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

Persistent edit stalking

I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18#Enough
• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Removal of infoboxes
• Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox
• Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square
• And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged

as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

• [1] (newly created by me)
• [2]
• at Mabel Richardson - since deleted
• at Eric Brooke Dunlop - since deleted
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13] (newly created by me)
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17] (newly created by another editor)
• [18]
• [19] (diff added 18:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC))

and most recently, today: [20]).

This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a prima facie case of Wikibullying, which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the Qworty incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:

• Mass in B minor structure
• Sparrow Mass
• Hans-Joachim Hessler

there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?

Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Richard_Wagner — No infobox and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author Smerus were not respected by Gerda Arendt and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --Kleinzach 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to BWV 39, recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Wikipedia that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Wikipedia and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in Franz Kafka's infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh without a doubt this is very serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very VERY important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — Ched :  ?  00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, Nikkimaria, are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of Mass in B minor structure (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward Andy whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned The Rite of Spring discussion), but helping (!) with {{infobox opera}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title Persistent edit stalking minus Nikkimaria’s name serves to obscure the discussion — assembled admins please note).

In my experience, Nikkimaria has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example here and here).

I was surprised that Andy Mabbett should make this kind of accusation against Nikkimaria, given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]], [26], [27]. As I observe WP:1RR and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone seriously suggesting that Andy Mabbett doesn't do this? Kleinzach 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at WP:COMPOSERS has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as Sparrow Mass, and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for Talk:Richard Wagner, knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for The Rite of Spring, have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for BWV 103 - [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], ... [36]) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Wikipedia time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of Ravpapa (talk). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett here.--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.DavidRF (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a good thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know User:Nikkimaria very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone's complaints about Andy" are not the issue here. I'm well aware of Andy's history on the project and of the various matters in which his behaviour is considered problematic. But as of right now, he's an editor in good standing on the project, and when he's going around making productive contributions to articles (including writing them from scratch) he should not be expected to have to continually look over his shoulder in case an editor holding a grudge is following him and systematically working to undo him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

Comment I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view if what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.

As all know, the charge of stalking, or Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the Potter Stewart treatment.

Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:

...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts

Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.

That would appear to excuse bad behaviour based on good behaviour elsewhere. I don't believe we've ever defined stalking to specifically involve a particular ratio of one editor's contributions in any case. One does not have to devote one's entire wikicareer to following a particular editor for it to be obvious that one has a pattern of following that editor around and making combative edits that have a deleterious effect on community relations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides such that I cannot to recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that either has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty. (Addendum, I reviewed the 21 diffs and see three cases where Andy bought it up on the talk page. I see three other instances of talk page edits, 2 by Andy, one by Nikkimaria, but not related to each other's edits)

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.

I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here and when I raised the matter on her talk page?

Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): [37]; and another: [38] (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: [39].

But even had I not done so; stalking is prohibited, with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I for one, did not mention Andy before simply because I know much about this background. The problem with SPB's proposal is that it won't solve anything and we'll see another ANI or RFCU or (yuck) Arbcom case. Something more than a dual trout slapping is needed here.PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkinsky, do you have something specific in mind? While I'm still getting up to speed, and may well not have the understanding that others have in these incidents, I see an editor who thinks that anyone wishing to add an infobox to an article requires a consensus discussion at the talk page if an editor disagrees. I think that's a perversion of the intent of BRD, but maybe I'm wrong. We should have a community discussion to see what the community thinks. The same editor thinks empty parameters in infoboxes should be removed, even though the policy doesn't support that conclusion, so as a community, we should clarify what to do with empty parameters. It also appears that some subset of articles (classical music) has their own special rules appliable to infoboxes, which are not discussed in the logical locations. Let's find out if the community agrees, and decide, one way or the other. Several of the disputed edits are traceable to two editors taking a different position on these issues. It is hard to declare that one, or the other editor is in the wrong, if the policies are silent, conflicting or unclear. Color me naive, but I see two editors, both intent on improving the encyclopedia, who have different views about specific aspects of editing policy, and if we resolve those issue, either the issues will go away (ok, no, I'm not that naive) or we will have clearer policy planks to smack around violators.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How many editors do you see stalking? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'm happy to see that there are some cases where you posted on the talk page, as is the desired process. I see that Nikkimaria did not respond, as she should have. As I mentioned, I did not review everyone of the edits you cited. I found some early in the list that had no such notice on the talk page, and some late in the list. If you think I coincidentally stumbled on a misrepresentation subset, feel free to let me know how many of the reverts were followed by talk page discussions. If that is important. However, your point, it seems, is that she engaged in stalking and has tacitly admitted it. I don't see diffs. You have over 9500 edits during this period, so I don't have time to review them all to search. Can you point out what you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that Nikki seems to be stalking Andy and Gerda and that issue is more than just the infobox war issue. I've seen many cases like this in my years and I fear the whole case won't be known unless an AC case is opened. That doesn't mean AC is the only solution. This is what I propose: 1) Nikki and Andy banned from editing, adding, or removing any infobox (that way one side can't say they're being picked on) until an RFC on Infoboxes is concluded, 2) the RFC on Infoboxes runs for 1-3 months and covers scope of their use and what to do if disagreements arise, 3) both of them agree to the outcome of the RFC or said person is banned from them for one year, 4) IMHO Nikki is lucky she hasn't been blocked and/or de-adminned for stalking. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I know much more about Nikki re Gerda than Nikki re Andy. PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an RfC on infoboxes. There are a number of issues that should be resolved. You stated that the issue is more than infoboxes. What else? I just reviewed every one of the 21 edits listed by Andy and every single one involves the edit of an infobox. Andy raised this at ANI, not as a referendum on infobox edits, but as a claim of stalking. I think that claim is weak, and should be dismissed. Any proposal to ban should be brought up at AN, not ANI, and should be brought up as a new item. We have set, IMO, a bad precedent in some threads of an editor raising one issue, and the community jumping into different areas. I see that as an abuse of process. (Which does not mean I am opposed to boomerang, or using editors other edits to decide upon remedies). If someone wants to propose a ban covering one or both, they should propose it at AN with the relevant diffs. While the one's that Andy listed might be part of that list, and proposal to ban them both ought to be done by another party looking at contributions of both. If someone wants an Arbcom case, they can propose one. That sounds like overkill, as I have yet to see that this is broader than policy disagreements in several narrowly defined areas of infoboxes. Arbcom's remit is behavior, not tweaking editorial policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else here - not even those seeing me as some kind of satan; not even Nikki herself - has said that there is no stalking. The evidence is plain to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs are given in my initial post, at the head of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sphil, you say you would like to see an RFC on infoboxes. I call your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, an extensive RFC on the subject that took place in 2010. To summarize, there was a clear majority of editors who opposed inclusion of infoboxes in classical music articles, and a strong minority in favor (I was in the minority). The conclusion of the discussion was that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox. I thought that was an eminently fair and reasonable solution to the problem, and I think that if everyone follows that community decision, the problem will be largely solved. If Andy, Maria and Gerda agree to abide by that decision, it seems we can close this whole thing amicably. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an extreme simplification of the outcome of that RfC, and under no circumstances does it excuse an editor systematically stripping infoboxes from pages that another editor has written from scratch. A large part of the debate in question stemmed from the fetishing of Original Authors and not editing in ways that would discourage them from creating content. Stalking someone's new pages and stripping content from them couldn't be a clearer violation of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, but it's not an over-simlification, it's a gross misrepresentation. (If I'm wrong, Ravpapa will obviously quote the part of the closing remarks which mandate "that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox".) Furthermore, many of the examples I give at the top of this section have nothing to do with classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New day, this is (again) too much for me to read. How did we get from stalking to infobox again? - I hope I will live to see the day that the addition of an infobox is considered added (useful, structured, accessible) content and not as "aggressive" or "provoking". - "Did you know ... that infoboxes on Wikipedia are used to extract structured content using machine learning algorithms?" (Yesterday's Main page) - Until that day, I will add one only to my own articles and others where I assume the main author(s) will be happy about it. In other cases, I will only mention it on the talk page - or not at all. I will not revert one nor collapse sections. - If everybody involved did the same, we might get a bit closer to the envisioned day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the outcome of the RFC. Here are the remarks by the closing admin:

Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.

• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
• The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion. (my emphasis)
• There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
• Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

and here is the guideline that the admin is referring to:

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. (again, my emphasis) Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.

I understand that to mean that you should discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox. Am I missing something? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's an expression of how the members of one particular project prefer to behave. It has the same status as a paragraph on a single editor's user page. Neither the project nor its members own or control articles they chose to regard as within its scope. This is, though, irrelevant to the issue of stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MOS states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. and that notice above the edit window says Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine). So this concept that there is a "principal author" and they get to decide whether a given article has a box or not isn't supported by the policy. Looking at the first example provided, Forsbrook Pendant, I see that PotW added the box, Nm removed it -- which is in alignment per bold, and PotW restored it and editing ceased. Which is fine. On that particular article, the box provides no information -- it just repeats what's in a very short article and therefore just strikes me as just clutter. In any event, this whole thread strikes me as PotW doesn't want to discuss on a case by case basis whether given articles have boxes or not. Support close as no admin action appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not required by policy to have to ask permission every time you add an infobox, there's the concept to be bold. - BUT: I still recommend to do so, at least for a while, for reasons of politeness and respect. But that includes politeness and respect towards those who want an uncollapsed infobox - like me - also. (If you look at the history of BWV 103, mentioned above, that doesn't always happen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My desire for an RfC was not simply to determine whether infobox inclusion in a subset of articles should be handled differently; there are other open issues: how should empty parameters be treated, and what should the rules be for subjective fields. Both of those issues arose in the diffs above, and I have seen the issue of subjective fields causing edits wars elsewhere, so I want an RfC on infoboxes, not an RfC on infoboxes in composer articles. The RfC you linked did not reach conclusions on either of those issues.

Andy notes that the ANI was filed on a stalker issue. I see the discussion drifting to the substance underlying the conflict. I personally think if the underlying issues are resolved, it will make it easier to solve the conflict, but ANI is not the place to debate editorial policy.

