). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support This seems more enforceable than the above proposal. --Rschen7754 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify my stance, I am not necessarily endorsing Raul's behavior here, but the proposal in the section above is unworkable. --Rschen7754 20:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I support this as the "least worst" option. If anyone proposes anything better, I'm open to it. --Rschen7754 05:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't support any movement towards allowing "untouchables" to mandate policy or procedure on an open project. — Ched :  ?  19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Ched. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ditto. Incidentally, this thread is an assertion of authority that the community, not the director, controls access to the FA pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure I can support at this point, mostly because my understanding of their conflict is limited. However, I do believe Jack's actions that led to this latest spat were disruptive, and that for the sake of the TFA process (and therefore the most visible page on Wikipedia), if it happens again, then Jack should be quickly banned from the appropriate pages. But at this point, if he wishes to comment in good faith on TFAR nominations, or discuss the process on the talk page - focused on the process, not Raul - he should be free to do so. Resolute 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I moved a page to the 25th, where it belongs (150th anniversary) noting that the bottom links would need fixing, Raul blanks it but then says he will run it that day and that I "broke" it by not fixing the links (which would be to unknown pages). So, he is going to be restoring my fix... I believe he was just making the point that he owns all of those pages. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Observe Anthonyhcole's bad faith ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) (Tim has said this is not the case)

• Bad faith? You were extremely rude to a friend of mine the other day, and from memory were very involved in adding controversial furniture to TFAs. A lot of people are upset with you and you have been banned from this project. On the face of it, you're awful. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to read your history. I'm going to your own words and actions to decide what to think about you, rather than rely on second-hand reports and block logs. So far, you're coming up intelligent, amusing, somewhat charming and helpful. I loved your signature at that RfA. But there's a lot of reading ahead. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• It would have been better if you had done your reading before you made your proposal. Simply go to the talk page of Br'er Rabbit and count the "thanks" of a few months. Read the changes to TFAR: helpful, correcting. therefore:
• Oppose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair cop. I'll wear that. I was working off a six month old RfC, and some appallingly rude behaviour a couple of days ago that drove a good writer off the project and upset a friend. But there's more to this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That is /not/ true. As the saying goes, you don't know Jack. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Which /bit/? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems to me it would resolve it efficiently, but unfairly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Opppose – (ec) From what I've seen, Jack/Br'er makes good contributions to both FA articles and discussions. Obviously, he also butts heads sometimes, but he's clearly a net positive in those areas. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Blanket bans on anyone for a bit of "incivility" (Whatever that is) is ridiculous. Br'er calls it as he sees it, usually with the good faith goal of actually improving the encyclopedia. If people can't cope with that, they have bigger problems than can be solved here. Tired of people racing to ANI to declare someone persona non grata just because of a disagreement on content, however heated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the sandwich Nobody Ent 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If there's going to be a sanction for a valuable contributor, it should be a tightly focused one. Jack does great work to high-quality pages and generally works very well with content contributors, with a few notable exceptions. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I'm sick of his incessant wikilawyering. Bon voyage. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Montanabw and others. Br'er has helped me and I'm a nobody. Is it that he has a sense of humor that gets people's backs up so quickly? (He knows tons more than most editors here. Definitely a net positive, plus he edits daily and doesn't go missing.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Kick it up to the arbs. Merridew is a big problem across Wikipedia, not only at FAC, banning him from FAC will most likely only result in another couple dozen socks from one of Wikipedia's most enduring and accepted sockmasters, and the rest of us deserve to know why the arbs have allowed this to continue-- his involvement at FAC and TFA/R is only one symptom of the broader ill-- his desire to install his preferences Wikiwide, and a testament to the means he uses to accomplish his goals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that may be a viable option. There are serious accusations being flung around going both ways that really need to be resolved in a formal setting once and for all, examining the evidence to determine what is truth, rather than the fast-paced world of ANI where people choose sides based on politics. --Rschen7754 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree that an Arb case would be a good idea given the complexity of the situation. Although I'm sure the Arbs would be unhappy to have their summer vacation interrupted by this. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, prefer to kick this upstairs to ArbCom to see why they have amused themselves by letting troublemakers have free rein to torment other volunteers who make the place run. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yeah, his style isn't to everyone's taste. I get that, and perhaps he should be a little bit more conciliatory. But I do agree with with several of the above that he's a net positive to the encyclopedia. I for one have been on the receiving end of his wikimarkup expertise in that - without my asking, at least the first time - he updated the references in two of my FAs and my current FAC, along with a couple other articles I intend to work on. And even though we've never really interacted beyond him teaching me {{sfn}} and helping with formatting, all of those interactions have been really positive and helpful. I don't think it would be good for the project to kick him out - plus, my reference formatting would be a mess... ;) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly dumb question

Am I the only person confused by the ridiculous amount of accounts operated by Jack, and am I the only one who thinks that a restriction to just one username would extremely helpful in unraveling this mess? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• It would, yes, but enforcing it would be the devil's own (I can name five offhand, and there's dozens). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Partial, those declared mostly — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So what if it's hard to enforce? Let's quote WP:SOCK here: "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. ... Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages (see below), with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them." Where's the expectation here? Where's the valid reason? I'm just as much of a fan of Jack's article work as anyone else, but this is simply disruptive. (I'll also note that he had this exact restriction until he unilaterally withdrew from it... I feel like we would have had many less headaches now if people had actually enforced it) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did not ArbCom restrict Jack to a single account in allowing him to return as Br'er Rabbit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Viktoria Bolonina

Viktoria Bolonina has just been deleted without any debate taking place. It was originally tagged as lacking references, but this was rectified. Now I find it has been deleted without being nominated for deletion or without any discussion taking place.

Sardaka (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged for CSD A7, 16 minutes after the last time you edited the article. It appears to have remained tagged for about 6 hours uncontested before being deleted. Nothing amiss here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should have at least put a {{Db-notability-notice}} message on your talk page, or if they thought they didn't want to patronise you per WP:DTR, give you a two line notice saying they added {{db-a7}} tag to it. You can probably get an admin to move it back into your userspace so you can have a look at it, and someone can check the references. If an article has references, then unless it's blank or saying something like "This is my cat. Isn't he cool" with a Facebook page as a reference, I would challenge it being a valid CSD-A7. I rant about this occasionally, but I've come across enough people who've said "Hey, I was looking at this page on Wikipedia a few months back and I can't find it now - where's it gone?" (yes, it went to Articles for Deletion, which they'll never see) to know that speedy deletes unless they really are blindingly obvious drivel can bite more people than you think. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The author of the article was properly informed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The author's new and might not even have read the CSD template, or possibly even understood what it meant. Policy may have been followed, and for all I know it may have been a totally valid A7, but it's rare I see anyone except the author complaining about them, and usually indicates it's worth at least somebody explaining exactly why the speedy took place. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It was referenced, but not well-referenced. Two of the four references were to facebook, one to Youtube and one I didn't recognize, so at best, it had one reference. That said, I'll repeat what has already been noted, if you want it userfied (copied to a usersubpage, where it can be improved in peace), just say so, I'll be happy to.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a Wikilawyer, but while that sounds like a "snow delete" for AfD, it doesn't sound like an A7. We've got to get them right according to policy otherwise it can seriously irritate newbies (and FWIW, I can make bad calls on a speedy as well). Up to Sardaka if they want it to be userfied really. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

At best this should be a redirect to The Voice (Australia). GiantSnowman 14:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ritchie333. None of the references are independent (the fourth goes to the TV show's website), so I can't see this existing as a stand-alone article. However, the article did assert notability ("She rose to prominence as being a contestant of the first season of 'The Voice Australia'"), so A7 does not apply. This should have gone to AFD, or a talk-page discussion for a redirect. Resolute 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, of course, Sardaka, are you aware of any decent coverage of Bolonina in independent media? That would help any assertion that this article can exist as a stand alone. Resolute 15:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just redirected it, didn't restore the page history. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Elephant in the room: The question of the presence and quality of sources is irrelevant, as sources are not required to avoid A7 - all that is needed is a credible claim of importance. And "She rose to prominence as being a contestant of the first season of 'The Voice Australia'" looks like a credible claim to me. As it stood, it wouldn't have had a chance of surviving AfD, but that doesn't make it eligible for A7. I suggest the most practical way forward is to userfy it, and explain the need for reliable sources in order to avoid AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Boing! is right - it is a common mistake, though. I've had to remove numerous A7 tags for that reason - because a claim was made, and that's all that is needed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with Boing about this one. Granted, A7 does not require sources, but it does require a "credible claim of significance or importance." Reality show contestants are ten a penny, and just saying she "rose to prominence" by being one doesn't make it true. JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed not, however that's a job for the verifiability of the article to sort that out via its references, and, by extension, taking it to AfD. My personal feeling is after reading a genuine candidate for A7, the foremost thought in your mind should be "So what?" It should be totally and utterly unsalvageable, even as a redirect (which, as we've seen suggested, could have been a possible outcome for this one at AfD). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't likely stand a snowball's chance at AFD, but it does appear to have a credible claim, which is the standard for A7, so likely the CSD was hasty. Still, userfying may be the best solution, allow it to get worked up a bit and then moved back into main space, to give it a fair chance of avoiding AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