Can we return to determining whether Andy has a case, and then we can determine where and how to open an RfC to address the editorial questions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, NE Ent, it's that another editor is staking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you keep saying that, but I don't see a lot of support for your position. As you pointed out, Arbcom gave some guidance and indicated that a relevant factor includes "whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community". So while you keep posting that I'm missing the point when I focus on the content, I'm doing so because of the ArbCom guidance. I happen to think that the position that infoboxes in certain articles have an exception which isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia:Infobox is unlikely to be sustained by the community, if actually discussed, but I could be wrong. If the community clearly points out that the handling of infoboxes should be consistent everywhere, then the reversion of your edits will be a violation and can be handled appropriately. If the community decides that the treatment should have an exception in the case of one Wikiproject, then it should note that in the guidelines, and you will have to accept the ruling. Whether you are being wikihounded is dependent on whether your edits are viewed as problematic, or whether Nikkimaria's are. At the moment, it isn't clear, and I cannot imagine the community will conclude wikihounding has occurred in such a gray area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see support for my assertion that my edits are being stalked, then you need to re-read the above thread. I have already pointed out to you that you are the only person to have asserted that no stalking has taken place. The viewed as problematic point (disputable in the cases concerned) has several qualifiers in the Arbcom ruling, which you seem to ignore. Your focus on content remains irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. You might point to Bearian, but that editor made an early comment before much of the evidence was reviewed, and hasn't weighed in since. At most, that's two, and that's counting generously. You are the one who linked to the Arbcom guidance which suggests we need to find edits by Nikkimaria that are not supported by policy. I've reviewed every single one of her edits, and do not recall that any were challenged by the community, and if I missed one, we need a pattern, not a single edit. That's the standard you linked to, and it does not support you. Ironically, I may be one of your bigger supporters. I do not like someone reverting the addition of an infobox, and I personally think the burden should be on the editor wanting to remove it, so that's why I'd like to see an RfC—I think it might support you and I will be supporting your position in it. But absent that community decision, we have 22 edits by Nikkimaria out of many thousands, none of which were challenged by the community. As stalking claims go, that's pretty weak tea.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it differently. In how many of the 22 edits listed did you bring the issue to the talk page, and get community support that your edit was appropriate? I can only find a single post of support, that by User:Magioladitis in Talk:Arthur Worsley. Can you point me to the clause in wp:consensus stating that getting a single editor to agree with you equates to community support?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Very simple solution here - will Andy and Nikki agree to avoid each other for the next (amount of time here). From what I see here its clear they are at odds about these boxes. We are talking about just a box....something that if there or not is not harming the project - however there interaction is causing problems. So lets deal with what is more disruptive...the behavior.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In most, possibly all cases, Andy chose to add an infobox to an article, and Nikkimaria chose to remove it on the basis that she believes it doesn't belong. If we adopt your simple solution, Andy can add infoboxes wherever he chooses, and she can do nothing about it. Is that your intended solution? Andy gets to decide which articles have infoboxes, and Nikkimaria has no say? (FTR, I do not agree with how Nikkimaria is responding, but I'm not willing to buy in to this extreme measure.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not only Andy adding infoboxes - there are many many editors that do just this and a project dedicate to this task. But there is however only one editor following the other correct? They should simply avoid each-other. I take it noone else feels they are being stocked in this manner correct? Moxy (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the time and research you've put into this SPhilbrick - and do want to make that clear. Now, as I read this in pertaining to the original post: Bearian, BWilkins, PumpkinSky, Thumperward, and I have all taken this as a serious situation. So I'm not sure exactly how weak that tea really is. I doubt it was ever intended that this thread be developed into a "info box" discussion, although I can't say I'm surprised that it has. I also understand how you would object to my "outside the box" thinking in regards to a common courtesy of a principle author; and fully understood that it is in ways contrary to WP:OWN, however - it's simply my own approach to a situation, rather than something I thought should be codified. Now, getting back to the stalking issue, I think it's only fair to say that Nikki has said: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward.]". Now perhaps that's not a full admission of anything, but I think it's implied that improvements can be made, and I trust that effort will be made. I also have concerns about this response, but note that both Gerda and Nikki seem willing to continue to work through this without intervention; so I'm inclined to respect that as well. I think Andy has made a good case for his complaint, but I'd like to think that with Nikki's agreement that we could mark this as closed, noted, and archived for future reference if needed. I can't say I'll be surprised if I see the term "info box" further up the road, but I'd also suspect that it would be a very unpleasant experience for MANY editors if/when it happens. I hadn't expected to comment further on this topic, but now I have. Hopefully I can walk away from this now unimpeded. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If I've said anything to suggest I don't think it this is serious, please point it out so I can correct it. I think when two editors with 140K edits between them are at loggerheads, it is serious. When the underlying editorial issues are issues that have been festering for years without resolution, it is serious. However, Andy insists that the issue is narrow - Wikihounding to be precise. It is that charge which is weak tea. I challenge anyone to identify an ANI case where Wikihounding was upheld where the edits in question were a fraction of one per cent of the total edits. And no, Nikkimaria willingness to leave alone any article he has written is not an admission of wikihounding, it is a good faith attempt to resolve a conflict. What exactly, do you think should happen? Are you proposing that Nikkimaria should be blocked? How long, for what reason, and what rationale? We pretend that the purpose of a block is to prevent further harm, but she's already agreed not to edit an article he writes, so what would a block stop, other than the hundreds of good edits she is making even as we type?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak tea? Perhaps I have another language problem. I don't want to waste time in digging up diffs, and Nikkimaria will certainly have good explanations why she showed up at Peter Planyavsky for the first time the same day I installed an infobox (see talk), and on Andreas Scholl right after I reverted the collapsing of one (that I didn't create). - I am interested in an approach for working together better in the future, letting go of the past, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Would Andy and Gerda agree not to add infoboxes to classical music articles, or to any others where they can anticipate that a group of editors already at the article will object? And in return would Nikkimaria agree not to follow Andy's or Gerda's edits, and not to remove infoboxes that they have added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a positive approach, however any kind of understanding must cover infobox templates as well as articles. The latter is an area where Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt have been extremely active— though not Nikkimaria. --Kleinzach 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the impression that we leave the original case more and more. What I did in templates was create one for Bach's compositions (within Classical music from the start), making template Musical composition compatible with it (only because Nikkimaria insisted on not using Bach composition for the Mass in B minor), and help with the wanted one for opera. What Andy did I don't know because I don't follow his edits, but I know that he helped with all three. I don't see problems nor would I call it "extremely active". Back to the original case: with Andy not around, I would simply ask Nikkimaria to avoid edits that can be interpreted as stalking. Peace could be rather easy here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we're talking about the addition of extra fields to boxes. For example, Template:Infobox musical composition which now has 44 fields (31 of them visible). About half of these were added by you [40]. Are you willing to undertake to stop doing this? That would be a big step forward.Kleinzach 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They were added - as said above - to be compatible with Bach composition when Nikkimaria used this template instead of Bach. (I confess that I was a bit furious when that happened. If such things don't happen again, I will not do it again.) I suggest to continue talking about this very general template (how many fields does Infobox church have?) on the template talk. Back to here, back to my suggestion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we all appreciate that you don't edit war, and are willing to discuss infobox issues in a calm way. The problem is that you make changes that affect large numbers of articles, without consulting other editors. Moreover, instead of participating in centralized discussions and respecting their outcomes, you've initiated a whole series of distributed debates, that are repetitive and waste everybody's time. Instead of working on content, we've all been chasing around trying to locate and respond to your latest initiatives. Leaving aside the extensive template changes and just looking at articles, you've started at least five discussions since February: Robert Stoepel on 27 February 2013, Peter Planyavsky on 5 March 2013, Johann Sebastian Bach on 21 March 2013, George Frideric Handel on 25 March 2013, and Richard Wagner on 16 May 2013. Kleinzach 00:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look a little closer: 1) Stoepel was in response to a discussion on project:Opera (I DO try to work with projects.) The author installed an infobox. 2) I didn't start a discussion on Peter Planyavsky, I installed an infobox for an article that I had created. (It was promptly reverted.) 3) I started a discussion on Bach, agreed. Some editors said it was too long, and could only be accepted if it contained only a minimum. 4) Trying to learn, I suggested a minimum for Handel. 5) I did NOT start a discussion for Wagner, I followed advice for a solution, see below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarity: In only one case did I insert an infobox in an article: my "own". Please have a look at the Stoepel discussion, that was efficient and encouraging, if you ask me. It was an article I knew well, I had nominated it for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, All you have to do is follow the links I have given above. In each case you started the discussion. I think it would help you if you can be frank about what happened. --Kleinzach 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I was learning. From 1) and 2) I learned that an infobox was possible for a composer, from 3) that my suggestion was too long, from 4) that it was not wanted even short, therefore 5) only talk, no hope to have it in the article, no discussion. Why we still had a discussion, I don't know. - I will not even try Infobox on composer talk again - and said so several times in this thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: link to another Planyavsky discussion, in case of interest, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For Andy: "I'll respond to SPhilbrick's questions when I'm able." That goes for other questions as well, please see his talk.

For myself, reply to Slim Virgin: I think my approach (outlined above) covers it, please read. Classical music is against infoboxes for composers. Infoboxes for compositions are used and discussed, an infobox for orchestras was recently developed. I don't think that I EVER added an infobox where I expected a controversy. - Nikkimaria already stopped reverting complete infoboxes (at least mine), but I would appreciate if she would discuss changes rather than making them, see above, diffs of BWV 103, and those are just one example. - My thoughts are more with Andy's health now than with infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's health, o come on. Andy is a battle hardned troll, if you cant see that, then I dont know what to say. You surely noticed himslef and jack routinly target editor's pages and go through the same old arguments, bit by bit. And this gang tend to swarm. A nice eg of the MO is [41]. But whatever, keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the odd scar myself from locking horns with Andy, but the very prominent banner suddenly posted to the top of his talk page makes me think it would be seemly to put this discussion on hold until he is back in circulation. What is amiss I cannot say, but you don't post banners like that for something minor. Pax? Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, what I'm getting at is that, if this goes to ArbCom – and it has been going on for so long that this seems likely – all parties risk being topic-banned from infobox additions or discussions. So the best thing would be for the three of you (or two if it's mostly Andy and Nikki) to get together and agree a compromise position: I'll stop doing X and you stop doing Y. That's infinitely preferable to having ArbCom decide it for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

SV I think this is a sensible suggestion. To begin, I'd like to add to the suggestion that anyone, whether Andy or another editor, cease adding infoboxes as was done here at the time an article is featured on the main page. Editors who curate articles that are featured on the main page have enough to deal with during the stressful days leading up to TFA, (polishing, etc.), and the days after, (clean up, etc.) and should be not subjected to hostile infobox conversations. Thanking our editors for writing featured content would go a long way toward bringing about peace instead of deriding them. My two cents. Victoria (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know that was the last time (August 2012), so the ceasing you ask for seems to have happened already. - News from Andy is that surgery went well but he will not be able to edit for a week. Can this be closed, asking everybody to assume good faith and look forward? Nikkimaria and I had a nice conversation today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is alas not quite far enough if you want to stop storms of this sort. I evidence the state of affiars at Richard Wagner when Gerda 'playfully' inserted a infobox on the article talk page while the article was coming up for front page feature. When I archived the lengthy and futile discussion over this the day before the article was front-paged, (and incidentally was thus enabled to feature Gerda's very nice Wagner DYK box there), Mr.Mabbett stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving. This is presently the subject of a complaint elsewhere, as Mr. Mabbett is under a permanent ban from interfering with articles when they are coming up for front-page. So Gerda is perfectly aware that the 'ceasing' has not taken place (at the very least in spirit, although I note Mr. Mabbett quibbles about the details). Mr.Mabbett's surgery - and of course I wish the man good health - does not somehow restore the GF which many of us have alas found it impossible, from bitter experience, to assume in his case. It is because Mr. Mabbett and some of those in his train play these silly games that time which could be spent on editing is spent on mutual masturbation (oops - did I say that?) of this sort. I don't exempt myself totally for being such a prat as to rise to their provocations, but occasionally even an equable soul like myself feels the need to try to draw a line.--Smerus (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• September 2012, same thing here, and February 2013, another instance. I keep a very small watchlist and so am only showing the instances of which I'm aware. We lost a very good and productive editor because the September event. I have to ask, why? Victoria (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Same thing"? - The "Pilgrim"-Infobox was not added on TFA day but later, Little Moreton Hall HAD an infobox, only "invisible". It has a visible collapsed infobox now. Some editors learn, - I miss George, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Gerda, just to clarify - I posted here in response to a very sensible suggestion SlimVirgin made and I added a concrete example using the words "the days before and the days after TFA" with the suggestion that perhaps that behavior should cease. As SV said "I'll stop doing X and you'll stop doing Y" - my example can be seen as X. This has now degenerated into a "that didn't happen", "that's ceased", "that doesn't happen anymore" when in fact three more examples have been presented. SV is quite right in saying that it's better to hash it out rather than having it go to Arbom, but we'll never get anywhere if it always degenerates in this fashion. I'll step out now; I was simply seconding SV's suggestion. Victoria (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) Cease is not stop, right? - Putting something on a talk page a week or so before TFA, explicitly stating that it was not to be considered for the article but the talk, is not the same as on the article on TFA day, right. (And I will not do even do that again.) When the talk was archived Andy complained that it was in the way of automatic archiving, - was that "stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving"? - That's what I am aware of, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, do not misrepresent! - and do not imply that I interfered with an auto-archive. The page had always been manually archived, until Mr. Mabbett in his self-righteousness unilaterally (without any discussion) converted it to auto-archiving. This is all evident in the page history. I had no wish on the day of the article being front-paged to start another futile argument thread, so left it alone. When issues which I raise are turned into implicit accusations against myself, I detect that the spirit of the master temporarily in exile has found a worthy inheritor.--Smerus (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of the dispute, so I don't know all the loopholes, but the best way forward is for everyone relying on a loophole to stop that way of thinking (e.g. I didn't add one, I just made an invisible one visible). The best situation would be if Gerda and Andy would agree not to add infoboxes to pages they didn't create or weren't in the process of significantly improving, and none to pages where they know editors will object (e.g. composers); and if Nikki would agree not to remove any, and not to look at Andy's contribs anymore. If someone does add an infobox and others disagree, open an RfC on the talk page, let it run for 30 days, have an uninvolved editor close it, and stick to the outcome.

Ask yourselves whether you want to go through an ArbCom case about this, and if not make every effort to avoid it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since February, we have had at least 16 classical music-related infobox debates/discussions, plus an unknown number relating to architecture, visual arts etc. Anything that can bring this to an end will be welcome, even an ArbCom case. --Kleinzach 09:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of time was wasted. Did you count Talk:Richard Wagner? No discussion was needed, the infobox could just have stayed on the talk as proposed by me, following advice by Newyorkbrad and Nikkimaria as a possible solution when an infobox is not wanted in the article. I thought that was a good solution, but if you are so strongly against it, I will not do that again. I don't have to stop adding one to a composer someone else created, because I never did that (as far as I remember). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: for those who don't look at that discussion (but it's enlightening, promised), here is the link to the advice mentioned (which was removed in the meantime): Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda: So are you willing to stop doing this? That would be positive. Kleinzach 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I stopped with Wagner, - that one experience of a "discussion" was enough for life, remember? See also Tristan, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wagner for example

I am all interested in a good way forward. The past is shown here in a nutshell: "I am entirely against having a infobox for this article. Wagner's life and music is a very complex topic and I am certain that an infobox would damage the article by giving inappropriate or highly debatable prominence to some aspects, and/or by under-reporting other aspects. Moreover, Gerda, as you know, the whole issue of infoboxes is extremely ontroversial and the overwhelming opinion of editors on the Opera, Wagner, and Classical Music Projects is against having them.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)" (quoted from the FAC in which I was involved)

When I read that I had an infobox ready in a sandbox. I put it on the talk (!) stating that it was not meant to be included in the article. There still was a discussion that would better be archived. I did not mind the manual archiving at all, please see.

I will have to understand how an infobox would damage the article but simply accept that view. I don't add infoboxes to articles (!) where I expect controversy, - as far as I remember I never did that, so I can easily agree to the request just above. - I just added one more item to the Wagner "DYK" collection, feel free to take it to the Wagner talk, Smerus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Syngmung

Section header shortened because it was messing up the display of the TOC on this page. Original title: User:Syngmung engaging in WP:SYNTH, WP:CANVAS and inserting references to rape and flawed comparisons to numerous articles — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's there in the title. I would like to propose a TBAN on "rape" for the foreseeable future. Syngmung apparently has some sort of axe to grind with the US military stationed in South Korea and the South Korean government that facilitates them. I am not a fan of either of these parties myself, but I can't condone any of the following actions:

• SYNTH on 1995 Okinawa rape incident, insisting that kidnapping and forcible rape of an elementary school student "is compared to" prostitution, citing two sources, one of which does not appear to mention Okinawa and the other of which mentions the incident but makes no such comparison.[42]
• Pretending in the article body to be citing a book but in fact giving a review of the book in the reference, implying that he/she has not in fact read the book but is inserting an out-of-context blurb in the article nonetheless.[43]
• Inserting disproportionate discussion of rape by U.S. soldiers after WW2 into an article about brothels and apparently using a hypothetical suggestion about setting up brothels as an excuse.[44]
• Canvassing numerous users with a misrepresentation of an ongoing deletion argument (accusing the delete/merge !votes of trying to "hide" something)[45][46][47][48] and canvassing numerous peripherally related WikiProjects with a misrepresentation of his/her opponents arguments/motives in an edit war.[49][50][51][52][53][54]
• Inserting links to articles on prostitution (particularly in South Korea) to the "See also" sections of unrelated/peripherally-related articles.[55][56][57]
• Adding a subsection about rape to the "Dramatizations of the invasion of Normandy" section, and then failing to get the point on being reverted numerous times.[58][59]

I know the user is going to accuse me (again) of being an SPA whose purpose is to edit war with him/her. This may be taken as true, given the circumstances, but please consider that I was editing Wikipedia (anonymously) some years ago, and came back when I noticed during my browsing that someone was adding inappropriate rape/prostitution references and comparisons to an article (the Okinawa one) that I just happened to be reading. Now that I have that out of the way can we focus on Syngmung's behavior? The user got blocked a few days ago for edit warring and when unblocked went straight back to adding the same kind of questionable material, and I just wanted to bring this to the community's attention, at least to the point that it hasn't already.

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(BTW, I know my diffs are a little bare, but in order to give a full context for this user's violations, I would need to basically cite every single edit the user has made for the last week or two. A look at the contributions page should not contradict anything that I have just said, though. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC) )

Nonsense. I have already talked some of my points according to reliabled sources. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone argued according to his OR without sources. Besides, I have already been bloked as being edit wars. It is unfair, cos Eh doesn't afraid of anyone are bringing the former issues. So, now I make great effort to talke in talk page. But Eh doesn't afraid of anyone ignore my effort to talk in talk pages and try to exclude users who dont match with his view.--Syngmung (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing material is never OR. Drawing a completely original comparison between the forcible rape of a child with prostitution is OR, even if one has two separate sources that each mention one but not the other. Please stop making personal attacks against me if you can't demonstrate with diffs -- which users have I tried to exclude? What is my "view"? I have engaged you on talk pages every chance you have given me -- remember that one not long ago where you accused me of promoting a POV by deleting your rape subsection, to which I responded immediately?[60] Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Syngmung for one week for resumption of edit warring at Rape during the liberation of France and for canvassing. The topic ban discussion can continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban As noted in the above report, Syngmung has an axe to grind on the topic US military personnel in Korea and is routinely engaging in sustained edit warring and the misrepresentation of sources to push his POV across multiple articles. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of User:Syngmung from all topics regarding U.S. military personnel. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Syngmung violates the non-neutral tone requirement (WP:NPOV) in rape articles. The false use of sources is a huge concern. The coatracking of outside topics—Syngmung's pet peeves—is evident in edits like this one in which Syngmung tacks on something about Asian comfort women at the end of the Rape in France article. This editor is not here to build the encyclopedia; instead, the narrow goal is to raise anger. Note that a topic ban will be as effective as a full ban, simply because the editor has demonstrated no other purpose. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think he is intentionally misrepresenting sources. But his poor English skills are a bad ingredient for a sensitive topic. I lolled at [61] for instance. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban coatracking, nopv violations, OR, the list goes on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban POV pushing, misquoting sources, mixing subjects on a page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by other editors on the same topic

• I have notified User:NorthBySouthBaranof of this discussion as well. He edit warred with "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" more than Symuyang did on that one article, at least recently [62] [63] [64], while Symuyang inserted that rape stuff in several articles. I don't think NorthBySouthBaranof or "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" should receive any sanctions though. In the latter case sanctions would be rather ineffective anyway. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:EDITWAR. If two editors have a content dispute and they resolve it peacefully by discussing it on the talk page, it's not technically an edit war. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

After you two edit warred for a while, you indeed did compromise on the talk page. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, he reverted me twice while I was trying to discuss on the talk page (I opened a section immediately on my initial deletion). BRD, man, BRD... Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Except that, as I pointed out on the talk page, you blindly reverted me twice as I was attempting to rewrite the section without commenting on the changes I made in a good faith effort to address your concerns, some of which were well-founded. You didn't say "Hey, good progress but I disagree with X Y and Z still," you just hit undo. [65] [66] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not blindly revert anything. I asked you to discuss on the talk page, as I had already posted there. The correct course of action would have been not to revert me blankly and then make a series of rapid-fire edits in order to fix the section, but to fix the section in a single edit. And, again, the first time I reverted you you hadn't fixed anything, but went straight ahead and blankly reverted me again. You also consistently set up a straw man by saying "these are reliable sources -- why are you removing them?", completely ignoring my given rationale.

Anyway, this thread isn't about your behavior or mine, but Syngmung's. If you don't have an opinion on whether Syngmung should be TBANned, then please refrain from bringing up off-topic discussions (that goes for you too, 86.121.18.17).

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your editing, "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone", is repeated edit warring. It's very easy to get on the high horse from your SPA account that you'll likely abandon in the next few days like you did with your previous ones. I know of another editor who registered an account to simply get others blocked for edit warring. That did not end well. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reporting long-term problems with other editors is one thing; the evidence can be judged by others on its merits, as it has been above. In contrast, trying to get several other editors into trouble by aggressively and repeatedly edit warring with your highly disposable current account is quite another issue, making you look like an agent provocateur. And discussing the behavior of all those involved in an incident is permitted at ANI, as explained at WP:Boomerang. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, you arrived here solely to harass me, it seems. You have consistently misspelled Syngmung's username, and you seem to have totally missed the part where Syngmung (whose English is always at least comprehensible) has deliberately synthesized separate sources and/or pretended to be citing a book while in fact citing a blurb in a newspaper. And now, despite not having anything to add to this discussion, and even though NorthBySouthBaranof have not (and never have had) a significant dispute with each other over the content of the article, and the so-called "edit-war" lasted a total of two edits by me and two by NBSB, you insist on opening a separate subsection about me. Why are you doing this, may I ask?? Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are constantly a victim. Someone consistently pushes the undo button from your accounts & IP addresses when you're not looking. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And speaking of harassment: what is this? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You two, take this somewhere else. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm willing to close this with a topic ban. Proposed wording: Syngmung (talk · contribs) is banned from making any edits pertaining to rape and US military personnel and US military bases, and the intersections of those topics. I'll let this sit here for a day or so to see if anyone wants any tweaks. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged: topic ban

Laurel Lodged has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties. Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North). Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus).

The problem with Laurel Lodged making changes like these has been raised at WikiProject Ireland-related pages on many occasions. At this stage, Laurel Lodged knows that these changes are controversial and that the community does not appreciate his/her contributions of this kind. One of the last times this happend, I raised the question of a topic ban. There wasn't consensus then as to whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned or forced to first seek consensus before making changes like these.

A new thread has been opened on WikiProject Ireland to do with a new set of mass changes Laurel Lodged's has made. I propose now that Laurel Lodged be topic banned from making changes to do with Irish counties and their names.

I've left a message on the WikiProject Ireland thread inviting comment here on whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned. --RA (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. For some idea of the seriousness of the issue, see this AN/I thread, Request from uninvolved admin, from January this year. I might add that none of the other editors in that discussion have been involved in any disruptive mass editing since then, but Laurel Lodged still continues as before. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Scolaire 1. the quoted ANI case has nothing to do with the current case. The two are unrelated. This is about Counties of Ireland whereas the cited case concerned the Gaelic Athletic Association and their peculiar use of GAA county. 2. That case did not result in any censure for me or the other cited user - Brocach. So my account is still in good standing despite your attempt to impugn my reputation with the slur. 3. I have abided by the ruling in that case, even though I argued against at the time. 4. I defy you to find any edit of mine since that date that is in defiance of the decisions arrived at in that case. 5. No evidence of any misuse of wiki guidelines has been produced in support of the current case as presented (as opposed to the different case cited). 5.On any reading of our interactions over the years, which have usually been on opposite sides, it will become obvious to an uninvolved reader what may have been the true motivation for Scolaire's support in this case. There was a passing bandwagon and Scolaire gleefully jumped aboard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Both cases involve you trying to substitute all county names with the administrative county name. How many times have you been involved in discussions that point out to you that the traditional name is the most commonly used name, and the one that currently enjoys consensus? The point *you* should have taken from previous discussions and ANI wasn't that you "weren't censured", but that the reasons you provided for switching to using the administrative county names haven't been accepted by the community, and although the previous ANI was focused on the context of GAA county names, it did not give you license to switch to a different usage context and carry on as before. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to HK In the cited ANI case, it was not about my inserting county names. It was about my inserting the letters GAA into (shock/horror) GAA articles. So the two are not comparable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support The strength of the previous case noted, plus the current case - added to the incredibly vindictive and attacking post above - all add together to say "topic ban as a minimum". Past behaviour always comes into play - especially if that behaviour has not demonstrably improved. To actually say what Laural said above in full view of administrators and the community really shows that they're not here to play nicely with others. As such, a 6 month topic ban and indefinite civility parole is supportable AND supported (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I thought a Topic Ban has received support previously, and I support the current request for one. This editor is simply not learning that these edits have really no support or consensus. Given that these exact types of edits from this editor have been discussed on several occasions before (especially the whole "traditional" county vs "administrative" county) and didn't find support, the onus was on the editor to ensure that future edits were in line with existing norms. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support County names should be used sensible. Sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option, sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option. But the endless edit wars and disputes are tiresome and damaging to the encyclopaedia. So I support a) a six month topic ban for Laurel Lodged, b) a 2 month topic ban for everyone who starts edit warring about county names, and c) an investigation into ways of avoiding these conflict (i.e. rules when to use the name of an administrative county and when to use the name of the "classic" county) The Banner talk 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Banner I agree that edit warring is tiresome and damaging. I fail to see how topic banning me while leaving the other warring parties untouched is either just or sensible or in the best interests of Wiki. There are always at least two parties to a war. Why would you assume that my arguments are less worthy than the arguments of the other parties? Let them present their arguments and then come to judgement. Those arguments will probably revolve around WP:Common. My arguments revolve around Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names. As HighKing commented in the WikiProjectIreland page, "There's a difference of opinion on what the "county" name is, as a location for towns especially in Tipperary.". That's very true - there is a difference of opinion and there is conflicting Wiki policy guidelines. In my opinion, I am perfectly entitled to rely on the "Use modern names" guideline. There is nothing, nothing to say that it is in any way inferior to "Common". To say otherwise is just a matter of opinion. In short, who's to say that the edit warring is not caused by those editors who obstinately stick to the "Common" policy while refusing to acknowledge the presence, let along validity of "Use modern names". Let he who is without sin in this edit war cast the first stone. Secondly, I also agree with Banner when he says "sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option.". That is to say, context is all important. To give an example, there are times when it is best to speak of Byzantium, other times when it's best to speak of Constantinople and still others when it's best to speak of Istanbul. To stick rigidly to Istanbul when speaking of Constantine the Great would be wrong, even though the 3 sites occupied the same ground at various times. Conversely, to say that the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge is located in Constantinople is also wrong. Yet this is precisely what many of the supporters here would have us do - to ascribe historical, defunct administrative names to current realities. Context is important; when dealing with modern realities, use modern names. This position in neither capricious, OR, disruptive or unsupported by wiki guidelines. I have every reason to believe that the opposite is true. That there is a claque of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki, is no reason for me to admit that facts are not facts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Laurel Lodged - there's the flaw right there. You're pushing "I've got a policy on my side" while ignoring the general consensus and other policies. Also, name-calling won't get you very far no matter how frustrated you feel. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - North and South Tipp have been around a very long time and have never really caught on as a method of location. They are just local government areas. It's the same in the UK. There are plenty of boroughs and districts which are never used in addresses and, effectively, these instances are also addresses in the sense that their usage is intended to convey to the reader where a place is. Tipp on its own locates a place perfectly adequately. Thats the sensible option. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Atlas I'm afraid there are a number of holes in your argument. Firstly, this is not about post codes or addressing issues, it's about counties. As proof of this, see Dublin 4 which is a perfectly legitimate postal district but is not a county (though the denizens of that district might like it to be. But that's another story). You say that "They are just local government areas". This is incorrect - they are counties per the Local Government Act 2001. County Tipperary, by contrast is not listed in that Act as a county. While we may speculate about that omission (was it an accident of legal draftsmanship? Was it deliberate? Was it a sop to nostalgia?), such musings cannot find their way into Wiki. It is what it is. The use of the word "just" is also inappropriate as it implies that NT and ST somehow occupy a space and status that is less than County Tipperary(CT). It is as if CT fulfills some function other than demarcating areas of local government. It does not. If you know of some higher order functions that CT fulfills but which NT / ST do not fulfill, please let us know. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was about post codes. On the contrary I made clear it is about location. The reason we write that Dublin is in Ireland, or Clonmel is in Tipp, or Atlanta is in Georgia, is to assists users in 'locating' those places in their own minds as they read. Funnily enough, what most people use (and I guess there is a possibility that you don't do this, but most people do) is the various parts of an address. If you were posting a letter in Dublin to Clonmel, you wouldn't need to add 'Ireland' at the end of the address cos the chaps in An Phost would be quite capable of 'locating' Clonmel without it. Readers here c×an't be relied on to have the same knowledge as An Post workers, so we give them some help. We add some extra geo-location info to help. That this info is also shared by address databases is neither here nor there. It's just useful geo-location meta-information that we format and structure into readable prose. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ownership issues at Template:Attached KML