While you're all having a meta-debate, notice that before this incident was started, Sardaka started User talk:Anthony Bradbury#Viktoria Bolonina, which is the correct course of action, but didn't wait a reasonable length of time for a reply and then came here, which is an incorrect course of action. Xe has since received a reply at User talk:Sardaka#Viktoria Bolonina. The next step as far as the article itself is concerned, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, still doesn't involve this noticeboard. We now return you to your scheduled meta-discussion of CSD criterion #A7. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Bah, we aren't bureaucrats, we do everything at ANI, even windows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• He should have gone to Articles for Creation, the page would have sat there getting declined again and again until either it was properly sourced to survive an AfD or the author gave up. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• A7 is one of those CSD criteria that often leads to disputes. The point of that particular CSD rationale is to help us easily and quickly get rid of articles that don't even try to show why the subject merits inclusion. An article that says "Fred Smith is a tax lawyer from Alabama" has no place in Wikipedia and shouldn't have to go through AfD or even the wait of proposed deletion. Also, outlandish claims of importance like "Fred Smith is a tax lawyer from Alabama who has saved the world from destruction by extra-terrestrials on four separate occasions" don't fly. Hence why the policy states that they must be credible claims of importance. The problem is that the phrase "credible" is open to interpretation and is totally subjective. Some people insist that nothing that isn't verifiable is credible (and so expect to see sources) while others insist that any claim that's somewhat plausible can pass the bar we set. I lean more toward the latter than the former, but ultimately without a clear definition of what is meant by credible, this is always going to come down to administrator discretion. -- Atama頭 21:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• At WP:Csd#Articles under A7 it states "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" and "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Thus anyone who thinks verifiability, notability, or reliable sources are required is clearly wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• After undergoing 3 months of CSD mentoring post-RfA and subjecting myself to the inspections of both Boing! and DGG regarding dozens of A7'ed articles in particular, I'm quite confident anything that makes any kind of credible claim to fame must go to AFD instead. CSD isn't about convenience, it is about the absolute, most obvious cases only. Deleting was in good faith, but it was in error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Onion hotdog

Onion hotdog (talk · contribs) apparently created an attack page against Dougweller (talk · contribs) at Metapedia and has resorted to personal attacks at Talk:Roger Pearson. Some attention seems warranted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not an attack page, Metapedia merely records details on race denialist trolls, the same with Afrocentrics, and other promoters of pseudosciences. Wikipedia breaks its own rules on NPOV, by allowing race denialists on race related pages. Onion hotdog (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious from just a glance at Talk:Roger Pearson,that Onion hotdog has proven himself to be quite unable to function as an editor on Wikipedia. NPOV problems, battleground mentality, personal attacks both on- and offsite. I would expect that they are probably socking as well, since the level of dedication against certain editors suggest a much longer editing background than the few edits their contribs list has to show. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that both WP:RGW and WP:Advocacy may be of benefit to Onion hotdog and Teddyguyton. -- Atama頭 21:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:NPA... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've hidden <redacted> a personal attack by User:Onion hotdog on talk:Roger Pearson here and think a block is needed. Vsmith (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Probably qualifies for rev/del. Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That was malicious enough to warrant an "only notice", and I've left a warning, but declined to block at this point. Hopefully Onion hotdog gets the point and this won't escalate further. I'm not going to revdel though, we don't normally do that for an "ordinary" personal attack. Another admin may delete the revision at their discretion. -- Atama頭 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and my warning was in the spirit of WP:ROPE. If Onion hotdog doesn't take a different tack soon, an indefinite block may be in order. -- Atama頭 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I completely agree with Atama, a warning is the answer, and a block will be the next response to a personal attack. A cursory look at their edits makes me wonder if they are WP:HERE for the same reasons as the rest of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. The background is that yesterday I discovered an attack page on me at Rational Wiki (really bizarre page, based on the ramblings of two internet kooks). The upshot of that was that the page was deleted and I was made a sysop. It appears that a relatively new and inactive editor there then created two attack pages on Metapedia (using a different username). One of these was about me, the other a 'list of race denialist trolls'. That has just 4 names, someone on a forum, an editor at Rational Wiki, me, and Maunus. It's hard to believe that Onion Hotdog just happens to be in a dispute with Maunus and me and quoted from the Metapedia attack page by coincidence - he is almost certainly the person who created the Metapedia attack pages. Dougweller (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The metapage was created by a user called "Atlantid" - a substantial part of Onion hotdog's edits have been to insert the idea of an "atlantid" race into various articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, people, but... a warning? Seriously? After this and this, and the creation of the attack pages on those other wikis, I can't think of any reason why anything below an immediate permanent ban could be an appropriate response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I quite agree with FutPerf. This is a troll with a whopping 66 edits, making nasty personal attacks, even if you don't believe he is responsible for the attack pages. I cannot imagine how it harms the encyclopedia to show him the door, nor can I imagine any time when an editor like him suddenly reared up after a warning with an "Ohmigod! I've been so horribly blind and uncivil! I shall now be a productive and polite editor!" Ravenswing 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that is the way Atama chose to deal with it, so that is how it should rest. I'm sure there's no lack of watchers (including me) ready to pounce with an indef. Much more likely of course is that this one vanishes and another surfaces - but it seems clear that this account will not edit again in the same vein, or at most will get just one more shot... Franamax (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, procedurally. Before Atama commented here, two other editors had argued for a block. Atama was the first to speak about not blocking, and just because he chose to use the words "I decline" in doing so doesn't mean he gets to cut the whole discussion short and make that the final administrative word on the matter. Unless I hear a convincing reason why O.h.'s behaviour did not actually deserve an indef block, I'll make that block in a short while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Behaviour deserves nothing, it is all about actions and outcomes. If the actions continue to produce disruptive outcomes, even once, they will be met with a permablock. I see no hint of leniency here, so why the need for a trophy? They will just abandon that account anyway, and if not, the history is there. I've only ever upped another's sanction myself once when I'd already specified a blocking time in a prior warning. And having been on the other end of other admins messing about with my intentions, I'm on the side of just sitting back and waiting for "told you so" until my (Atama's here) approach is shown wrong. YMMV but what's that meatball link about supporting each other? Franamax (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If by "what's that meatball link about supporting each other?" you are suggesting that Fut.Perf. should have supported Atama, my feeling is that it is more important to support the good editors who were the target of off-wiki attack pages. An indef is not a trophy—it's WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indef isn't the same as WP:DENY. Cleaning up afterwards is. And as I said above, their edits may lead someone to the conclusion that an indef for not being here to build an encyclopedia, but I didn't have time to do more than a cursory look (not the reason they were here). Giving a warning isn't a sign of weakness, btw, and was backed with a rationale by two admins. Using off-wiki reasons to block is not without risk since we don't have the tools to definitely link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's my reason why I – strongly – feel that a mere warning was insufficient: a warning implies that an offending editor could still make good by merely avoiding a repetition of the offending behaviour. This doesn't work here, because this type of off-wiki harassment attack is a burn-all-bridges, past-the-point-of-no-return kind of offense. In these cases, we have victims to protect. Whatever the offender does or does not do in the future, it is imperative that the victim should never again be exposed to a situation where they'd have to encounter or deal with them on this project. This is why, even if the attacker suddenly became a model wikipedian and began spurning out featured articles at a rate of one per day, I would still insist on keeping him banned. This is in fact not an "indefinite" block, it's a permanent, never-to-be-lifted-until-hell-freezes-over block. – Now, you might object and say, Dougweller is a big boy, he doesn't need that kind of protection. Yes, indeed, Dougweller is probably more battle-hardened and cold-blooded than most of us when it comes to dealing with nasty trolls, and his composure during this discussion has been admirable. But it's a matter of principle, and not everybody is as thick-skinned as he is. I can assure you all that if what happened to him had happened to me, and an admin at this board were to tell me that no, he wasn't going to block the attacker immediately, that admin would find himself in a hell of a shitstorm the next minute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Off-wiki attack sites basically only serves one purpose: To intimidate other Wikipedia editors. Such behaviour results in immediate indeffing when it comes to legal threats, and since the purpose with attack-sites is the same as with legal threats, the result should be the same here on Wikipedia. We simply cannot accept editors trying to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nasty blatant troll - nuke with prejudice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave a warning for on-wiki behavior, because nobody has done so anywhere that I could find, not on the editor's talk page, not even on the article discussion page. I'm generally reluctant to block based on behavior when no warning has ever been given to an editor, except for bright-line situations such as a vandalism-only account or a person making a legal threat. I made no judgement about off-wiki behavior. If someone wants to block for that, be my guest. There are other administrators who are more familiar about what's going on off-wiki than myself. I've been accused of being too weak about blocking people in the past, and I'm not surprised that I'm being criticized for it now, but in general if I'm going to make a mistake I'd rather make a mistake in being too lenient than being too harsh. -- Atama頭 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We expect the editors we entrust with the sysop bit to act in good faith, relatively promptly and with good judgement. Nothing about that expectation implies admins should be uniform clones such that two different individuals evaluating the same situation come to the same conclusion. Both approaches presented here -- final warning and indef block are perfectly fine and I would criticize neither. To the extent we also prefer issues be dealt with with a minimum of fuss, it's generally preferable admins defer to first actor except when the action is significantly out of reasonable bounds. Declining to immediately block OH is in no way an endorsement of their behavior nor a indication of a lack of support for DW, it's acting in accordance with the concept that blocks are preventative rather than punitive. I encourage FPOS to defer to other admins in the future in similar circumstances but see no benefit to unblocking OH now. We should support Atama and FPOS and DW and good editors harassed both on-wiki and off; I don't see those goals as mutually exclusive. Nobody Ent 19:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think everyone involved here did a good job.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have no problem with FPaS blocking. It isn't the choice I would make, but my choice was extremely generous and I know this. Fut Perf's choice was more direct but within the range of expected norms. As Ent said, we all have different ways of dealing with issues, sometimes my way, sometimes others, this is normal. Everyone knows that if I genuinely had a problem with the solution, I would say so :) Nothing unusual here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Micronations being added to Category:North American countries

See Category:North American countries where Alan J. Villarruel (talk · contribs) is adding micronations to this category, and groups such as the Washitaw Nation. I'm off to bed so no time to deal properly but will notify this new user. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fake articles in userspace

They've been reverted by other editors. His userpage says he is 13, but he seems to have experience enough here to construct fake articles in his userspace. See for instance User:Alan J. Villarruel/Interstate 60 where the paragraph starting "One section of I-60 running from Netcong" is copied from Interstate 80. User:Alan J. Villarruel/Eureka Metropolitan Area seems to be just nonsenses, eg " It is the third largest metropolitan area in the Silicon Valley, the first being Los Angeles and San Francisco, ...The metropolitan area's Silicon Valley location, which is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions," (fictional geography etc). Compare with Eureka, California. His own user page mentions Chuckee cheese which rings a faint bell. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OBSIDIAN†SOUL "I hope Jesus admits liars" & accusations of tag teaming

Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user had an issue with a story that occurred today regarding the Family Research Council shooting at their headquarters. He moved the story down to the controversy section which it is not a controversy at all nor is it controversial at all. I reverted his actions and brought it back up to history section. He wasn't too pleased with that change back so he decided to use personal attacks against 3 editors (one was not involved) [10] He accused myself, Belchfire, and Lionelt of propagandizing although Lionelt had not been involved at all whatsoever. Then he used another personal attack against us "I hope Jesus admits liars". I replied saying "See: WP:NPA" and proceeded to hat his personal attack comment. He then reverted that and took out the "I hope Jesus admits liars" comment with a reason of "censoring more like" here [11] even though NPA allows for editors to remove these comments when I used the {{hat}} instead of deleting it. Also [12] he accused us of tag teaming when it did not happen since in this case I was the only one that reverted his edit to keep it in the appropriate section and I did propose the question that we could make it like the Luby's article and have a fork detailing the incident on a separate page. ViriiK (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think this would be better dealt with at WP:WQA. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand but the personal attacks is not warranted. ViriiK (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Really? I took the BAIT, because no one else seems to be standing up to what you guys are blatantly doing. Your talk pages are filled with backslapping cheer at successfully sterilizing the articles on Christian lobbying groups. An activity I've been observing for a while though I've never taken action against until now. In my naivety, I still never really realized how much of an organized effort it really was. The fact that Wikipedia allows this kind of circumvention of consensus, and one of them an administrator too, and still expect us to AGF without losing temper is asking too much. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, somebody should stand up to blatantly adding well-sourced facts to an article. Please. Belchfire-TALK 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My talk page is filled with Christian lobbying group efforts? I'm looking at it and I don't see any. So this makes it news to me. IIRC, the only related articles I've worked on is Family Research Council, which I've reverted your change since it was in the wrong section and not a controversial issue at all and you took that personally, Focus on the Family which had POV issues constantly being put in, and Chick-fil-A if you consider that a Christian lobbying organization. Other than that, I work on efforts against vandalism, and election-related articles. ViriiK (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's the chicken sammie. Is there a cross on it somewhere? Belchfire-TALK 01:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding? You mean removing, and rewording for the best possible saintly image depicted. The chicken sammie which you incidentally removed from the FRC article despite its notability as proven by the recent shooting. The SPLC listing you hid way down until it became advantageous to bring it up to the main body for the maximum sympathy garnered after the shooting. Even gleefully anticipating that SPLC will be blamed. That said, I'm fucking off. Have fun! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh. Look what I found. Apologies, I didn't notice sooner, as I don't really pay attention to AN/I stuff. This doesn't seem to be a first time thing, eh? I'm a bit mollified I'm not alone, nor the first to notice it. All makes sense now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've been seeing a whole lot of strong arming and finger pointing lately. Not just from the participants of this particular discussion, but from a whole lot of editors on a whole range of articles. I would hope that this disagreement can become civil again, as it looks as if many of the comments from both sides tend to be less about the content of the discussion, and more on the motives of the other side. This is the type of word play that needs to end. Focus on the topic and not on each other. I suggest you guys take this back to the talk page, because all you have done here is continue your accusations and arguments. That's not what this page is designed to do. I don't really see a need for any serious intervention by an admin, yet, but if the incivility continues and the focus of the debate doesn't get back on topic, there may be some, on both sides.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm probably going to get sniped at for daring to stick my nose here, but this and several other sections above are evidence of and really part of a WP:BATTLE over a range of American social conservatism articles which was apparently reawakened by the recent Chick-Fil-A flap, but which goes a very long way back. Depending upon your point of view, you may see an effort on the part of various liberals and liberal institutions to reframe discussion of conservatives and their institutions as malevolent by nature. Or you may not. Therefore there is a long-standing conflict at Family Research Council (and it's not the only case; it's just the one in the news at the moment, and the one I happened to catch) over how prominently to place the Southern Poverty Law Center's denunciation of it as a "hate group"; there was an RFC a year or so ago which can be seen in the article's talk page archives, and there is another RFC underway now to reverse the outcome of the last one. But this conflict goes much further back in time: recently I filed a COI/N issue concerning right-wing authoritarianism, in which the section on dissenting views was written by someone who has in fact published extensively on the subject and therefore effectively wrote in defense of his own work. That user has since retired from Wikipedia, but the battle continues.

There's a lot of bad faith going on here. I'm trying to hew down the middle, but it seems that on the conservative side there is something of an effort to minimize negative material, and on the liberal side a tendency to assert that their are conservatives, and then there are reasonable people. (IMO some of the subject material takes the same attitude, but be that as it may....) There is a lot of pushing the reversion envelope, gaming the system, and accusations of bad faith, some of the latter directed at me. In truth I don't see a lot in the events of the past month that justifies radical shifts in the tone of these articles, although a lot of them have been pretty lousy for a long time; what I see instead is that the news has set off a round of attention which in turn has reactivated the old efforts of the various sides to WP:OWN the articles on behalf their various political positions.

Editors need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not here to endorse one side or the other. As I said earlier in this, I get a strong sense from the conservative side that the cause must be defended; from the other side I get the sense that they feel that anyone who is reasonable is ipso facto not a conservative. Neither of these attitudes is constructive. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet endorsements you see, with these articles becoming positively glowing after multiple removals of the dirt by WP:Conservatism editors on arbitrary reasons like the source used being too partisan, which basically just means they're "liberal", and yet leaving biased conservative sources in place. I am not neutral on these issues, I know that and have never claimed to be such. But neither have I edited these articles extensively. That's more than can be said for these editors who've been sanitizing these articles through organized effort for months with nary a squeak from anyone. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As Mangoe points out, this happens on both sides of the issue. Everybody removes the dirt from their own side's people, while tossing it at the other side's after applying glue to make sure the maximum amount sticks. I think even Superman would say "a pox on both their houses"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, I've never engaged in such an activity. Would that make me naive and liable to lose in content disputes against editors with strong-arming tactics? Or should I just stop tiptoeing around with due process and adopt a more aggressive editing philosophy? Mangoe himself defended the removal of a sentence in the Family Research Council that would make it virtually devoid of any mentions of its actual activities. That was the edit that finally got me pulled into that article after months of silent observation. Though I appreciate the fact that he reinstated it and worded it more appropriately after a discussion. That said, this discussion here is pointless. My PA was an expression of frustration. I doubt Viriik and Belchfire are that thin-skinned. I apologize for the Jesus comment, but I will not withdraw the tag-teaming accusation per WP:SPADE. Notice how Belchfire did it again in the American Family Association reported below. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of Ray King article.

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

---

From a check of the article history, this page has been persistently vandalized since at least 2007.. apparently by the same anonymous user using several different IP addresses. Once one is blocked he gets another one... Either this page needs permanent protection to prevent IP vandalism or this user needs to be dealt with in such a way as he cant get a new IP address, if thats even possible. Spanneraol (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Since he's a Comcast user, he's able to get a new IP address easily since all one has to do is powercycle their modem off for at most 8 hours and Comcast releases the IP address assigned to the user which he'll get a new one on the next assignment. ViriiK (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked IP and 1 month semi-protection. Let us know if more is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Contaldo80

I tagged the Pope Julius III and Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte articles with nuetrality and undue weight tags because a good half of the articles quotes rumours and writings from the pontiff's political enemies. Contaldo80 continually removes the tags, without discussion, because he declares my concerns are void and not valid.

He makes comments like "it's fairly likely that a high proportion of popes in history have been homosexual", which is not based on any fact and seems to show some sort of bias towards the pontiffs and personal agenda labeling every pope as a homosexual. When referring to the gossip entered in the article, he suggests that we "not see this in terms of 'enemies' and 'rumours' but rather accounts given by contemporaries"; that's like suggesting that the Obama article include his the president's Kenyan birth, communist leanings and socialist agenda because we shouldn't see such talk as rumours from enemies but more as contemporarary sources.

He goes on to say all the gossip and rumours "will not definitively tell us what is true and what is not, but it tells us what people perceived to be going on". This is an encyclopedia, we are suppsoed to focus only what is true, not what we thinkis happening, rumours, libel, slander, gossip, truthiness or gut feelings. It is a ridiculous argument.

For those that read the articles or are familiar with the scandals of Julius III, I did not edit out the whole affair but focused on the nepotism and made a mention about the rumours and their effect. I believe this is a more appropriate response than using half the space for gossip. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like something that needs to go to WP:DRN since it is content related, and not so much an "incident" (the I in ANI). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm happy for it to go to WP:DRN or wherever is best placed. With regards to the article an unregistered user tagged the article referring to unspecified 'aims at a political cause against the Church', and to exaggerate old rumours to 'serve a cause'. I asked for discussion on talkpage to understand whether these claims had any grounds (feeling that this risked turning into a polemic exercise), and explained the need to present the information in a neutral and balanced way - citing contemporary perceptions and why this was notable in terms of historical effect. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin add t tags back at least? And inform the editor that the tags are not supposed to be removed until the issue is resolved. And that resolved doesn't mean he dismisses people's concerns and declares himself correct on the subject. 50.44.145.236 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:82.6.15.97 Vandalism - Request block

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

---

Since this user's previous blocks in July, further vandalism has occurred in August. A further block is requested. JMcC (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks. Normally, WP:AIV is the better venue to report vandalism, for future reference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)\

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

User:Merlinschnee

Merlinschnee has been repeatedly inserting POV commentary , half of it written in fractured English, in articles related to the U.S. presidential election. Although he has been careful not to 3RR in any given article, his disruption spans several articles. Mitt Romney: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]; Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012: [18], [19]; Paul Ryan: [20], [21], [22], [23]. I think this pestiferous critter warrants a time-out. Mesconsing (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP edit warring on British Jews

British Jews has been the subject of much contention this week, due to a dispute over the BLP-worthiness of categorizing Ed Miliband as a British Jew. I considered reporting this to WP:ANEW, but given the potential BLP concerns and the behavior of the parties involved, I think the complexity of the issue merits a report here, instead. Here's the (rather long) timeline:

Tl;dr version: There are four or five parties, all established editors, edit warring repeatedly over the inclusion of a BLP mention in British Jews.