For reasons discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox Australian road and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal, {{Infobox Australian road}} now uses KML data, with related KML files stored as subpages of the template. Infobox Australian road is managed by WikiProject Australian Roads, while editors at Template talk:Attached KML are trying to force a move of KML data at Infobox Australian road to subpages of Attached KML. This seems to be a clear case of editors at one template asserting ownership of all KML files, which is highly inappropriate, as is any attempt to assert ownership. Attached KML certainly has the right to use KML data but, like pretty much everything else on Wikipedia, it doesn't own it, as much as it would apparently like to. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think calling this an "incident" is overstating the issue. The locus of the dispute is that up to now, all KML data has been stored in subpages of {{Attached KML}}. The Australian road editors want to include the KML links in the Australian road infobox, which is a reasonable thing to do, albeit one that I (and other editors) disagree with. What the disagreement is over is that KML data is being copied to subpages of the infobox, which several editors have agreed is a bad thing because it causes data duplication and results in data being stored in several different locations. Ultimately the whole thing will become moot when Wikidata advances to the point that this data can be moved over there. I may be wrong, and I am involved so that may be clouding my judgment, but at this point I would say this is still just a content dispute and no admin intervention is required—discussion is going on, people are making points, and certainly people's dander may be up a bit, but there's nothing close to the metaphorical Wikipedia fistfights that usually get dragged to ANI going on here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us with the required notifications which you didn't, and thank you for explaining what admin action you are requesting which you also didn't. This is borderline forum shopping. --Rschen7754 10:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a case of one template asserting ownership over content used by another template. WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted. I haven't specifically addressed any editor, just a group, so it's not really necessary to notify particular editors and since this is the only place I've sought intervention, it's not forum shopping. Please also remember, although this directly involves {{Infobox Australian road}} there was an active move to not address the issue at that template by Scott5114 who, coincidentally, is also the creator of {{Attached KML}}. At best it's disingenuous to accuse me of forum shopping. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel that I was attempting to forum shop or slip something by you; that was not my intention at all. I was simply trying to keep there from being two discussions on the same thing occurring at the same time, and I figured that it would be better to have the discussion continue at the Attached KML talk page because that page is watched by more editors (many of which had already commented there). We could have just as well moved the discussion to WT:HWY or somewhere else, but I figured it would be simplest to just continue debate at the template talk page. I wish you hadn't opened this ANI thread, because now we have a third page where discussion on this topic is going on, and it's slowly morphing into a meatball:ForestFire.

I don't really think there are OWN issues here; you may see it that way, but I assure you that we are simply proposing what we feel is the best technical solution to the problem. It's unfortunate that you disagree with us, but disagreement is something that happens regularly on Wikipedia, and we have to rise to meet the challenge of working through it and finding a solution to that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

When you posted this message at Template talk:Infobox Australian road I responed with "Since we're discussing this infobox, I don't see why we should discuss at that template".[67] To date you have made no attempt to address that. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not just discussing the infobox anymore, but rather the larger question of "how shall KML data on the English Wikipedia be administered"? That question should be answered with the involvement of all of the people who have a stake in KML data. For better or for worse, the only page that all of those people watch is Template talk:Attached KML. (Many of them are not involved in the road projects per se, but have a programming or general geography interest.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The move proposal has nothing to do with how KML data on the English Wikipedia is administered. It's aimed purely at Attached KML taking control of KML data used by another template. If you want to discuss the administration of KML data, open an RfC and then decide what to do with Infobox Australian road's KML data based on the outcome of the RfC. How KML data should be managed in the long term has already been determined - the plan is to move it to Wikidata. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with AussieLegend, KML data is not owned by Attached KML or the people who watch its page, if another wikipedia group wish to use KML for their own purposes. There is nothing stopping them. The long term goal is the same anyway (migrate to wikidata). Im sure we can even discuss ways of keeping the two sets with exactly the same content (which shouldnt be a massive task given the low number of KML files) -- Nbound (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see ownership issues here. Notices of discussions were made at WikiProject Highways [68], WikiProject Australian Roads [69], and Infobox Australian road [70], with discussion occurring at Template talk:Attached KML. The discussion brought to attention here regards moving KML file subpages from one template to the other. This would not prevent anyone using the KML files in any way, and would only require a line or two of infobox template code to be changed. The KML files should really be in the File namespace, rather than template subpages, but that is not currently possible. - Evad37 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Posting some notices doesn't negate WP:OWN. The discussion is about removing content from Infobox Australian road, so the discussion should have continued at that template's talk page. It shouldn't have been moved to another template where the editor would receive a more sympathetic ear. The people at Attached KML have a vested interest in maintaining control of KML data and the instigator was that template's creator. Even the appearance of ownership is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that this is all a storm in a teacup. The WP:OWN issue is the "formal proposal" at Template talk:Attached KML. The entire discussion went from 0 to 100mph within less than a single day (since notices were posted), and noone can restrict access to wikipedia files to any other groups on wikipedia without some reasoning that consists of more than not wanting to have two copies (as there is no centralised source yet). Perhaps if instead of trying to push through the issue to a conclusion so quickly, all parties could discuss it a little further, and hopefully a bit more calmly, perhaps a compromise can be found?

I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :).... (and as I stated back there I dont even care so much how this pans out as long as the functionality works) -- Nbound (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal that has a wide margin of support. That's called consensus. Furthermore, there is no WP:OWN issue here; WP:OWN would be restricting the use of KML to the {{Attached KML}} template. I suggest that this thread be closed. Sometimes, neither side is going to budge, and straw polls have to be used to reflect where the consensus is, and we have to go with that. That's how Wikipedia works. --Rschen7754 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of binding consensus that takes place on wikipedia generally requires a bit more time to allow editors to commment. Move proposals take 7 days, RfCs take 30, (and both generally follow long discussions on the matter anyway) the more informal consensus building ways don't have to follow those guidelines, but the time so far is far too short. American editors involved may not realise it's actually a long weekend here and many editors will likely be taking a short vacation/holiday. Straw polling two sides that "wont budge" goes against the very ethos of "consensus building". Are you saying that either side is so stubborn that they are unwilling to compromise or be swayed? As Ive stated, I dont care how this turns out as long as it works, but Im still worried about how this is essentially being steamrolled through so quickly in the name of a supposed consensus. AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion. I hope that you and others would be willing to do the same. Leaving things as they are for a few more days isnt going to hurt anything or break the encyclopedia. :) -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I also note that the most recent vote seems to have highlighted a need for categorisation in their opinion also. -- Nbound (talk)

"AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion." Can you please point to this? I sure haven't seen it. Sometimes, when building consensus, there is going to be a minority of people who disagree. On a large site like the English Wikipedia, we can't cater to everyone, especially when the options are so binary (we can enable Pending Changes or we can disable it. There's no middle ground... for example). I'm very concerned at the stalling tactics that are being used here - I think AussieLegend is hoping that people will forget about this and that he will be allowed to continue doing whatever he wants, ignoring what the actual consensus is. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, my post stated "I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :)", and his immediate reply was "That would seem reasonable.". -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For all we know AussieLegend might be quite happy to keep the files at Attached KML if there is some decent form of categorisation (instead of 4000 files all together, IIRC - there are already some suggestions of how by Floydian and WOSlinker)... There simply hasnt been enough discussion at this stage to start taking strawpolls in the name of consensus. -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is just a proposal. It has no effect until it is closed. That could be a week from now. That could be two weeks from now. And votes can always be changed. In fact, it's generally premature to close a proposal while discussion is going on (which it clearly is). Thus, I see no reason why starting a proposal was inappropriate. --Rschen7754 02:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is automatically assuming the outcome of discussions, there are likely compromise options which havent even had time to air yet, yet its already been claimed by yourself that the opinions are binary (removal vs. keeping) and there is no middleground, which appears to be untrue amongst both supporters and those currently opposed to the removal of the fork (some kind of categorisation at least for AU KML files?). The proposal is premature, delaying it by a couple of days isnt going to hurt or break anything. -- Nbound (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the KML files can be in one place or they can be in many places, so in that regard, yes, it is binary. And I am still awaiting an answer to my question of how administrative assistance is needed here. I'm obviously recused from this thread, but if I wasn't, I would be closing this thread to that effect. --Rschen7754 02:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is binary in that regard, but the discussion has bought up the possibility of more nuanced options than that. There are shades of grey/gray. Lets see if any of these alternative options bear fruit? :) -- Nbound (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. So (obviously pending AussieLegend's agreement) can we agree to close this thread? --Rschen7754 02:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The ownership issue DOES exist, despite the claims of Attached KML supporters. They are asserting control of all KML data on Wikipedia by insisting that other templates comply with Attached KML's method of storing data, i.e. storing ALL KML data on Wikipedia as 4,300+ subpages of Attached KML even though the other templates do not use Attached KML. That's the very essence of WP:OWN. Attached KML is saying "You can use our KML files, but you can't have your own set because they're ours" and quite simply, Attached KML doesn't have that right. Despite Rschen7754's assertion I have siad what intervention I'm requesting: "WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted." Administrators can close the proposed move as violation of WP:OWN and direct that discussion should take on the talk page of the relevant template (i.e. {{Infobox Australian road}}). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am just going to stop responding, as I am not going to respond to such a statement that is so far off base I don't even know where to begin. --Rschen7754 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you feel that way, because it really only helps demonstrate my concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Please note that inappropriate canvassing has taken place: [71][72][73][74][75][76] --Rschen7754 11:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you're being quite ridiculous. The move proposal instigated by {{Attached KML}} editors directly affects {{Infobox Australian road}}, which is managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads. I've merely notified the members of WikiProject Australian Roads listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads#Participants. That's more than appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That notice was barely neutral, and a more proper audience would have been notifying all the people who have posted a KML and have shown a definite interest in the integrity of the KML system. --Rschen7754 12:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The notice identified exactly what was happening in as neutral a manner as possible, and directed editors to all three related discussions. It was entirely appropriate. Attached KML doesn't have a thing to do with Infobox Australian road yet a discussion was opened at Template talk:Attached KML for the the express purpose of asserting control over data used by Infobox Australian road. By discussing the matter there you've stacked the votes in your favour. To accuse me of vote-stacking, given the ownership issues and that vote-stacking is reprehensible. I'll add that I believe you're only calling it canvassing because involvement of WP:AURD members at a template they'd normally have nothing to do with would bring some balance to a discussion that currently favours the opinions of the group of Attached KML editors who would normally have nothing to do with Infobox Australian road. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

All 0 of them. --Rschen7754 12:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, what if they agree with the proposal? If I remember correctly, Nbound (talk · contribs) did a similar "canvass/notification" (though they didn't realise the conflict between editors of the two projects) on user talk pages ([77], [78], [79], [80] [just to name/link a few) for a RfC about a proposal about the Infobox Australian road be merged/replaced with Infobox roads. I think we should deal with the "votes" as they come and hope someone not involved closes the discussion when they feel that the support is there and the concerns are addressed. I don't totally agree with AussieLegend's wording but it seems to be neutral enough.

The way it's going, this will end up being a sorry mess at ArbCom if the hostility continues. Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not they agree with the proposal. It is still canvassing. To be completely honest, the lack of comments on this thread by uninvolved users is very surprising seeing as this is clearly a violation. TCN7JM 01:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing at all. Many AU editors are involved in multiple tasks and are too busy to watch every page. Notifying them individually of related discussions is a necessary courtesy but I do agree with you regarding the lack of uninvolved editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Break

WP:AURD has dropped KML from its roads template, I would suggest we close this discussion -- Nbound (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Rschen7754 03:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that we've dropped KML there's still the WP:OWN issue, which is a big part of why we dropped it. It's simply not worth keeping the KML functionality when you're being bullied. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When everyone "bullies" you by telling you that they don't agree with you, it's called WP:CONSENSUS. --Rschen7754 09:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN prevents a valid consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If only one user thinks WP:OWN is actually being violated, then it is valid consensus that it is not being violated. TCN7JM 16:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Archived without resolution

Archived. As I can't edit more than 5000 characters, I continued here, which has also exceeded 5000 characters. But it may be also archived without admin decision. I request you to decide about claim of User:Rahuljain2307 over Chanakya that being Brahmin and reading Vedas does not necessarily mean being follower of Hinduism. His claim makes all sources and all existing knowledge about Hinduism irrelevent. neo (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Uninvolved non-admin: Just passing by, but if it hasnt already it might be more appropriate to have an RfC or DRN case. After which the user can then be banned for edit warring or something more specific if they continue their disruptive behaviour. -- Nbound (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately no admin has come forward to make any comment to resolve this dispute. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website of Chanakya National Law University says that Chanakya studied Vedas. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing Brahmin caste with Chanakya. this website of Outlook (magazine) refer Chanakya as Brahmin. as per this translation of Chanakya Niti Shastra wrote by Chanakya himself Chanakya was devotee of Vishnu. I reject extremely weird claim of reported user that being Brahmin, reading/preaching sacred religious Vedas does not mean being a Hindu. He may also claim that praying before Hindu deities does not mean being a Hindu. I reject it. As per sources I am going to make edit on Chanakya to state his religion as Hindu. If reported user resort to edit war I will come back again. neo (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That evidence alone should prevent a revert without reasons why those sources are wrong or another source stating religion or conversion. Your opening post was very unusual and difficult to read; but ANI is not really for content disputes. WP:DRN is a good spot for these, but the talk page should always be the first place to discuss things. If they don't discuss, then it is far more likely to get blocked when an editor just blindly edit wars without reason or evidence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yup ... ANI is not for content dispute resolution - especially when the original post was unclear to begin with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I failed to draft the edits in my bad Indian english. And since beginning I knew only ANI. Now I am learning. There is another dispute with reported user about moving articles to IAST spelling names without any consensus. I going through proper process to resolve dispute as you can see on Talk:Mahāvīra. First I sought 3O, now Rfc. Hope that dispute will be resolved. neo (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahuljain2307 has come up with another weird reason and has reverted my edit on Chanakya. This baffles me and if admins do not guide me, I am in total paralysis on wikipedia. neo (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, take it to WP:DRN ... stop hitting your head against the wrong wall :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't check Talk:Chanakya. He reverted my edit only because my refs are not in proper format. Should this be reason to revert edit? Can this be reason to go to DRN? He is coming up with weird arguments and you are considering it content dispute. neo (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That user is moving pages without consensus, blanking and redirecting sourced articles like this without even edit summary. It will take very long time in DRN to restore articles. Why ANI exist? OK, Bye. neo (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dodging a topic ban?

Recently user Jax 0677 received a topic ban regarding templates. Off course, he was not happy with that but now I have the nasty feeling that he is dodging the topic ban with the help of an assistant/meatpuppet, in this case User:Frietjes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Evidence (more or less a random choice):

• Involved template: Template:October Tide
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 9/6/2013 03:19
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 13:53

• Involved template: Template:Bill Medley
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: two remarks, last at 8/6/2013 22:06
• Addition to template by Frietjes: two edits, last at 9/6/2013 13:50

• Involved template: Template:D Mob
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 8/6/2013 19:11
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 15:22

I did not check every item but due to me nominating the templates, they are on my watchlist. And suddenly I see a lot of Frietjes-edits on templates that I have recently nominated, show up. Too many to be a coincidence. Request for help from Jax to Frietjes: here, here, here, here, here and here. These request started as soon as the day after the topic ban was issued. And as far as my superficial check went, Frietjes responded in most cases.

It is possible that I am overly itchy to Jax after all the trouble in the past, so I would like to hear other opinions. The Banner talk 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

seems like this was constructive comment, which is in contradiction to starting an ANI thread. The fact that you see a lot of my edits could have something to do with the comments that I am making on the respective TfDs. Yes, I do read the notes posted on my talk page, and sometimes I add links to templates and articles in response to those comments. I also express an independent opinion at TfD, and more often than not, concur with the deletion of the associated templates. of course, that hasn't stopped you from attacking me there as well. also interesting that I was only recently informed of the topic ban, and the editors invited to comment on it did not include me. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have both the nomination pages and the individual templates on my watchlist. And even after a clear warning you continued. The Banner talk 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry, but how is saying "this starts to look at dodging a topic ban..." issuing me a "clear warning"? I am guessing English is not your native language, and I was never informed that I or anyone else was topic banned, nor was I provided a link to any topic ban. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a good old classic to attack the messenger when you have no arguments against the message. The Banner talk 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can both of you please just drop it? This is not helping. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Circumventing the ban wouldn't surprise me in the least. IDHT is a common issue with that editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• I do agree that Jax is circumventing the topic ban by notifying another editor (a regular participant in TfDs) of articles that exist or that he has created on topics for which a template just happens to be nominated for deletion. I have no issue with Frietjes on this matter. Frietjes can do his her own due diligence on templates at TfD without Jax's sketchy attempts to manipulate their outcomes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• IMHO Jax is circumventing the topic ban by his communications to Frietjes....William 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Open and shut case. Jax is editing by proxy - Frietjes is the proxy. Jax needs blocking, Frietjes needs a strong final warning about editing on the behalf of blocked or topic-banned users. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Reply - I made no "Request for help", I have violated no terms of my topic ban, and have worked very hard to obey the ban (which places no restrictions on editing any articles). --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• You made a comment to another editor who then went on to add it to a template. Your topic ban was broadly construed. This is basically an attempt to side step that ban no matter how innocent you try to make it out to be. Blackmane (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Technically, you didn't make a request for help. Instead, you dumped a load of things on Frietjes' talk page for them to put in for you. You're circumventing the topic ban, and you know damn well what you're doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reply - Frietjes and I are not collaborating. Sincere apologies if that is how my communication came across. Now that multiple editors have the same issue, I will do my best to stop leaving this type of message from here on out. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's allowable, but I'm in favor of a one-week block and another six months added to the topic ban. I'd like to see Jax learn some things on his own because it always takes more than multiple editors having an issue before he gets it (and, apparently, even a topic ban isn't enough). Many of us have asked Jax to take a step a back, maybe a forced break will do him good. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Star. The topic ban is broadly construed. Anything that can justifiably seen as infringing on the topic ban requires a block, and a resetting of the ban, clear and simple. I still don't buy for a second that Jax didn't know what they were doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I am "topic-banned from editing or creating" (as well as discussing) and that's all. The accusers have the burden of proof regarding "for them to put in for you", not I. I cannot control what others add to Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with what others have done, it's what you have done. Frietjes could have completely ignored your messages, but your repeated notifications to him her (and only him her) of other existing articles and articles you created which are directly related to topics that have navboxes at TfD proves your motives were to do nothing other than to sway the outcome of deletion discussions. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pssst, Frietjes is not a him but a her The Banner talk 01:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It isn't easy to tell unless an editor has a name that obviously one gender or the other.----->...William 01:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Just a case of doing your homework... The Banner talk 01:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I hope everyone remembers that "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". From my contact with both editors, I believe they both got the message that this sort of behavior is not allowed under the topic ban. If that wasn't clear before, I would say that it is clear now. I move that we drop it and move on. I'm off to work on closing a tiny fraction of the massive number of Jax-related nominations at TfD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be harsh, but I don't think you are an uninvolved admin... The Banner talk 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And neither are you? I am simply expressing an opinion like the rest of the editors in this thread, most of whom are more involved than I am. Don't worry, this is the last comment you will see from me in this thread. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Frietjes will have gotten the message. Jax will pretend that they have, and revert back to their old ways within a week or two. That's what I've seen them do every time they've been informed about incorrect edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• We should keep the focus on Jax's continued disruptive behavior that needs to be deterred so he is encouraged to become a more productive and congenial editor. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I strongly agree with Plastikspork, that this should result in a written warning, not a ban extension (one additional month at a maximum, and definitely not a block). --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• How on earth does this work, since you're talking about yourself? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry, Jax, no more leniency from my side. You made a deal with Plastikspork to save your failing templates by moving them into your own userspace. Your dumped links on Frietjes talkpage with the unwritten request (but everybody can see that) to fix templates that are subject to a deletion discussion. No, Jax. The Banner talk 10:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - I have not asked Plastikspork to move anything to my userspace since the ban was enacted. Can you prove that I made an unwritten request? So far I have seen accusations with no proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Preventative block is required This is a gigantic load of pigshit, if you ask me. As I am the one who formally enacted the topic ban, I have been monitoring Jax's talkpage (as well as Banner's, BTW). I have found the utter level of obfuscation by Jax, combined with massive wikilawyering to be frustrating to say the least. For example, when asked a simple question about a template that Banner was searching for, Jax claimed that he would not respond without a formal representative of the WMF permitting it. However, on the other hand, we have Jax breaking the spirit of the topic ban with these interactions with Frietjes. Apparently it's fine to put roadblocks up when someone is cleaning up your crap, but on the other hand encourage someone else to try and save your crap? Violations of the spirit of the topic ban are just as serious as outright violations. Jax - your templates ARE THE PROBLEM. Do not under any circumstances attempt to "save" them, and ensure that you help people try and clean up your mess. I'm wholly in favour of a preventative block for a minimum of a month so that Banner and others can complete the process of cleaning up the shit without continued interference from Jax. This month should allow at least 75% of the problematic templates from being nominated, discussed, and likely deleted. For the very clear violation of the topic ban, I recommend a 6 month extension of the ban. As for Frietjes - I'll give the benefit of the doubt that she was unaware that her actions-by-proxy were inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• While strongly protesting the idea that Frietjes has anything to apologise for (meatpuppetry? Really?), it's pretty obvious just from Jax's replies here that circumvention was the goal, and the less said about the train wreck that was the ban-enaction thread the better. On the other hand, I don't see what a block accomplishes here. Call this a final warning to go and do something productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also AGF that Frietjes was not aware of Jax's topic ban, being a bare 2 lines in a morass of TfD noms. Otherwise I'm on the fence about a block at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It sounds a bit naive to see loads of templates being nominated and see loads of links dumped on your talkpage and then not ask the question: "Why don't you do that yourself?" The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• How many chances does someone get to change bad and disruptive behavior? From an increasing amount of his template creations being nominated a full year ago, to editors showing growing concern and offering some friendly advice on his talk page, to an RfC/U in March and a topic ban less than two months after the RfC/U opened, to multiple efforts to dodge such a ban that brings us to this AN/I, Jax has been unable or completely refuses to comprehend how he is disrupting the Wikipedia community while he continues to defend his actions as an innocent misunderstanding. I doubt at this point that a block will deter Jax's behavior as I believe he will continue to test the limits of his topic ban even after such a block is lifted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Lukeno94, I am allowed one vote like everyone else. As far as I know, the part of the topic ban about leaving messages on other people's pages was made up after the fact. This is exactly why I asked for the rules of the ban to be laid out explicitly. The Banner has referred to me as a lazy cow, and others have used profanity on my talk page. I have not interfered with anything, and IMO the evidence is circumstantial. Many of the XfD's are from my work way back in 2012. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, pure bullshit. You were not allowed to edit or discuss templates "broadly construed" which you kindly defined yourself quite properly, EXCEPT you were permitted to edit them in your personal userspace, AND request copies of deleted templates using WP:REFUND. You were further forced to actually RESPOND to someone who was cleaning up your mess because you wikilawyered-up. Just like we EXPECT assistance from people blocked for massive copyright violations, we EXPECT your help in cleaning up the massive swath of crappy templates that you were told time mand time again to either stop making or FIX the few useful ones (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - If I am not allowed to discuss something, then I am not permitted to tell people where they are until I am given permission to do so. I was simply doing my best to obey the ban in its entirety, for which I was scolded. Once I was given that permission from you, I complied with the request immediately, as I did with the second question about the same. How are you authorized to use profanity on my talk page in a non-encyclopedic manner (which IMO is not appropriate conduct for any Wikipedian, much less a WP administrator)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, you notified Frietjes about articles only because you thought she'd be interested in reading them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember the discussion that I started on 4 April 2013? That was a request to improve some old templates. (You can find that discussion here). To my opinion, that discussion showed a plain unwillingness to maintain templates that you have created. So even when I politely asked you to improve older templates you either refused or did it quite unwillingly. The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Their is indeed no formal obligation to maintain the items one has created, but most editors at least feel the moral obligation to do so. I don't think I am a rare exception.

Reply - I updated Cavalera Conspiracy, and put Merge Tags on Steve "Boomstick" Wilson and A Rhyme & Reason expediently. Other than that, I am not required to keep things updated for an indefinite period of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Parallel and the Energy Catalyzer article.

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

---

This new contributor, one of a long line of single-purpose accounts concerning the controversial Energy Catalyzer article, has in spite of multiple warnings persisted in using the article talk page as a soapbox, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Relevent policies concerning article content - WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS etc, as well as the WP:FRINGE guideline have repeatedly been pointed out, to no avail. When, after repeated soapboxing, Parallel was asked to confine comments on the talk page to proposals regarding article content, he chose to first copy-paste verbatim a large section from 'Engineering News' a minor South African website, [81] suggesting this as a replacement for already-agreed sourced content. After the obvious problem regarding copyright was pointed out, Parallel went on to inform us that he had "emailed for copyright permission" [82]. Informed that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by contributors, not copy-pasted from elsewhere, Parallel then made this proposal for article content:

The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi[3][4] with support from physicist Sergio Focardi.[5][6] An Italian patent, which received a formal but not a technical examination, describes the apparatus as a "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen".[7][8]

There are a dozen theories of how it works, but none is widely accepted. NASA is following the theory of Widom-Larsen. (ref http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory) The US Patent Office has rejected all patents on LENR since 1989, following failed attempts to replicate Fleischmann and Pons “cold fusion” paper, although this has since been replicated, so Rossi cannot reveal proprietary details.

Rossi has publicly demonstrated several different versions of the E-Cat since January 2011, culminating in the demonstration of a plant rated at 1 MW made from 106 E-Cats, that produced 436 kW of heat in October 2011. 1 MW plants are now offered for sale through Leonardo Corporation 1331 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida-33139 USA.

Independent tests, funded by Elforsk, were carried out on the E-Cat HT, a high temperature version, by seven scientists: Giuseppe Levi, of Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, of Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, of Upssala University, in Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology. Their 29-page report, titled ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 The test in December ran 96 hours, the test in March 116 hours. The scientists say the results indicated anomalous heat production at least an order of magnitude more than any known chemical reaction, but their paper has not yet been peer reviewed. A summary has been posted on Elforsk’s web site. They are funded to continue with a six month test starting this Summer. (sources cited by Parallel: [83][84][85], diff [86])

Given that large chunks of this are entirely unsourced (unsurprisingly, given the claims regarding LENR/cold fusion, which is currently fringe science at best), and given the blatant disregard for NPOV, I think that the description given by TenOfAllTrades - "advertorial" - [87] is entirely apt. That Parallel should think it appropriate to include the address of the supposed supplier of this as-yet-unverified device in an article is almost beyond belief.