11 August: Youreallycan (talk · contribs) removes Miliband from the list with the edit summary "Removing Ed Milliband from the infobox - he is not even in the catagory British Jew". Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) reverts YRC ("rv edits not rooted in Wikipedia policies/guidelines.") 12 August: YRC re-removes Miliband ("Ed Milliband is a living person that is not even in the catagory British Jew - is clearly not notable as a british Jew - open a RFC") Nomoskedasticity re-reverts ("I thought you weren't editing articles") YRC and Nomoskedasticity go for ("As per my commentsd - living person that is not even in the BLP cat British Jew") another ("is this really the right time for you to get into an edit-war??") round ("POv pushing BLP violator") Viriditas (talk · contribs) joins in the reverting ("Take it to the talk page"). He is reverted by YRC ("BLP - you open a discuasiohn - the subject is not even in the wiki cat British Jew so does not belong in the infobox here") Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) reverts ("No basis in policy for this deletion."). YRC reverts his revert ("BLP - the subject is living and we have not even catagorised him as a British Jew - so there clearly needs discussion in regars to this disputed addion"). Viriditas files an ANEW report against YRC. A few minutes later, I full-protect the article for two days. On the ANEW report Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) enjoins YRC from editing "British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband, or any related page" until the (mostly unrelated) Arbcom request against YRC has been resolved. Since the page has been protected and YRC told to not edit related articles, Black Kite (talk · contribs) closes the report with no further action. About ten minutes after the ANEW report is closed, Viriditas opens a discussion of the issue at Talk:British_Jews#Removal_of_Miliband. 12 August - 15 August: With the article full-protected, extensive discussion about the issue goes on at [[Talk:British_Jews; however, neither side apparently convinces the other. 15 August: After the full-protection wears off, Nomoskedasticity returns Ed Miliband to the list ("per talk page discussion") Reverted by Snowded (talk · contribs) ("No consensus for change") Revert reverted by Viriditas ("Actually, there is a clear consensus for restoring the image and not a single argument explaining why we shouldn't") In the course of three consecutive edits, YRC reverts ("not - no consensus - that it is clearly still disputed and about a living Marxist athiest brought up in a secular family being tagged and promoted as a notable British Jew") I notice the revert-warring, but then see that the argument seems to have moved on to the talk page. I decide that perhaps the combatants have realized they were doing it again, and decided to go the disucssion route rather than the edit-warring route. 16 August: Turns out I was wrong. Gabriel Stijena (talk · contribs) reverts YRC ("you need a consensus on talk page for removing these pics") Snowded reverts Gabriel ("There has never been consensus on the talk page to add them, please wait until its resolved") Viriditas reverts Snowded ("On the contrary, I see an overwhelming consensus. Objecting for the sake of objecting while ignoring consensus is disruptive") Snowded reverts Viriditas ("Four editors four and three against is neither overwealming nor is it a concensus. stop edit warring,") Nomoskedasticity reverts Snowded ("rv per WP:OR, the obvious basis for Snowded's editing here") Discussion continues on the talk page, but no one is getting anywhere.

Given the possible BLP concerns here, as well as the length and breadth of the edit warring over time and number of users, I think this whole situation needs more scrutiny. Full-protection didn't get the message across, and blocking any of these users would presumably be contentious enough that one admin shouldn't do it without consulting others, so I'm now opening up what should be done to community discussion. (Please also note that YRC is currently undergoing an RfC which will most likely end in him agreeing to restrictions including a time-limited editing break, followed by (among other things) a time-limited topic ban on BLPs. This fact may or may not affect community opinion of how to deal with the British Jews situation) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Messy but not a record. The YRC RFc/U should not enter into this discussion -- it has not been closed at this point, and it is unreasonable to use bills of attainder in any case <g>. What we have is a categorisation dispute - and there is no really perfect noticeboard to resolve such an issue. My own position is that categorisation of living persons is fraught with peril, and that if there is any dispute, that such categorisation should be deprecated from the start. I suppose this might lead to the "wrong result" in some cases, but I suggest that there is no harm in not categorising a living person, while there is conceivable harm in categorising a living person. Advantage: not categorising. Collect (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's time the consensus at the RFC was weighed up etc, not many more comments look forthcoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• At the core it's still a content dispute; why not push suggest the involved parties towards dispute resolution? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I think most would agree that categorizing subjects as Jewish is an ongoing, contentious issue. The British Jews article is just a macrocosm of that problem. Frankly, I don't think there's any good way to deal with it generally, or at least not any way that would be approved by consensus. For the current issue, just get rid of the gallery in the infobox. If that's unacceptable to the community, then require that any person listed in the infobox be categorized as Jewish on their page. If whether they should be so categorized is in dispute, until that dispute is resolved, they can't be placed in the British Jews article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Second that - common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew: "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself". As someone who identifies as a British Jew, I obviously do not agree with this assessment, which I find personally offensive. But, regardless of my own views, this position does suggest that YRC should not be involved in such edits, since he appears to regard his own (minority) view as more important than Wikipedia guidelines and talkpage consensus. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is ANI a place to discuss how to deal with an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Of course it's a discussion on the article. If YRC believes that the description, or self-description, of a person as a British Jew is "racist in itself", then it is very hard to see how he can be editing objectively and in good faith on the article British Jews. RolandR (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see little evidence of 'objectivity' or 'good faith' in many others involved in the discussion either. Yes, it is possible to cherry-pick a rather silly comment by YRC to 'demonstrate' his lack of neutrality - would you like me to see what I can find from the 'other side'? Or would it instead be better to move ahead, and act on Bbb23s proposal? I've seen no arguments against so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, as far as I'm concerned the reason for this thread is that there's some serious disruption - by multiple people - going on on that article. It's based on a content dispute, yes, but the content isn't the problem I want to see addressed. What I want to see addressed is that no matter what the cause of it is, we need the disruption to stop. And I'm fresh out of good ideas for how to make that happen smoothly, so I'm hoping other people will weigh in here with ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, any other user would have been blocked on hitting 5RR in the space of just over an hour. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23's proposal would make a good topic for an RfC. I don't agree that ANI is the place to adopt it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Roland - "Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew" - I said, (and that comment was part of a talkpage discussion and should not be presented as a single comment like that) "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself" - I don't agree with that at all - I meant, to focus on race is racist in itself - you are taking the wrong interpretation of my comment, I didn't mean in a negative way at all - There are many other people that have stronger ties and connections that I do accept we can describe them as British Jews , British Sikhs etc - but Miliband is a Marxist atheist born in England and brought up in a secular family - I think its undue to add his picture to the infobox of the British Jew article under such a situation - he is not even in the British Jew category after discussion and sensitive consideration/discussion he was placed in the British people of Jewish descent. Its clearly a disputed and contentious issue/portrayal - users should find someone less contentious to add and stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewishness is not a race. I have suggested several times that if you are not inclined to learn properly about Jewishness and Judaism it would be constructive to leave related topics to people who do understand them. Part of the disruption we are now experiencing is that you have declined to learn and yet continue to edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So - if its not a race and hes a Marxist Atheist brought up in a secular family then he clearly does not belong in the infobox of a Wiki British Jew article does he - Is it contentious/disputable, is he a living person - Yes, yes, yes - so stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan

The concept you are clearly unfamiliar with is ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, can we try to not re-litigate the content dispute here? What would it take to get you all to stop reverting? Would you be willing to go to the WP:DRN or mediation? Would you be willing to open an RfC on the issue? My main concern here is the the revert-churn on that article has to stop, so what resolution methods could we send you to that would enable you all to stop reverting? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Category - British Jew (Ethnic group) - perhaps clarification is required. - They have stuffed him in anyways - contentious or not and I certainly won't be editing the article again anyways - if they like a Secular Marxist Atheist that much let them keep him - this is exactly the problem and the BLP violation through adding him to the infobox - its not clear that he is being added to an article about an ethnic group only - have a read - there are clear issues and its vague - in this article British Jews, Ethnic/Ethnicity is not mentioned at all in the lede. Youreallycan 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ed* Milliband a Marxist? Eh? Secretlondon (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ralph, his father, was reliably noted as such AFAICT in a large number of places. [24] may or may not be sufficient to label Ed an "atheist." It is a better source for calling David an atheist. It is certainly not usable to assert Jewshness to Ed per BLP standards. Collect (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't enough, for he has not said, "I am an atheist". He has said "I don't believe in God". There are reliable survey statistics showing that the majority of people who do not believe in God do not self-identify as atheists, but prefer another label like "agnostic" or "uninterested in religion". Per BLPCAT, we have to go by self-identification, and until and unless Miliband says "I am an atheist" we do not have any grounds for attributing that self-identification to him. --JN466 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: YRC has decided to begin his one-month editing break, BLP topic ban, etc as of now(ish), so he won't be contributing to this thread or the article in question for the foreseeable future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this should be an issue because all the sources on the Talk:British Jews page seem to support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. In fact no source indicating otherwise has been presented. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've presented a bunch of sources illustrating the difficulty. They are reproduced below. I note that British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom ... if we redirected British Jews to Judaism in the United Kingdom, then Miliband would be gone straight away. Alternatively, if we were to move the article to Britons of Jewish descent, I'd have no problem including Miliband. JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sources don't illustrate any difficulty at all. Here's the diff of my response on the article talk page (which is surely where this discussion belongs). Anyway, why on earth would we redirect British Jews to Judaism in the UK?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom? You do realise that putting Miliband in the infobox of British Jews is in some ways just as absurd as putting Salman Rushdie in the infobox for British Muslims? --JN466 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're not aware of the significant differences between Islam and Jewishness, perhaps you could make an effort to learn? The equivalence you're trying to make is just not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is Miliband's self-identification. And from the sources I've seen, including those below, he doesn't self-identify as a Jew, even as he acknowledges that his Jewish background is an important part of who he is. You may say that according to the Jewish perspective, he is and always remains a Jew, whether he practices Judaism or not. It matters diddlysquat. From the Catholic perspective, everyone baptised a Catholic is a Catholic forever – semel catholicus, semper catholicus – even if they loudly proclaim they are not, and instead aver they are Buddhist. The Catholic perspective on such a person is equally irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't display such a person in the infobox of a British Catholics article on the strength of what Catholicism says. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and it does not privilege culturally or religiously conditioned views that attribute identities to people against their will. Get over it. --JN466 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If differences or otherwise are irrelevant, then perhaps you could cease drawing equivalences. Once again, if self-identification is the only thing that matters, then we can go with what Miliband has said about himself, which leads quite directly to the conclusion that he is Jewish in the only way that matters. We might disagree on that matter, but I'm not the one who continues to make points and then say that they are irrelevant when challenged on them. I'm quite happy to stick to discussion on the basis of self-identification as policy requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayen—you say "…from the sources I've seen […] he doesn't self-identify as a Jew…"[25] I disagree, and I believe the following constitutes self-identification:

"There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. "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 but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous."[26]

The above is an intact, whole paragraph from a reliable source containing a quite clear quote from Miliband. I think that it is obvious that Miliband is saying that he is a nonobservant Jew. As editors I think we should be careful not to misconstrue the phrase "I'm Jewish". It means "I'm Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought the matter here it is a behavioural issue, I don't know whey the content is being discussed again. I attempted to summarise the position here. There are two questions, one is the ethnicity one and the other is if Millibrand should be listed. If the ethnicity question can be sourced (ie Judaism is about birth etc. etc) then the question still stands as to if someone who has declared (and whose parents declared) that they were no longer practicing counts as representative of British Jews to the point of being one of six people selected. I only got involved in this issue very recently (having come from another ANI thread) but it is impossible to get any discussion going. At no stage has there being any consensus for the inclusion of Millibrand. As of last night four editors were for, three against and as of this morning there are more against. Despite that, three editors Nomoskedasticity, Veriditas and Bus Stop have persistently inserted him variously claiming an "Overwhelming consensus", or original research, or bias by other editors etc. If you look through the talk page you will see that the three editors mentioned will only engage on the ethnicity issue, they have persistently refused to discuss the consensus issue. Yesterday I suggested that if they were unhappy they should raise an RfC and that if they felt they could justify the accusations they were making against other editors they should bring it to ANI. Instead we just got another direct change to the article. On the content issue I think Jayen466 summarises it well above. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—can you show me any source suggesting that a person who is "no longer practicing"[27] is no longer considered a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not for content issues Bus stop, or for repeating discussions that have already taken place ----Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• An incident this morning (well on Singapore time which is where I am at the moment) illustrates my point that this is a behavioural issue. In response to my suggestion that four editors for inclusion and four against did not constitute a consensus for change, Viriditas stated "Wrong. No consensus on Wikipedia is determined by numbers, only by arguments, of which you and three others seem to have none". This is the same editor who also claimed an "overwhelming consensus" when the editor count was 4-3. I came to this article without any background in the issue following a link from the RfC case. I looked at the debate and added my opinion but it has been impossible to get any discussion of the issue other than a "He is Jewish the sources say it end of argument" type statements. Then every day or so one of the protagonists adds the picture claiming that they have won the argument. I think the issue of Jewishness as somehow different from all other religions in claiming ethnicity not belief needs examination and proper sourcing. That might be set up separately from the specific article. The issue of behaviour linked to consensus however is a stand alone issue ----Snowded ^TALK 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the policy on consensus. It is not determined by a majority vote but by the quality of arguments. We rely on sources, not on personal opinions. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • And your position (to clarify) is that your and three others have advanced arguments of quality, while the four who oppose you have advanced none? Further that you can determine this and edit the article accordingly without an RfC, mediation or any of the other processes for dispute resolution?----Snowded ^TALK 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My position is that your actions and the actions of others here in this regard, is no different than let's say, a group of trolls trying to create a local consensus contrary to our site-wide policies. You're not making arguments based on reliable sources, you're not following our policy on original research, and you aren't following our policy regarding living people, the two criteria of which (self-identifies as a Jew, relevant to the topic) are met. Now, I'm not saying you are trolling, but your behavior is virtually indistinguishable from a troll. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you for clarifying that. As I said, irrespective of how the two issues are resolved (ethnicity + inclusion in the montage), any resolution is prevented when editors take the position you have above and use it to justify edit warring. But that is for the community to resolve. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some sources to take into account

Extended Content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/9880/ Quote: The Jewish Telegraph in Manchester has reported that reaction to Ed Miliband's election as Labour leader was greeted by "stunned faces", noting concern over whether he may become the "first prime minister in recent history who could not be described as a friend of Israel". http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2010/10/01/miliband-not-a-friend-of-israel Quote: The Jewish community have reportedly offered a mixed reaction to the election of Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership. The Jewish Telegraph, based in the North of England, expressed a lukewarm image of Mr Miliband, who is from a Jewish background. Its leading article argued that he had "nailed his colours to the Palestinian mast" during a fringe event at the Labour party conference. It also claimed that he "has rarely publicly associated himself with... the Jewish community". 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/30/ed-miliband-north-jewish-reaction Quote: There is also recognition that for all the fame of his family's name he has "never identified with the British Jewish community". [...] "It's an aspect of the Miliband brothers which hasn't really come up in all the many discussions we've had with friends during the election. There have been plenty of opinions one way or the other, and I think quite a few people wonder if Labour has made the right choice. But their Jewishness hasn't really figured." One reason, suggests Neil Roland, an artist and photographer related to the Laski family, one of Manchester's great Jewish dynasties, could be that "Ed has very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things. He and David would not be where they are today without their Jewish background, but it is often the case that the ones from the community who make good in England, which really means making good in the secular world, are those who have given up the religious aspect." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-reveals-agenda-for-power-with-labour-and-a-personal-insight-6508358.html Quote: "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 but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous. My parents' community was the Left community." He does not think Britons mind whether politicians are religious or not, in contrast with America: "I think that's rather a good thing and it speaks well for us as a country." He does not regret having no faith to draw strength from. "No, because my belief comes from a set of values about the kind of society I believe in. It's a very strong part of who I am. Different people come to their politics from different vantage points. I think you can have equally strong politics." JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion here between Judaism as a religious belief, and Jewish as an ethnic/cultural category. As I noted above, I call myself as British Jew. I am also a Marxist and an atheist, and I see no contradiction there. It's not up to anyone else to tell me how to define myself. Similarly, if Ed Miliband, or anyone else, calls themselves a Jew, it's simply not our role to tell them "No, you are not". On the other hand, if someone does not call themselves a Jew, or specifically rejects such a description, it's not our role to insist that they are. We go by what reliable sources report, not by our own interpretation.

On another issue, YRC is unequivocally wrong. Ed Miliband is not a Marxist, and I very much doubt that anyone could find a reliable source stating that he is. In fact, if anyone produced a source making such a claim, I would straight away take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In my opinion, making such a patently incorrect claim would automatically render the source unreliable. RolandR (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good analysis Roland, I agree entirely. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Balph Eubank deleting a sourced author because he isn't notable enough to have an article.

This is the justification I'm being given at Burt Wonderstone for his repeated removal of Chad Kultgen who, as far as the sources I have acquired say, wrote the films original script which was then bought and rewritten by others. Balph Eubank is under the impression he can delete Kultgens name from the entire article, effectively concealing his contribution because he isn't notable enough to have his own article, and he refuses to stop. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably need to take that to the article Talk page, not AN/I. Or if you want, you could take it to the Edit Warring Noticeboard (AN3), but you guys look like you've both gotten into an edit war at this point. I guess a polite warning to User:Balph Eubank would be in order to get him to take it to Talk, same goes for you, Darkwarriorblake. By, the way, a line about the guy in the body of the article doesn't need to meet the Notability guidelines, that really applies to the creation of an entire article, not individual edits. Move to close this AN/I thread. -- Avanu (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That;s what I thought. Hard to go to 3RR without violating it myself though so I don't know other alternatives I have when someone refuses to listen and keeps reverting. I've started a section on the talk page so his actions are public and recorded in regard to the article. You can close the ANI then.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Try the dispute resolution processes dangerouspanda 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Using rollback in a content dispute isn't helpful though. - SudoGhost 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Now using rollback again in a content dispute, which is a misuse of the privilege. - SudoGhost 17:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, you're both well over WP:3RR at this point. The problem though is that from what I can see of sources such as MovieWeb, this Kultgen guy wrote the original draft, which has since been rewritten by Daley and Goldstein. Whether or not that counts for the Writers Guild-required credit, I'm not sure. I also note you reverting a page move, but what is listed at IMDB appears to support the other guy's move. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:IMDB is not typically a reliable source, seeing as how you can edit the contents of the page (if you're logged into an account at IMDB the "Edit" button appears at the top of every section) - SudoGhost 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is true for plot details, trivia, etc...but can anyone change film titles there? I always assumed that aspect of imdb was more restricted. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything including the title can be edited, which is why I have stuck to what the major movie reporting sites have called it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not as obvious as the other options to edit, but at the very bottom there's an "Edit Page" yellow button, and "Title Correction" is one of the options at the very end of a set of things anyone can change. I'm looking at that page right now, all I'd have to do it type something in and hit submit (with an edit summary), and this is from an account that has never edited a single thing on IMDB. - SudoGhost 17:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am happy to see this content dispute brought to the drama boards. Darkwarriorblake is mad because he isn't getting his way, plain and simple. And I'm also happy to see someone else has noticed his other ownership issues of this article. I'm saddened that someone who has apparently contributed to good articles seems to have WP:OWN issues, not to mention issues with using profane language on my talk page and engaging me in sterile revert wars over his preferred version. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see him citing OWN, I see Avanu saying that the information is not removable by the guideline you are citing but you've gone and done it again violating 3RR massively. Dunno if anyone wants to take that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just blocked Balph Eubank for edit warring for this reversion which occurred after they were notified about this discussion and after they were reminded about edit warring on their talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My edits and additions to an article keep getting reverted by a under accusing me of being banned

Further information: [[:../IncidentArchive633#Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels|../IncidentArchive633 § Request for community ban of Jimmy McDaniels]]

I've been adding some new info to one of the articles titled Jason Leopold and I also left some comments on the talk page. A user named Bonewah has been scrubbing my stuff and then saying I am banned, which isn't true. The stuff I added is legitimate and follows all Wikipedia guidelines. Please check it out. This is an article that is always biased and no one tries to add new stuff and there's a lot of new stuff on the internet that will make this more balanced. Why isn't the new stuff being used if the article has so many watchers? Shouldn't new stuff be included? Isn't that what makes the article current? I added a new section on the FOIA lawsuit and please review it cause I think that one is important for the article. Here's the section on the FOIA I added. Can someone tell me if they think there's anything wrong with it? Bonewah keeps reverting it and making changes and accusing me of being banned and that's wrong. He won't allow new stuff to be added. Can someone help?