Sadly, Parallel seems either incapable of understanding Wikipedia policies, or unwilling to abide by them, and is continuing to fill the article talk page with unsourced assertions about 'facts' and about the supposed 'bias' of contributors unwilling to swallow the E-Cat promoter's claims whole. Not only are we faced with endless assertions regarding a 'truth' that mainstream science has entirely failed to confirm, but we are now confronted with yet another 'truth' - that this device is apparently available to purchase! "How can the E-Cat be fringe science and nonexistent when you can buy a 1 MW plant?" [88] Needless to say, this ridiculous claim that the E-Cat is available for purchase is unverified by any remotely-credible source.

As I have shown, and as further scrutiny of Parallel's edit history [89] will confirm, this contributor seems entirely unable to work construtively within Wikipeda policy concerning the E-Cat article, and has done nothing but disrupt discussions and waste other people's time. I am of the opinion that a topic ban may be the only solution - at least until Parallel can demonstrate competence by contributing usefully in unrelated topic areas. It is to be expected that newcomers should be given a little slack, and should be given time to learn how Wikipedia works - but there have to be limits, and I think that such limits have been exceeded already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. How and why is this pseudoscience scammy bullshit still included in Wikipedia? The article in question hasn't been peer reviewed because there is nothing to peer review! The so-called 'scientists' who 'examined' this device were prohibited from examining, get this, the power source going into the device. Everything about this LENR scam is total bullshit. If it were true, the 'scientist' in charge would have been getting everyone to peer review it as often as possible. It is the kind of scientific breakthrough that eclipses Einstein. Or it would be if it were true. My solution: ban, on sight, anyone promoting this scam. It is no different than "I lost weight using this one weird trick..." — The Potato Hose 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Occasionally new things are discovered. A Chief Scientist of NASA says the evidence for LENR is now overwhelming. Possibly you know more that Dr. Bushnell? Parallel (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I started by attempting to correct a single mistake in the article, that there had not been any independent test, that was immediately deleted. As such a test has been well documented, it was later corrected by another editor.

The comments posted by AndyTheGrump above do not give the flavor, that can only be determined by reading the discussion page. I have restricted myself to facts that could be referenced, not opinion, and sought through discussion to come up with something acceptable. I opened a dispute page but the editors involved declined to participate. Hence, I floated two trial balloons in the talk page. One a direct quote from Engineering News and one that I wrote myself. I referenced the important things but not everything at that stage because I was certain much would be deleted. However I am quite prepared to reference anything I write. I gave the Leonardo Corp address because that is indeed where one can order a 1 MW plant. It is not mythical. It has safety certification. The address would not appear in the introduction to the Wiki article.

There are a number of factual errors in the article and originally half of it was a very negative comment from a blog as source. This has since been moved down the page. This was replaced by a cherry picked piece from a dated Popular Science article that resulted in a misleading conclusion. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral but the whole piece is biased in a strongly negative way. There are no offsetting positive comments from equally reliable sources such as NASA and a Nobel Laureate.

AndyTheGrump started by stating I was clueless, presumably because I disagree with his opinion, and has consistently refused to discuss the subject, so it is difficult to correct the erroneous facts or reduce the strong negative bias, including defamation of Rossi's character. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The above is of course yet a further example of the tendentious soapboxing that Parallel has engaged in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A typical ad hominem response. Parallel (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am reporting your behaviour and your inability to comply with Wikipedia policies here. Pointing out that you have repeated the same pattern of behaviour is not an "ad hominem response". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence of Parallel's problematic behaviour. First, he posts on my talk page, accusing me of posting something that was in fact posted by admin Edison - a warning regarding what Edison read as harassment and a possible threat to out someone. [90], and then, After I'd expressedly asked him not to post on my talk page, Parallel does that, to ask me "what did you do before retiring?" [91] Frankly, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if a block per WP:COMPETENCE is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But you NEVER responded to the message. The very definition of ad hominem Parallel (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Parallel: you're wrong. Is that now an ad hominem? You're simply digging yourself deeper here by your gratuitous lack of understanding of whatever the heck you're talking about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if we are being trolled... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Parallel has made only a single edit to the Energy Catalyzer article. It was a modest edit, basically replacing a {{cn}} with what they seem to have thought was a valid reference. I think Parallel was entitled to want to have the appropriateness of that reference discussed. I noticed that Parallel tried to initiate a discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 72#Energy Catalyzer. I think they made some valid points there. Parallel's challengers did not choose to reply there.

  I think if Parallel actually has lapsed from some policies, but there is no reason to assume this is a sockpuppet ID , then all those lapses would be forgiveable newbie mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Flagrant and repeated POV pushing is a “forgivable newbie mistake”?

  Threatening people is a “forgivable newbie mistake”?

  Using the expression ad hominem when he obviously has no idea what it means is a “forgivable newbie mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. There is a difference between knowingly inserting bias into article space, and engaging in a talk page discussion where one defends the credibility of one's references. Parallel's sole edit to the article was to replace a {{cn}} with a reference that I accept they thought was a valid reliable source. I don't agree this is POV-pushing. Some challengers have warned him or her of WP:NOTFORUM -- but meanwhile other challengers are telling Parallel why they disagree with them. If all his challengers agree he should quit trying to defend his position, as per WP:NOTFORUM, may I suggest they should stop voicing their disagreement, so they stopped presenting temptations to which Parallel feels a need to respond? How is a newbie going to know whether to pay attention to the WP:NOTFORUM warning, or to the continued counter-arguments that invite more counter-counter-arguments?
  2. None of us are supposed to threaten other contributors. But Parallel responded to the suggestion he or she uttered a threat here, writing, in part: "Hard to believe that you are so biased you didn't recognize that was a rhetorical question to "unsigned" (how the hell would I identify him anyway) who accused Rossi of being a criminal. I therefore asked him how he would like it."

     I accept, at face value, that their comment was a rhetorical question, not a lapse from WP:THREAT.

  3. Yes, Parallel used the term ad hominem without properly understanding it, and continued to misuse the term, without understanding attempts to explain how they were using it incorrectly. Misunderstanding the term ad hominem is pretty common, and forgiveable. I knew one contributor who made over 20,000 edits over the course of their 28 months of participation, and misused the term ad hominem for that entire time. Geo Swan (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Your argument seems to be that the other editors (the ones whose intelligence Parallel insulted) need to let him get the last word. You are attempting to blame the victims for fighting back rather than blaming Parallel for starting trouble. Your argument flies in the face of logic, reason, common sense, and natural law. It is not the victim’s responsibility to submit to bulling it is the aggressor’s (Parallel’s) responsibility to back off. I find your argument insulting.

2. If Parallel had said “How would you like to be tracked down and beaten mercilessly” it would be an obvious threat of violence and not a “rhetorical question”. Just because he threatened to commit libel instead of violence does not change the fact that he made a threat.

3. The fact that he doesn’t understand what ad hominem means is a testament to Parallel’s incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. With regard to insulting people's intelligence -- "two wrongs don't make a right". Parallel should not respond in kind if they feel they are attacked. Other contributors should not respond in kind if they think Parallel attacked them. Neither Parallel or other contributors should insult anyone else simply because they disagree with them. If Parallel is a newbie, then the more experienced contributors should be setting an example of civility. And I am sorry to say I think several of the more experienced contributors fell far short of that.
2. 68.74, isn't the very first edit you made this one, where you wrote: "... his followers were allowed to have used Wikipedia as a propaganda machine to further Rossi’s criminal endeavors." Are you disputing that you, 68.74, asserted Rossi was responsible for "criminal endeavors"? Didn't you strongly imply Parallel was the follower of a criminal? Was the question you are trying to claim was a threat was "How would yo like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia?" Since you had just referred to Rossi's "criminal endeavors" I think Parallel was appealing to you to put yourself in Dr. Rossi's shoes -- not making a threat. I think it is pretty clear Parallel is not just a wikipedia newbie, but is also not a world class hacker. Maybe a world class hacker could trace you, just from your IP, without having checkuser permission. I couldn't do it, wouldn't know where to start, even though I have been using computers for decades. I don't believe for a minute that either of us thinks Parallel could do so.
3. WRT misunderstanding the term "ad hominem" -- this is no big deal, and not a cause for sanctions.
4. 68.74, are the comments from Special:Contributions/68.50.128.91 above, also from you? Geo Swan (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind here is this article – Energy Catalyzer – is covered by discretionary sanctions, falling well within the subject area of cold fusion. One of the principle reasons for discretionary sanctions being imposed in this area was the presence of single-topic editors with somewhat...idiosyncratic...views on what might constitute reliable sources, neutral point of view, (un)due weight, or appropriate content for an encyclopedia article, and who wouldn't take 'no' for an answer on article talk pages. These editors adopted a tendentious approach, stonewalling and filibustering on talk pages and gradually driving off editors who advocated for neutral treatment of these topics (in line with the strictures of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE). The discretionary sanctions regime was a necessary tool to curtail otherwise interminable argument on article talk pages from a small subset of individuals who could not or would not accept or understand basic, fundamental Wikipedia content policies.

When an editor proposes that the third paragraph of an article's lede should include a mailing address to place product orders, one has to question whether or not they fully grasp the purpose or role of an encyclopedia. (We'll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that the address appears to be for an apartment building in a residential district.) This is the sort of information that doesn't appear at the top of enyclopedia articles – in Wikipedia, in Britannica, or elsewhere – even for products that verifiably exist, and that actually work.

It strikes me as reasonable that (at a minimum) Parallel should receive a formal caution under the discretionary sanctions rules that his conduct is out of bounds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone familiar and interested in the technology of cold fusion; I'm surprised that our coverage in this section is actually out of date; but scientifically instances have been observed, but never as a source of power and never sustained. While the actual fringe overwhelms the actual cases; but bubble fusion and other technologies continue to be covered. Here's a recent news item.[92] I have no idea how to fix this sort of mess, but it seems that fringe editors seem to be winning over real science, or at least for right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• That would be the same "bubble fusion" whose chief proponent was punished for misconduct, and which has not been mentioned in respected scientific journals since except perhaps as a "fiasco"? I'm not sure how invoking that addresses the incident that has been raised, except perhaps to confirm this is an area as a whole where the WP:FRINGE guidance is particularly useful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a general problem with fringe topics, but this isn't a general discussion. Regardless of the state of other articles, I am reporting a specific problem, with a specific contributor. I'd like to know whether something is going to be done about this particular issue. Are we going to continue to maintain the article according to policy and guidelines, or are we going to hand it over to the promoters of the device? This is the choice here - because unless it is made absolutely clear here that WP:FRINGE will be maintained in the article, and that the talk page isn't a platform for promotion of Rossi's 'products' or a place to argue that policy should be ignored, it may reach the point where those of us with any interest in maintaining standards will just walk away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan,

1. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is classic bully-talk. It is the pathetic whining of a cowardly bully who violates the rights of others, yet expects others to respect his rights. In the real world there exists the concept of justice whereby people who do evil get punished. If you don’t like that fact then you are obviously an evil doer.

2. If you aren’t even going to bother to read what I actually wrote and address it in the context in which it was said then there’s no point in discussion.

3. It is very much relevant if Parallel’s competence is in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As if further proof were needed, Parallel has now apparently decided that the article talk page is an appropriate place for the placement of free advertising. [93]. Needless to say, I have deleted this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia facilities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

While that might be a WP:FORUM violation, I would say it is not an attempt at advertising as you have insinuated. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't 'insinuating' anything. I stated as a fact that it was advertising, and I see no reason to change my mind. Given that www.e-catworld.com exists solely to promote the E-Cat, and cannot possibly be a reliable source for anything, I can see no reason why anyone with the remotest understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia talk pages should make such a post. Note that Parallel has already suggested we include the full address of the supposed supplier of this alleged device in the article. He is a WP:SPA who's sole aim on Wikipedia is to convince as many people that this implausible device is real, and he seems intent on continuing, with utter disregard for policy. He needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We waste untoward time policing this article, and Parallel is the next in a long line of time wasters. Rossi's device has never been put through a rigorous test, and signs are that it won't be. Perhaps Parallel just doesn't understand the science, but in any case his long-winded badgering is leading nowhere positive. Topic ban him now and save everyone a great deal of grief. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Parallel is just repeating all the spin thrown by Rossi to cover his tracks. Now he is claiming that Rossi went to jail because Berlusconi wanted to trip. As opposed to, you know, because he totally lied abut his company and dumped lots of contaminating chemical products. He is either delusional or a Rossi's shill. Please topic ban him under discretionary sanctions, for filling the talk page with fruitless POV-pushing. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is ample evidence here that Parallel (talk · contribs) is editing tendentiously, abusing Wikipedia as a venue for advertising and promotion, and so forth. Accordingly, I'm going to topic-ban this editor from all pages and content related to cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions, broadly construed and definitely including Energy Catalyzer. Wikipedia has seen a succession of these sorts of accounts in this topic area, and it makes sense to streamline their handling. I would emphasize that if Parallel (talk · contribs) has any interest in Wikipedia beyond using it as a platform to promote the Energy Catalyzer, s/he is welcome to edit in other topic areas. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:‎Carrrr

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

---

I'm not really sure what to do with this. All of this user's edits over the past few months have been to amass some sort of index on his user page. I bounced it back there a couple of months ago after he tried to turn it into a WP project page, but that's all they've been working on since then. It's pretty evident that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but I have no idea what would be an appropriate course of action here. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see two alternatives:

* take the page to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, or

* ignore it.

(No prizes for guessing which path I support.) --Shirt58 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carrrr. Peacock (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Long term, persistent personal attacks, uncivil behavior and battleground mentality by User:Baboon43

User:Baboon43 has consistently displayed uncivil behavior with other editors. This is the second run-in I've had with him and he appears to be trying to instigate some sort of an argument - almost by his own admission. For the sake of brevity, I will not include much about his various edit warring and personal attacks on Talk:Al-Ahbash and other pages, or the various conspiracy theories he tries to promote on various articles. Regardless, this will be long and I am sorry for that - but this is ongoing and there's no way to even partially grasp what editing with Baboon43 is like without quite a bit of detail (and this is still only a small glimpse).

If you don't want to read all the long subcategories

Baboon43 has a long history of combative behavior on talk pages, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and has engaged in clear personal attacks on numerous occasions. He deserves a clear warning from the community.

Past infractions - multiple accounts, edit warring

While it isn't directly relevant to Baboon's harassment of me specifically, it is relevant to note his history of infractions. He was blocked for the first time for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts in March 2012. Then in April that same year, Baboon43 reported two other editors at the noticeboard here and here; the result was that it boomeranged back onto him and HE was blocked, along with one of the editors he reported. Finally, Baboon43 attempted to once again report another user on the 3RR noticeboard here this March (just three months ago) which resulted in another boomerang with a final warning for Baboon43 and the others involved. The point of this isn't to throw mud on the wall; it's to demonstrate that the user does have a history of combative behavior with others, so this isn't out of the ordinary.

Prejudice/bigoted remarks

Back in February, Baboon43 opposed inclusion of Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding as a source in Wahhabi movement because a Saudi prince donated to it. According to Baboon43, the prince is a wahhabi merely because, as it appears, he's Saudi. When I expressed my shock at such comments, Baboon43 accused me of being either a Wahhabi or misinformed.

During the course of our most recent exchange, Baboon43 attempted to claim Wahhabism (a Saudi Arabian movement) and Deobandism (an Indian movement) are one and the same, using the actual expression "they are guilty by association." While he obviously isn't trying to be intentionally inflammatory, the comments are quite prejudiced as Baboon43 has expressed many times his belief that all Wahhabi people are inherently violent, which in and of itself is pretty bad. Now he's saying that these two movements are one and the same based on guilt by association. I don't think much elaboration is needed here; it isn't block-worthy by any means, but it does deserve a reprimand from the community and it also demonstrates the difficulties many editors face when working alongside Baboon43. Please read on, though.

Aggressive/rude edit summaries

When I edited an article to better reflect what was in the given source back in January, Baboon43 reacted by reverting my edit without explanation and against the source and accusing me of hounding him. When I explained to him on his talk page that such language is unacceptable as is edit warring against what's available in the given source, he erased my comment saying "take your own advice." It's his right to erase what he wants on his talk page but the comment shows that Baboon43 was absolutely unwilling to work things out.

Uncivil tone when discussing editing disputes

Starting again in January, Baboon43 attempted to use what we later realized was a Wikipedia fork to prove a point (which was ultimately found to be contrary to the actual reliable sources). That's alright, but in the course of discussion his responses began including battle ground-type remarks such as "your whole argument has been debunked...regardless of what you think" and accusing me of belonging to some relgious reform movement in India because I disagreed with him that the movement (Deobandi) are all "wahhabis" as he describes them.

Seeming to try and provoke others

Most recently, Baboon43 appears to be trying to provoke me into some sort of a flame war on Talk:Barelvi. After making some edits, explaining my rationale preemptively and requesting community feedback, he expressed a difference of opinion in a polite manner; I was delighted, actually. As the discussion progressed, Baboon43 made the aforementioned bigoted comment regarding two religious movements and I expressed my confusion; aside from being a bad thing to say, he didn't seem to be making any suggestions about editing the article and I reminded him that talk pages aren't for chatting. With no escalation, he attacked me personally, accusing me of false rambling and POV pushing without stating why. This upset me because he's harassed me and others like this before, so I told him point blank: if he doesn't either support his accusations or take them back, I would go to ANI. His reaction was to simply accuse me of POV pushing again without proof and that I should "halt the ignorance." I then surmised that a user banned with sockpuppetry who was close with Baboon43 but is now topic banned from commenting on the article's talk space may have asked him to "monitor" my edits; paranoid, but I believe the admin and other users involved can testify that my paranoia is at least partially justified. Baboon43 then accused me of spreading misinformation in a seemingly pointless comment as it didn't relate to article content, at which point I very directly asked him for diffs to prove my misinformation and POV pushing before we come to ANI. Once again, he just accused me of POV pushing without any actual evidence and hence I am here at ANI.

Proposed solution: final warning for personal attacks

As mentioned above, Baboon43 is already on a final warning because of edit warring and 3RR violations. I propose that he also receive a final warning for personal attacks, as this behavior has repeated itself. I also think that the final warning should be placed on his talk page. He's obviously free to archive or remove it, but it will still be in the talk page history. I also invite others who have dealt with this before to chime in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as the one making the suggestion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support but after such final warnings, something other than warnings ought to be done. Faizan 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This sounds like an attemtped RFC/U on ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. You're trying to have a big discussion here, which is appropriate for a request for comment, but it doesn't work well here. Anyone can give a final warning, but ANI is meant for requesting solid action, whether imposing blocks or informal bans or other sanctions. Please add a request for a specific action (beyond this warning) that can be taken, or please take this to a user request for comment if you'd like discussion to continue. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Well, a block may be warranted, I'm not sure without reviewing the diffs MM has provided...but Baboon43 just came to my talk page to request a block of MM (whom I previously warned as part of a group warning about NPAs). Baboon43's concern was that MM had called his statement bigoted...but if you look at the relevant section, Talk:Barelvi#Fatwa_against_Terrorism_-_deleted_section, you can see that Baboon43's statements, in fact, are bigoted, are using the talk page as a forum, and simply don't belong there. I've told Baboon43 that MM is not the one that should be blocked here...but I haven't decided yet if Baboon43 should be blocked instead. It may be correct that an RfC/U is needed due to the complexity of the issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• I apologize, since it seems that I failed to understand the distinction between an ANI thread and an RFC. I understand now that my proposal isn't definite enough for an ANI thread, but considering that I seem to have misunderstood the difference I'm reluctant to decide whether to make a definite proposal here or start an RFC instead; I don't want to bungle again so soon. I've now also seen a comment that a block may be warranted though not for sure. I would prefer to wait for a bit and see if a few more comments are put here regarding what should be done before I act next in order to resolve the situation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at some of the diffs that MezzoMezzo has provided, given the somewhat recent change in behavior, as well as acknowledged off-wiki contact, that Baboon43 may be in violation of WP:PROXYING. So, let me ask Baboon43 directly: have you been corresponding with Msoamu via email or otherwise? Have you been taking his advice, pursuing lines of argument that he suggests, or otherwise attempting to help him continue to edit Wikipedia indirectly? Or is your sudden vehemence against MezzoMezzo's reliably sourced, neutral contributions entirely from your own desires? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The change was kind of weird. This April, Baboon43 asked me to function as a 3rd party mediator between him and another user in a content/civility dispute. I was happy at the time, hence my getting so upset (probably more than I should have) yesterday at the sudden change. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

there's no recent change in behavior..i had several disputes with mezzo before i met msaomu as clearly shown at ani [94] mezzo reported me for calling him a wahabi leaving out the fact that he himself called me a barelvi..my first comment on Talk:Barelvi turned into a heated dispute with Mezzo [95] from which he began to hound me several days later by appearing on talk pages..i don't have any interactions with anyone with my wiki affiliated mail..where do i say I'm against mezzo's RS or contributions? if you read the thread I'm making a point that deobandis are mostly affiliated with terrorism unlike barelvis..thats not my own saying its from reliable sources. Baboon43 (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Qwyrxian and MezzoMezzo about the change in Baboon43. They were usually supportive of MezzoMezzo, but since Msoamu's topic ban, they've suddenly begun acting like Msoamu... Very odd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

i never supported mezzo i just didnt bother entering into content dispute that he had with the editors over at barelvi but i have consistently replied to his statements in the talk pages on a wide range of articles..taking my abstention as support is a mistake on your part. Baboon43 (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43 is saying he isn't proxying, I don't know of any way to prove him wrong. He's wrong on saying he never supported me because for a period we got along well enough on the talk pages for Wahhabi movement, Al-Ahbash, Saladin and Sufi-Salafi relations but I guess it's neither here nor there. I clearly made an error as I thought RFCs were only for articles, so what should I do to move foreward? Will we continue here and measure community support for a block, or should I take it somewhere else? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFC is for articles. WP:RFC/U is for users (the /U stands for User) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I reviewed the minimum requirements and I don't think an RFC of this type would have met the requirement of at least two outside editors establishing talk page contact and then failing to resolve it. An RFC/U has, however, been suggested by several editors now including an admin. Just to be sure I don't improperly file something again I would like to check for sure one last time before doing this whether or not it will fly and if not, what the next step would be - I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

174.118.142.187 revealing personal information

Note to admins: This report is made here rather than the usual route for such complaints because the information revealed is stale and faulty so immediate remedial action to remove the information is not required. Nevertheless, the attempt is being made and I believe that the offending page should be deleted along with the edit histories.

User:174.118.142.187 is attempting to make public personal information (contrary to WP:OUTING). This is revealed at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2. Though this is his private sandbox, it is still accessible to any Wikipedia user who cares to look at it (I stumbled across it by chance, though it has been there for a week or two). I am not the only user being targetted by these outing attempts. He is attempting to reveal my IP address which was unexpectedly revealed when the Wikipedia site developed a strange fault where although I was logged in, it was recording the IP address in the edit summaries and when '~~~~' is placed at the end of a talk page post. Although he revealed the IP address that that particular post was made under, the address is stale because my ISP uses dynamic IP address allocation. He is also attempting to reveal my geographic location by geolocating IP addresses used by another user (or users) who edit using a dynamic IP address from the same ISP. The attempt is faulty because 174.118.142.187 does not appear to understand the information that the IP address geolocate tools are telling him. A fuller discussion of how the attempts are faulty can be found at User talk:174.118.142.187#ANI notice.

This appears to be part of a misguided attempt to raise an allegation of sockpuppetry (something that he actually has done in his 'analysis'). He clearly does not understand the concept, because a revelation of an IP address does not in itself constitute sockpuppetry. Further, he cites a case where I agreed with the anon user mentioned above, but he is clearly selecting his evidence, because he has ignored the many occassions where disagreement has taken place. I should not need to point out that just because users tend to frequent similar articles, it is no evidence of sockpuppetry because there are groups of users who tend to share common interests (and 174.118.142.187 shares them also). I B Wright (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He has not pulished any information not publicly available on-wiki. He's made an inference about a pattern of editing similarities between several named accounts and IPs, but anyone could have done that, and no one has to believe it. This is exactly what happens hundreds of times a month at SPI. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My geographic location and IP address currently in use is not publicly available either on the internet or Wikipedia. The WP:OUTING policy states that ,"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment ... whether any such information is accurate or not". I B Wright (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the IP's allegations be accurate, they're not outing. Outing requires either that you know the private information in question from an offwiki source or that you pretend to know it; something drawn from editing patterns is not outing. I note DieSwartzPunkt's concerns, but I don't comment on those. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth the admins noting that this anonymous user has a history of making trivial ANI complaints against other users who do not fully support his view on article content (presumably with the goal of getting them blocked so that they can no longer provide opposition). No complaint has yet ben upheld, but there is such a discussion going on at Talk:AC/DC (electricity)#Requested move. This work at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 is most likely a forerunner to another such trivial complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am a random passerby - so please take my comments as something from a student trying to understand ANI --> Any WHOIS would give a geo-locate... The Geo locate are for the IP's the sandbox page shows so i dont agree that it would be a personal information of any one unless I B Wright or DieSwartzPunkt is saying that all these IP's are his? Amit (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm largely in tune with the above answers. It's widely acceptable that using geolocation, WHOIS and other technical tools to gather information IPs does not violate the outing policy (even if those tools are technically external). So the geolocation etc info, accurate or not, is not outing. So the only question here is the IP. It's accepted that if you accidentally reveal your IP you can ask for the edits to be oversighted (WP:OVERSIGHT), but this case is so long ago that I don't think your edit is likely to be oversighted. Furthermore, while the original reveal may have been accidental, it seems clear you became aware of what was happening at the time and didn't seem to mind, in fact the linkage to your account seems to have been a direct and voluntary action. While I appreciate you were trying to resolve a technical issue and may not have fully understood the implications of revealing your IP, as far as I'm aware, we don't generally allow people to later completely hide info they intentionally publicly revealed on wikipedia. This sort of thing would and has created controversies since someone may voluntarily disclose their name on wikipedia, appear fine with people knowing it, and then later when questions are raised may suddenly want it hidden. While these people may not have appreciated the risks of revealing their real name at the time, it could also be that they're trying to avoid legitimate scrutiny or want people to associate their name with the good, but not the bad. Note that this doesn't mean that anything the IP says about you or your IP is acceptable, nor that they can bring it up in every discussion. The same as with real names and whatever else, WP:NPA and other policies still apply. And you're fully entitled to ask people not to bring it up except when germane to the discussion (such as WP:SPI cases. And similarly the IP should make an SPI case or similar from the evidence they are collecting, if they can't do so in a reasonable time frame the page should likely either be deleted or at least blanked. In other words, all I'm really saying here is whatever problems may or may not exist with the page you linked to, OUTING does not appear to be one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive genre editing from Billybobhanson

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours

Hi all, Billybobhanson (talk · contribs) is continuously adding false/unnecessary to articles even when being told many times to stop (e.g. here and here). Could an admin please block him or whatever. Thanks. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right spot? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edits this might be a case of newbie confusion. Might have been better to explain that genres are agreed upon and changes should be agreed upon by consensus. Certainly doesn't seem like outright vandalism to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And this is the reason why I didn't take this to AIV. Definitely not blatant vandalism. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's some obvious vandalism: [96], which prompted my warning after Cluebot NG reverted. -- Scray (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours. We'll know if he edits afterwards more about what's going on. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia

Users ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia have been engaging in a long battle at Talk:India Against Corruption and attempts at moderated resolution are failing. WP:3O was unsuccessful and after posting an RFC ThinkingYouth simply started a new thread. It has gone beyond a passionate discussion and has shifted to personal polemics. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to all senior editors concerned in Talk:India Against Corruption for my editing, but let me clarify Editor ReformedArsenal RFC had no purpose/resolution regarding the ongoing dispute/edit warring . It 's not even minutely addressing the problems discussed/debated/disputed in Talk:India Against Corruption.I had no other option but to start a new section explaining the major issues of the ongoing dispute ,so that other editors can understand the ongoing dispute/editwarring,and take appropriate action accordingly . ThinkingYouth (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Revised Rfc by ReformedArsenal is now a precise summation of the concerns first raised by User:ThinkingYouth at [97]. His concerns were clarified here [98]. Therefore the Rfc is directly on the original concern raised by the other editor, ie.