This is the new stuff:

==Freedom of Information Act==

Leopold and the group National Security Counselors sued the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration and other government agencies and that they violated a section of the FOIA law for five years by refusing to give people who file FOIA requests a date as to when their requests will be ready as the law requires.[10] In June, in response to Leopold's lawsuit, the FBI and the National Archives and the Office of Director of National Intelligence issued new policy guidelines to their staff and told them to comply with requests about giving estimated dates of completion regarding FOIAs when they're asked for it. FBI's FOIA head David Hardy explained the new policy guidelines in a declaration. RT said, "It might be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless." [11] RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Bonewah notified. In the future, please notifiy any editors who are the subject of the thread, as per the very clear instructions on this page and on the edit notice. Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment It appears the relevant thread to this discussion is Talk:Jason Leopold#Request action to stop the bias and allow for new material, where this matter is currently being discussed. It appears from the thread that a few users there are accused the OP of being a sock of banned user Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if a sockpuppet investigation has been initiated by any of the other parties... The rest of this dispute seems to be a content dispute, and the talk page discussion should be allowed to continue (possibly with the sock accusations being resolved one way or another to allow the discussion to take place without all of the accusations.) Singularity42 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• The sock investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimmy McDaniels was started, and closed, and RavenThePackIsBack has been blocked, by me at SPI. This thread is now moot. Anyone that wants to review the block, by all means, feel free to. He is complaining on his talk page, but his contribs and the recent IPs vs. past IPs, etc. make it as ducky as they come. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Jimmy McDaniels was topic-banned, not community banned, just so it's clear. That said, this is a good block - it's obvious that RTPIB was created to try and evade the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambitious Stance by Kurdo777

Kurdo777 seems to be the advocate of several other editors, or might be a sockpuppet of someone as well. He always accuses some editors with nationalistic or any other reasons. I've just observed his recent edits and realized that he's here to have a specific purpose to help several editors in their reverts and give support on talk pages etc. I invite the administrators to check his recent edits, which all display that he's got a specific purpose. Or you might warn him to stop his improper or edit-warring actions. Thanks.

Please check his recent edits: (I added a few rvs by Kurdo777 below)

1. Revert (Removing referenced information)

2. Revert (Removing referenced information)

3. Revert (Removing a file and accusing an editor for being nationalist)

4. Revert (Removing a referenced source)

5. Revert (Removing a referenced source)

6. Revert (Removing a referenced information)

Kurdo777, requesting support from several editors and admins:

1. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)

2. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)

3. Request (Requesting support from other editors by accusing a few editors.)

4. Request (Requesting support from an editor)

5. Request (Accusing an editor called Greczia for being a nationalist.)

6. Request (We see that this boy has a bit turkophobia by accusing the editors.)

I think he should stop reverting the editors and add information with references. OK, wait for your comments. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a complicated topic and doesn't involve only Barayev and Kurdo. It involves many editors and many (probably related) articles. Many of these editors, including Barayev, are accusing each other of vandalism and sock puppetry. Many of them are edit-warring in the articles. I recently blocked User:Greczia for edit-warring. I have posted messages on various Talk pages telling editors to stop bandying about the labels vandalism and troll and other similar epithets. Barayev just a while ago made five reversions in five different articles of Kurdo's contributions, labeling each of them vandalism. The disruption across multiple articles is significant. I'm most familiar with Turkey (not the content, mind you) and have come close to locking it because of the battles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, I think most of the articles should be locked and the edits should be published after the confirmation of the admins. Also, I'd be glad that you can warn all those editors who are accusing each others and whelmed in edit-warring. Also, I see that several editors support each others with reverts. I hope you send a warning to all of them. In the meantime, I reverted Kurdo777 as he removed the referenced information (deleted reliable sources) by getting involved with accusations to the others, maybe due to the fact that he's a bit angry with several editors owing to his turcophobia. I get pissed off those people having overwhelmingly anti-semitism, turcophobia or islamophobia. In the meantime, I see that you blocked Graczia without a notification. I hope you can be a bit careful. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any support for your accusations of bigotry against Kurdo. I don't understand what you mean when you say "the edits should be published ..." Normally, when an article is locked, it is locked in whatever state it is in at the time, barring any policy violations. As for your baseless accusation that Greczia was not notified, I personally warned him of edit-warring; he removed the notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If he removed the notification, I apologize to you. I misunderstood. Sorry.

Please check this (User_talk:Kurdo777#Question) for bigotry of Kurdo777. An editor also asks him. Why does he remove a reliable source? He thinks all edits of some editors are all based on nationalistic perspective. So Sumerian can't be an Uralic-Altaic language as it's a Turkic related matter. So Samuel Noah Kramer's ideas were based on imagination? If you check his contributions, you'll realize what he's doing since the matter of Rumi. He suddenly appeared in Rumi (when Khodabandeh14 was blocked), reverted it as a support to his blocked friend, and since then he's just been attacking Turkic-related articles by reverting them. So what's that? I hope he can explain the matter, but I know he will again calumniate the editors (being nationalist or any other thing). Thanks. Barayev (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have worked with/against Kurdo777 many times and I agree it often appears that he coordinates a group of like-minded editors to beat down the opposition. I was thus very surprised on 24 June when he accused me of asking IRWolfie to back me up on a disputed article; the accusation was absolutely baseless. To me it seemed like Kurdo777 was projecting on me a tactic he had employed himself. I asked him on his talk page to retract the accusation but he never responded.
At any rate, this noticeboard is not the place for this concern. I think an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I just fully locked Turkey for 3 days because the battle continued.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the talkpage of Turkey there is clear consensus supported by source analysis that Turkey cannot be called a regional power without the qualifier "Middle-Eastern". Perhaps users like Barayev can be warned not to edit war without participating on the talkpage of the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your lock on Turkey, but I think three days isn't enough. My advice is to extend it to two weeks.

In the meantime, sorry for my last revert on Turkey as I misunderstood the matter vice versa. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was a misunderstanding my criticism of your actions has no place here. I struck it. Thank you for your clarification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Barayev (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful, or you'll violate the 3TY rule. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder Bbb23. Damn! :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Partly in response to Binksternet's comments, the problems here involve editor conduct and content. I know next to nothing about the content. Sometimes, the two overlap, although sometimes one can surgically remove a conduct issue from the underlying mess, e.g., violating 3RR. The more difficult conduct issues of possible bias (disruptive editing) and possible abuse of multiple accounts require a solid understanding of the content (for the bias) and a deeper technical analysis and historical perspective (for the sock puppetry). That's a lot of balls in the air, and ANI seems as good a place as any to manage these issues, assuming enough knowledgeable editors contribute to the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

adding false attributed information that does not exist by a nationalist socks

Let me defend Kurdo777 here as his conduct is perfectly alright as he is undoing false information. This is not a content dispute as I demonstrate below.

1)

First of all , on Sumerian_language article. There is a misquote (false citation) added for the book that states something else completely. The actual quote from Samuel Kramer is here: Kramer, Samuel, Noah 1963. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [28] pg 306:“In vocabulary, grammer, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone and seems to be unrelated to any other language, living or dead”.. It clearly says that Sumerian is a language isolate yet some users have added the opinion that Samuel Kramer has mentioned it as Turkic!

I deleted the citation by the nationalist users who claim that the language is classified as Turkish by Samueal Kramer. So this is a misquote of Samuel Noah Kramer. It is very wrong thing to attribute wrong information to an author who has stated the opposite opinion that Sumerian is an isolate language. So falsely claiming Samuel Noah Kramer has stated that Sumerian is a Turkic language is beyond "content dispute". It is simply lying. So where is the quote that Kramer claims Sumerian is a Turkish language!?! He only mentions that Sumerian in terms of structure is language like those of the Caucasus, Uralic and Turkic languages (also these are not they ones,..all Dravidian, and majority of African languages, native American languages are also agglunitative). This is typology but not linguistic classification ( agglutinative language). Kramer mentions Sumerian is a language isolate yet they have the audacity to misquote his book and say Kramer has mentioned it as a Turkic language!

I hope the admins do not see this as "difference of opinion". This is actually blatantly inserting and supporting false information! Yet these nationalists type have the audacity of calling this "referenced information"! Until when should Wikipedia put up with this oflying?

Please note the conduct of Tirgil34 (who is now Greczia).. on Scythians with similar behaviour.. [29] and in the mainspace page..

2) On bogus map in the article "ethnic minorities of Iran", the source is a nationalist fringe map that they keep adding: [30] (made by a turkish nationalist unscholarly activist based on non-academic source/manual). This it their map: [31]. Non-academic, non-RS source (which is not verifiable made by ethnic activists).

Here are actual academic maps from reputable sources and universities: [32] [33] [34][35] [36] (University of Texas and Columbia)

For example majority of Tehran, Hamadan do not speak Turkish nor is the second laguage of Gilan, Mazandaran and most of the places highlighted Turkish. Infact Half of my family is from Mazandaran area and Persian is the first language, then Mazandarani. Large part of Kurdish areas in Iran are made Turkish in these maps too (see the comparison of Norther Khorasan between the academic maps and the fake map). So what is Kurdo777 to do when some false map made by an ethnic nationalist from an ethnic nationalist unscholarly author (with no academic credentials) is inserted? That source they mentioned is a nationalist based source with no academic citations and contradicts the unbiased Western made maps above. The map has no scholarly backing and has no place in wikipedia.

3)

ON Azerbaijani people, Kurdo777 removed the source: (authors=Roger Howard|year=2004|title=Iran in Crisis?) because it is quoting an ethnic activist who claims 35 million people in Iran. Here is the source that was used: "Roger Howard (2004). Iran in Crisis?: The Future of the Revolutionary Regime and the US Response. Zed Books. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-1842-7747-55. "[...] reckons to be closer to 35 million than the oficial estimate of 14 million.""

But first question is what is the academic credential of the author? Second the author (Roger Howard) is quoting an ethnic nationalist-activist. Can such information be labeled as reliable? But quoting an ethnic-nationalist (it is like quoting Louis Farrakhan or David Duke) activist is not WP:RS for general information. So when totally bogus information was removed from Sumerians (Kramer stating flat out that Sumerian is a language isolate not related to any language family), they kept reinserting the misinformation as well. Also here is another false source inserted by these users: "Stokes, Jamie; Gorman, Anthony (2008). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1. Infobase. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-4381-2676-0. "... 32 million people in Iran..."" [37] The book claims that "During the first milenium, B.C.E, the Azeri Kuti tribe defeated the Akkadian ruler..". where as the formation of an Azeri ethnic group occurs after Islam due to synthetic of Turkic migrants with Iranian populations (around 500-700 years ago). This is an example of fringe source. So the Gutian people has been claimed to be an "Azeri" tribe by such a fringe source.

4) On [38]

There is a reference to a Farrokh website which has none of the claims made by these users. The actual website is www.gandchi.com which is not reliable on such matter. Actually, websites like these are not reliable. If someone is familiar with the article, they know that the Muslim Tats even have somewhat different language/dialect than Jewish Tats. It might be possible that the [[39]] (Juhuri language) speakers were at one time "Khazars", but they could also be immigrants during the Sassanid era as they are not Ashkenazi but Shepardic. Anyhow..those websites are not related to the Tat_language_(Caucasus) but might be related to Judeo-Tat. And furthermore, those websites do not meet WP:RS.

Again this is not a content dispute.. it is trying to make everything from Sumerians, to Scythians to Tats of the Caucasus as Turks. It is simply disruptive behaviour by Turkish nationalist editors. Such information does not exist in those websites (and secondaly the websites do not meet WP:RS necessarily). Where does it say in those websites that the "tats of Caucasus are definitely Turks"? So are admin going to note the insertion of false information by these users? Or do they think this is a "content dispute"?

It is either making up information (like Sumerian) or using fringe websites/nationalist activist sources (not academic reliable sources that meet WP:RS).

e) The problem is not edit warring but adding false information that does not exist or adding extremly unreliable fringe sources by a user that has all these socks:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aryan212
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kurdale
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mertface
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barayev
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/E4024
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gabriel_Stijena
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greczia (who admits in the bottom of his page that he is the previous user tigril who was vandalizing Scythians and making them Turks)

You have a bunch of Turkish nationalist (or likely one) claiming Sumerians, Tats, Scythians as Turks and adding bogus maps. And also attacking Greece/Iran related articles. They ought to be ashamed of their conduct which is falsifying information and attributing to authors who have never made such statements (or adding extremly fringe websites/sources with no academic responsibility). So Kurdo777 is simply undoing this massive sock attack and the admins need to ban all the mentioned names here as they are socks of the same user.

My response

First of all, Binksternet's dispute with me, is totally unrelated to this scenario. He is simply fishing in muddy waters. It should also be noted that Binksternet has been stalking me for years, which explains his presence here in the first place, and that he has been warned and blocked for stalking of me on several occasions. [40][41] Now as for the topic at hand here, my edits were all in line with WP:RS and WP:Fringe, and meant to protect Wikipedia's integrity against nationalist POV-pushing by a group of W:SPAs that have raised a lot of red flags in many corners of Wikipedia, and appear to be sock-puppets/revert-only accounts, including the user who filled this report. I also discussed all my edits with, and notified several admins and experienced users in these topical areas who are familiar with the content. Please read the following discussions for more context.[42][43][44] Just to give a few short obvious examples, in once case, one of these users falsified a source [45], in another case, another one used a non-WP:RS source for which he was warned by an admin who is familiar with these topics.[46] This pretty much sums what we're dealing with here, and as I said, all my edits were in good-faith and in line with WP:RS, WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. What should be addressed here though, is the widespread sock-puppetry that's going on these pages by revert-only SPA accounts with less than 100 edits, namely User:Gabriel_Stijena, User:Barayev, User:Greczia and User:Kurdaleall every single of whom is engaged in Turkish nationalist POV pushing on various pages and topical areas from Greece to China, and all of whom appear to be connected to one another, and have been inserting sourceless or poorly-sourced fringe nationalist theories into these pages, and therefore compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo777, I have better things to do than follow you around and accuse you on ANI—this noticeboard is public space and it is on my watchlist. I post here often; there's no stalking involved. I came forward on this particular thread to support the initial poster because I wanted the board to know that his premise, that you might be coordinating others to push your views, is something I had also noticed. By the way, you still have not apologized for falsely accusing me of trying to make IRWolfie my meatpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD accusations

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

---

Despite all the accusations and the smug lies posted by MarnetteD, I wish to go on the record and state categorically that user 64.175.39.242 has NOTHING to do with me. Nada. I did not make those edits. Nor do I have any kind of UK IP address to use which is their other accusation. Alas, the spiteful, hate filled editors RedRose64 & MarnetteD have let themselves down with their investigations and bogus statements. No wonder they're being threatened with legal repurcussions. Once again: I have NOTHING to do with those edits. 216.31.246.114 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For everyone's info this is related to this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#IP User:64.175.39.242 Legal threat on talk page of User:MarnetteD. The SPI report has been filed here [47]. As one would suspect I was not notified of this thread nor was Redrose64. MarnetteD | Talk 23:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is in relation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#IP User:64.175.39.242 Legal threat on talk page of User:MarnetteD. I would like it placed on record that the IP has accused me of being a sockpuppet of MarnetteD (talk · contribs) - laughable, since we are on different continents - see [48] [49], [50], [51], [52]. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what I believe MarnetteD calls a "Meat Socket". Claiming to be on two different continents is laughable to RedRose64, but is perfectly acceptable as an accusation by MarnetteD. Regardless of the laughable denials, it is now "on the record" too that I have nothing whatsoever to do with USER 64.175.39.242 or their edits. 216.31.246.114 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:BLP policies in our 'left wing terrorism' article

Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per this discussion I started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Attempted WP:BLP violation in our left-wing terrorism article, a new editor has been repeatedly adding material regarding a shooting incident at the Family Research Council offices in Washington DC into an article on "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes". Given that the suspect has as yet not been found guilty, and has not been described as 'left wing', and given also that there isn't the slightest evidence that anyone involved is attempting to bring about "the overthrow of capitalist governments" or anything else, I have reverted this repeatedly: to no avail. Note that I consider such gross violation of WP:BLP policy to come within the exemptions to WP:3RR, as I have already made clear. Can I ask that this be promptly looked into, and appropriate action be taken. Either full page protection, or a block on the account, might be appropriate - though I'd suggest that both may well be needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinion not valid. All sources documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djjamz340 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a source that states that the suspect was engaged in "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes"? That is what the article is about. Ignoring all the other policy violations, without a source that asserts this, your edit is entirely contrary to both Wikipedia policy and common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious new-account (cough - throwaway) edit warrior blocked 24 hrs for edit warring.

That said - Andy, you removed a lot more than the identifying bits that made it a BLP a bunch of times. I'm not sure the 3RR exception covers all of that, though I can see how one can come to believe that the totality of the situation was disruptive. Minnow-slap? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the fish if required - but I think the article that the material was being added to is the key point here. Then again, if we didn't have such ridiculous articles in the first place, such problems wouldn't arise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a term of art in the terrorism analysis field. The article is not great, but it's also on point to the term of art. Shrug. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

89.94.23.111 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Frédéric Bourdin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Out of an abundance of caution, please look at this threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it crossed the line to an actual threat, and another editor's already working on the BLPish thing that the alleged subject says was wrong - I think we can let it go. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an attempt to intimidate by referencing courts and defamation and such. It definitely qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur, and have blocked (for three months, as it's an IP but appears to be semi-static). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:American Family Association

It appears that a multi-editor edit war has broken out on Talk:American Family Association concerning the wording of an RfC. I am bringing it up here instead of WP:3RR because it looks a lot more complex than the usual edit war, but if anyone thinks I should go there instead, just let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(Note: I am involved in that Rfc.) All I've seen is arguing about verbiage. I have not seen anyone editing or removing anyone else's posts. The Rfc has about 28 days to run, and the subject is a bit intense for some editors. I don't see any real harm as long as the argument stays where is should, in the Rfc on the talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Seven reverts in less that two hours:[53][54][55][56][57][58][59] Looks like an edit war to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. I didn't see that.. sorry. I had this confused with the similar and related one at Family Research Council. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW there is already a thread started at the NPOV board as well as a discussion on the WP:RFC talk page to seek clarity. For those interested it's a question of can a perceived non-neutral RfC statement be reworded just to address that perception or does it run afoul of touching someone else's talkpage comment. The original statement was not produced by consensus but by one person and I was not a part of the original dispute. The RfC page is clear the RfC statement should be neutral but does not clarify how to address any perception that the statement offered is not neutral. Insomesia (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Let's make this known up-front: Nobody involved in the discussion (and it IS a discussion at this point) asked for this intervention. Guy stumbled across this somehow, offered to help by mediating, then changed his mind and brought it here on his own initiative. (I'm not criticizing, but those are the facts.) There is a single involved editor (not myself) who is AT 3RR (not over), but he has stopped warring and has been working out the disagreement, now that he's received a warning template.

I think it's also important to stress that this is a Talk page, not an article. I see no authority in policy for an editor to unilaterally modify the wording of an RfC against the wishes of the initiating editor. (I believe WP:TPO applies.)

So yes, there was an edit-war, briefly, but cooler heads have prevailed and it's over now. As the user whose RfC was tampered with, I am not, at this point in time, seeking admin action. I suppose it might be useful for a patrolling admin to render a policy ruling on what's to be done about the RfC at this point in time, which has been "adjusted" to suit the desires of an editor who didn't post it and hasn't been changed back. Belchfire-TALK 01:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it the first time and then reverted twice, not sure if that meets 3rr or is 2rr but I'm not interested in warring and your warning to me did not change my opinion that a neutrally worded RfC statement is more important that leaving a pointy RfC statement as is. Had you sought a consensus wording of an RfC statement in the first place we likely would have never gotten to this point. For my part I'm interested in the RfC being neutrally asked so that the best consensus can emerge. Insomesia (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Insomnia has been warned for edit warring. Another revert and the editor could be blocked. Also talk page comments, even RFC comments that you do not agree with, should not be refactored. You should have asked the editor to change or reword the phrase before making the changes yourself.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Insomesia, we differ on interpretation of 3RR here, but that really doesn't matter AFAIC because, as I pointed out, the warring stopped. Your bolded question, above, concisely asks what would have been useful for all of us to know earlier in the day. I'm not sure if we should expect to get it answered here or not, though. Belchfire-TALK 01:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was not looking to see anyone get blocked or even warned. I just want clarity about the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Yes, a clarification would be most helpful. Belchfire-TALK 01:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Refactoring the wording of an RfC is not much different than refactoring someone's talk. If it doesn't change the meaning, like a spelling error, or if someone uses a wrong name and it was obvious to fix (ie:had the original poster seen it, they would have fixed it themselves) then that is fine. In this case, removing the line "one of its political opponents" probably shouldn't be removed and instead the editor asked about it on their talk page, since it would change the meaning of the question to a degree. I don't find it overtly POV, and I assume there is some truth in the statement, so it is more of a matter of the wording being less than optimal. It is doubtful that the line would change the votes of someone stumbling upon the RfC, as they likely would know the relationship of the two organizations. I don't think removing it is a blockable offense (excepting 3RR violations), but removing it seems as unnecessary as including it, so you approach the editor instead. You can always !vote Abstain, flawed premise if you feel it is biased, but removing isn't really the solution. Bringing it here was fine, it was a legitimate issue to raise, and technically an "incident", so Guy acted proper since there were so many reverts. Probably best if everyone leaves it alone, vote how you want, and not sweat 3RR here, as reverting was misguided but likely in good faith. No reason to make the issue larger than it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please change redirect

I think that "extropism" should redirect to that specific section under the extropianism article, instead of just redirecting to the beginning of that article (I typed this: [[60]], to no avail). I tried to change it myself but didn't realize that only administrators have this power. Thanks. Shanoman (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require an admin -- I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

K. Michelle - Legal Threat

I recieved two emails (dated 12th of August - I just checked my mail now) from User:Tassiduous, who has threatened myself via Wikipedia mail, in regards to article, K. Michelle -

12th of August Message #1:

HI, This is K.michelle's PR rep. Thank u for trying to correct this page, but this page has been going through a lot of vandalism, and most of the information completely wrong. The page is now being tracked and any person that is traced back to changing the page will be prosecuted for defamation.

12th of August Message #2:

Miss Star,

We have asked and warned you to STOP in the editing of this page. Several pages and private information have been hacked recently for my client. Legal information has already been submitted to not only trace all vandalism and defamation but to prosecute. We are very concerned about the safety and image of our client at this time. We will have your page traced by the end of the week. The page is completely false, and is enough to stand in the court of law,especially after we have asked you to stop. I do know that your page has already been linked to youtube where you continue to harass and stalk miss Kimberly Pate, and this is a crime.

Thank,

Kacieimages PR

Tassiduous had been continuously adding in unsourced content to the article in question (while reverting sourced content), and many users, including myself, had reverted the content and told Tassiduous that they may not add content that has no reliable sources. The article, in my opinion lacks notability anyway - perhaps, should it be deleted? Could I please have some assistance here? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Of course we can't verify that those emails are real, but per this edit summary, it's clear that legal action was taken. Ticket:2012081110007211 is also relevant for those with OTRS access. Through all of this, Tassiduous has still never pointed out any specific content that is libelous or defamatory, but rather declares that the whole article is such, and demands we agree with her. While I always respect WP:DOLT, we can't help people who refuse to communicate. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to changing that to email access blocked? --Rschen7754 04:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, under the fact that the abuse was email-driven. Feel free to revert. --Rschen7754 05:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

gargoyle111

this person keeps vandalizing the 'the glass house' pages and there's no way to contact them cuz they don't have an active link to do so. move to completely lock down the page and ban their ip from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.34.174 (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nemambrata - SPA and edit warring

On 4 August 2012, User:Nemambrata was reported as a WP:SPA here [63], however, unfortunately no admin attention was given at the time, and the matter was archived without action. Nemambrata has continued to editwar on the same articles, and has not edited outside those articles, so is looking more and more like an 'advocate' SPA. The editing behaviour is spasmodic, only reappearing when a change is made to the articles they are interested in is made. They make one edit (usually to remove material they do not like) then a short time later return to remove all trace of the removed material (such as references from the Reference section), claiming that the references are no longer relevant to the article in question. Their motivation for these edits was unclear until today, although it was clear that the editor had considerable experience with WP and was engaged in advocacy on behalf of the 'honour of Serbia' or some similar 'pro-Serbian' agenda. However, this [64] edit shows this editor's motivation clearly, 'this is insult for Serbian people'.

This edit warring is occurring in the context of two successive move requests at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here [65](closed, no move), and here [66](still open). Even though the name of the article has not changed (and was the official name of the territory involved) and remains under discussion, Nemambrata has taken it upon himself to eliminate all mention of the title of the article from related pages (such as Template:History of Serbia, Serbia, Serbs, Axis occupation of Vojvodina, Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944, Serbs in Vojvodina, Banat (1941–1944), and even Serbia (disambiguation), either removing it completely or creating a piped link with his preferred term in the text of each article.

here are some additional diffs with examples of the problematic editing-

• On Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 I added the title to the page on 1 July, replacing a colloquial version (Nedic's Serbia), Nemambrata began edit warring in relation to this here [67] on 2 August with an edit summary of 'better', I restored it on 7 August with a request that it be left until the issue with the title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia was resolved. Nemambrata immediately made an accusation of revert warring on the talk page here, Talk:Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja, 1941–1944 then removed the title, replacing it with his preferred one here [68] with the edit summary 'no answer on talk page for several days'. I must point out at this point that this is a pattern for Nemambrata, he makes such talkpage comments on nearly every talkpage he edits, but where he is engaged in discussion, his rhetoric escalates rapidly, suggesting that I am promoting an 'illegal name' etc. The following example shows this.

• On Axis occupation of Vojvodina, after disruption by a quickly blocked WP:SPA User:HuHu22 I added the title to the page on 11 July, [69] with explanatory note. On 2 August, Nemambrata changed this to his preferred version here [70]. I reverted here [71] and Nemambrata immediately reverted here [72], and immediately started accusing me of edit warring on the talkpage here [73]. User:DIREKTOR reverted Nemambrata two days later here [74], was reverted by Nemambrata here [75], who was reverted by User:MrX here [76], reverted by Nemambrata here [77], who was reverted by User:Drmies here [78] who indicated that User:Nemambrata's edits were premature and that the 'battle' was being fought elsewhere (ie at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia) and stated this on the talkpage, but Nemambrata reverted again here [79] with an edit summary of 'Neutral description is back. There was few days and nobody chalenged my reasons for this edit on talk page. Illegal German names of illegal entity should not be promoted all over Wikipedia and there is no consensus that this name is used anywhere'. Nemambrata then deleted the references for Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here [80].

• On Banat (1941–1944), I added the title to the page on 11 July, [81] providing clarification of what territory the Government of National Salvation operated in. On 3 August, Nemambrata removed the reference to the Territory in the inbox, replacing it with his preferred version. User:DIREKTOR reverted the edit on 4 August here [82], and within 8 minutes Nemambrata reverted DIREKTOR without discussion on the talkpage.

Despite his recent arrival on en WP, I consider that Nemambrata is an obvious WP:SPA with wiki experience who has some very strange ideas about what WP:BRD entails, and appears to be motivated to right what he perceives as 'insults' to the Serbian people. This editing behaviour is not constructive, and I believe it warrants admin attention. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't help to notice that his name is a Serbian phrase: it means, "I have a brother".[83] I can't say whether this is intended to be a reference to another account, but that's what comes to my mind, anyhow. Hope this helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have seen no evidence that indicates that this user is not here to push an agenda or that they are a net asset. Drmies (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

76.189.121.5 continuously making personal attacks

IP had been involved in an edit war on Hotel Hell, as seen here. He was warned for edit warring multiple times by different users here, but persisted. It was brought to the 3RR noticeboard, and the page was protected. IP then posted a talk message to TBrandley here, saying that he can't warn the IP about EW because of his block history. Ryan Vesey reminded IP that the past is the past here, and then IP compared TBrandley's blocks to a DWI here. AussieLegend defended TBrandley and reprimanded IP here, but IP continued to go on about the block history. After a short convo with AussieLegend about blaming, IP started the personal attacks here. I posted in the discussion here, asking IP to go over some of WP's key policies. IP then brought up my block history from last year here, and I tried to explain to him/her that people recover from mistakes here. IP then told me I have no credibility and to "get a life" here, and added "bring it on" here. Tito Dutta reminded IP that my block history has nothing to do with his current behavior here, and told IP to stop making personal attacks. Drmargi commented here that IP is doing the same thing to her. IP replied with this saying we are "ten-year olds" and to "wake up and get a life". IP continued on about my block history, and then told me I should talk to myself because no one will listen here. I told IP of all my accomplishments since my blocks last year here, and IP mocked me here. IP then commented at the 3RR thread here, telling me to get a life. His/her behavior is hurtful, disruptive, and unacceptable. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)