"There are so many fake IAC website link to to Www.rise.net.in . Please add third party verified source to claim official website of India against corruption . Do not add fake IAC website and link to Propagandize".

NB: I thank User:ReformedArsenal for his patience and helpful approach. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As i explained , in my previous comment , this confusion or lack of understanding in the editors to understand the major issues of ongoing dispute at Talk:India Against Corruption, is the sole reason i started the new section below the WP:RFC by ReformedArsenal ,to explain myself and the ongoing dispute/edit_warring in details ,so that concern editors can take the appropriate action accordingly.Please read [99]

FYI: RFC is about "Should http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ be listed as the official website" .It is not about www.rise.net as explained by fellow editor AcorruptionfreeIndia.

NB: I thank all the concern editors and specially User:ReformedArsenal for his patience and helpful approach.ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that AcorruptionfreeIndia is pov-pushing there and at Aam Aadmi Party, and that they probably have a COI. It's possible that ThinkingYouth has similar issues but the whole thing is a bit of a mess at the moment and it does seem to have degenerated to a sort of point-scoring situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not edited India Against Corruption] for over 1 week except for 1 edit where I merely restored the page to one by the blocking Admin's last edit after some cryptic deletes by Sitush. Yes, I had contributed mucho text to that article on the past, but I don't own that article. So don't quite get how I'm POV pushing. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How could,raising BLP issues in talk page of concern article become (probably)COI? Well, Thanks to admin and other editors,after their interventions and edits(deleting biased POV),i'm proved right. ThinkingYouth (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading this, I don't see anything wrong with starting an RfC after a 3O. Third opinions are merely advisory but have no real standing in terms of consensus. Why don't you publicize the RfC on WT:IN, you'll get a lot more input and won't be stuck with just two editors duking it out. --regentspark (comment) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: WT:IN is certain to escalate it to other level(s). IAC related pages are quite controversial. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Apparently, the dispute has now spread to Aam Aadmi Party. I would like to propose a 48 hour topic ban on both ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia for anything related to Indian Politics, as well as Category:Corruption in India ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Take my word ,I've already stopped editing these two pages. ThinkingYouth (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is poorly sourced and badly written, with most of the sources being hopelessly outdated or just plain bad (eg. Sitush restored a source which claimed Arvnd Kejriwal was with IAC in June 2013, and then he also had to delete it). I won't edit the article itself, but shall confine myself to its Talk Page (in small doses if other editors cooperate) if there are also previously uninvolved editors on that article (a 'request not demand). AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented what I did. You made so many poor edits that it was simpler to restore to an earlier version and then step through he subsequent stuff, reinstating the useful elements of what you had done. This is clear in the edit history. You've also made unfounded allegations that I am in cahoots with ThinkingYouth (for example, here) and you have made ad hominem attacks such as this and this. I'm not fussed about you sounding off - I've had a lot worse - but I am concerned about the quality and purpose of your contributions. I'm also a bit concerned that a lot of what you say on talk pages seemed to make little sense, but perhaps that is just me being a bit thick. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Saeed Naqvi piece of 6 June 2013 (which I deleted twice as a poor source) was first reverted by ThinkingYouth and the 2nd time round you also had to drop it (because you saw, like me, the huge problem for Kejriwal if it was allowed to stay on page). The "wikistalker" link was given when we were not talking. User:ThinkingYouth can now explain why in his first 400 edits he just "happened" to edit 40 pages you had previously edited including some pretty obscure ones, WP:BURDEN on him. The link does not allege anything, it is a factual result being reported to the dealing Admin who had locked the page. On the ad hominem "attacks", you're being slightly oversensitive - "Sitush, please explain WHY its wrong. Not clear to me." is an ad hominem attack? If something is incorrect (like source not matching article text) I simply delete the whole of it, as I can't deal with Cantabrigian types who nitpick grammar/style (<--- This is not NPA, just fact on how I edit). I leave it to others to fix. Is that "poor editing" ? "Its not perfect till there is nothing left to remove" - Motto of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My intended diff was this, sorry. I didn't see any "huge problem for Kejriwal" nor would such a thing usually be a reasonable rationale for removal unless there was a specific BLP issue. Finally, it would be better if you try talking before making inappropriate allegations. Even in your latest response here it seems that you are het up - walking away for a bit might be a good idea. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"WikiStalker" ;-) .. I really don't know why sitush and my edits have 40 commons! may be it's a small (edit)world out here..! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you check my supposedly WP:SPA first 400 edit against Sitush's ? Its not funny, stop winking, this is serious and I expect a serious answer from you on an ANI incident concerning you. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk)

@Sitush snarky was possibly in reply to garble. On the Saeed Naqvi article, you were wrong. It was published on 18.Nov.2012, so Ps_Nitin who inserted that "June 6 2013" date is a WP:SPA who has loaded this article with non-RS POV and deserves to be booted off Wikipedia for causing us to fight. And so to bed. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is funny ! Wikistalking ! ;-) i hope, am not getting any restraining order and that was my serious answer ..! I really don't know why we've 40 commons , do you have any brilliant reasoning about it? BTW, i don't see any point here,discussing a edit-warring, which is already resolved by admin and other editors! good nigh ThinkingYouth (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC itself

In all this din we keep avoiding 1 issue, the original Rfc itself. How is it that editors who continue to claim that "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/" is a "FAKE IAC" website despite being shown its impeccable 3rd party WHOIS, are allowed to keep reinserting "www.aamaadmiparty.org" back as AAP's official website when the WHOIS for AAP is in someone else's name ? Could User:ReformedArsenal please shed some illumination on this, B'coz I'm getting quite tired of Wikipedia now and this uncle may be retiring. 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Block/unblock review request for Nathan Johnson

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

---

Long-time editor Nathan Johnson is currently blocked for one week for a highly uncivil remark constituting a direct personal attack. The edit for which he was blocked was highly inappropriate, and I make no attempt to defend it.

Nathan Johnson states that he was about to revert the comment and apologize for it at the time he was blocked. He has stated he will do his best not to repeat this sort of behavior. He has also described, on his talkpage, some extremely upsetting personal circumstances that, while not wiki-related, I think are relevant to the editor's level of stress at the time he made his inappropriate edit. I refer those interested to Nathan Johnson's talkpage for these comments, which I would prefer not be explicitly discussed here.

An unblock request has been made and declined. The blocking administrator has declined to unblock but has stated he would not object if another admin unblocks. One uninvolved administrator has stated she favors unblocking. I too favor reducing the block to "time served" at this stage and unblocking, with a reminder that of course this behavior must not be repeated. Because there is no open unblock request template currently posted, it is unlikely that more admins will come across the user's talkpage anytime soon, so I am bringing the case here for review.

I ask that this discussion focus on the merits of this particular unblock request and not turn into a wideranging discussion of the no personal attacks policy, the role of civility blocks and unblocks, and the like. (Editors interested in discussing the role of civility and proper responses to isolated instances of incivility are invited to read and comment on In re Snyder, a mainspace article I wrote today.) Thank you for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• This seems pretty cut and dried. If Wikipedia is still clinging to the idea that blocks are only preventative and not punitive (is it?), the user should be unblocked, given their crystal clear promise not to do this again. — The Potato Hose 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I am not in favor of someone being blocked for one such remark, especially if they realize quickly enough they shouldn't have made it. Unblocked for time served. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• It was his third block for personal attacks, so describing it as "one such remark" is a little misleading.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kevin, that was three years ago, as noted in the discussion on the talk page. If you blocked him in part for a remark made three years ago, then... Well, one week for one remark of the "fuck you" variety is a bit much anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you to Brad for bringing this here, and to Drmies for unblocking. I definitely support the unblock for all the reasons stated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support the unblock too - well done, NYB and Drmies -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Microsoft/Sony article lockdown might be needed

My son tells me Sony's PS-4 release has triggered a spate of trolling on Microsoft's and Sony's pages, and related pages like company officers here. He recommends Admins lock such pages for a few days, or restrict editing at least to logged on users. Apparently some juveniles are running amuck with what they think are funny changes. A higher state of scrutiny of such articles at least is suggested. // FrankB 04:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked Xbox, Xbox (console), Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 2, Sony Computer Entertainment, Jack Tretton, Microsoft Studios and a bunch of other pages. They are either semi-protected already or they don't have enough vandalism to justify semi-protection. That said, it might be good if users more familiar with the topic (the last console I owned was the PlayStation 2!) could have a poke around and report to WP:RFPP any pages they find that need protection. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Vera Renczi continuously vandalized.

User:86.41.71.194 and User:143.239.66.44 keep making disrupting edits to the article of Vera Renczi. The user(s) keeps inserting his own personal opinion that the she did not exist - contrary to anything I can find on the internet. User keeps removing all of the categories and inserting his own opinion (in a very sarcastic manner) into the article. Although I am unsure of who the editor is, I have noticed that this has been a pattern (see the Vera Renczi talk page). One of the users who kept questioning the validity of the article is User:Shylocksboy, who is branded a sockpuppet. While I would like to assume good faith, I am becoming convinced that the same user(s) on the talk page are the same individual, as I have never encountered any information that speculates that Vera Renczi was fictitious - if I had, from a reliable source, I would have included it in the article. I request help from someone, as I have been dealing with these disruptive edits for several months now. Thank you. ExRat (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ExRat, the only user that page needs being protected from is you. Yes, I have added some sarcastic, un-encyclopedic remarks in a desperate attempt to knock some sense into you. No, I have nothing to do with any previous users. If senior Wiki staff is reading this, please be aware of ExRat's behavior, who persistently tries to pass unverifiable information as fact. Some aspects to consider:

• • For a person who (allegedly) lived within living memory and murdered 35 people, it is unthinkable that Madame Renczi doesn't even have a birth/death place and time. I would like to ask distinguished Wiki admin to name ONE, just ONE other real person who lived in the last 100 years, is featured on wikipedia, and whose page is lacking even these basic biographical details. Is this the standard Wikipedia wishes to promote?
  • The imaginary town/village/settlement where she supposedly spent most of her adult life (Berkerekul) and perpetrated her crimes doesn't exist in either Romania, Serbia, the rest of former Yugoslavia, or indeed anywhere in Europe. This has been pointed out to user ExRat repeatedly (please see talk page). Furthermore please note Serbian is a digraphic language (i.e. uses both cyrillic and latin alphabets) thus minimizing the possibility of multiple 'character translations'. Even so, alternative spellings also do not turn any matches.
  • The so-called internet sources user ExRat is quoting have not done - to the best of my knowledge - any independent research/investigation into to this case. They are merely quoting one original (problematic) source, or do not quote any source at all. Thus they cannot be counted as independent, reliable references. These internet websites also, for most part, do not represent official bodies, institutions, government agencies, police force, etc who would be in a position to confirm the existence and crime record of the person. They are merely sensationalist, fictional online publications, personal blogs, unofficial 'crime libraries'. Furthermore none of these sources provides any piece of verifiable, traceable information.
  • Sources glaringly contradict themselves. She is either Madame Renczi and Madame Renici, she was born in Hungary and Bucharest, her first marriage was to both a "wealthy Bucharest businessman" and an austrian banker named Karl Schich (this last change shamelessly made by ExRat less than 24h ago in reaction to my comments, probably in an effort to lend more credibility to the story). Her son was either 10 years old when she murdered him, or an adult. The scene of her debauchery was either Bucharest or Berkerekul (sometimes even Vienna?). She died anytime between "shortly afterwards", "before the outbreak of WWII or sometimes in the 50s.
  • The chronology of Madame Renczi's life doesn't stand up to even most basic scrutiny: according to some of the sources she was born in 1903 and apprehended in 1925. How could a person in a span of 22 years get married twice (few years apart), give birth to a son who was either 10 years old or a young adult (thus making her 0 to 12 years old at the time she conceived Lorenzo), and date and murder a string of 32 lovers? 143.239.65.254 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So, now you have yet another IP address? We have been over this numerous times. Your "investigation" into Vera Renczi is WP:OR. If I had found even one article that claimed she did not exist, or even speculated that she might not exist, I would have included it. However, I have found a multitude of reliable articles that state she is not a fictitious person. The article needs protected from me? You have systematically inserted snarky comments and your own musings into the article and continually deleted the categories. That is not how own edits a Wikipedia page and clearly shows you do not work in good faith when you flat out vandalize articles. "she was born in Hungary and Bucharest, her first marriage was to both a "wealthy Bucharest businessman" and an austrian banker named Karl Schich (this last change shamelessly made by ExRat less than 24h ago in reaction to my comments" That was not a "shameless" edit. It was an edit that I made when I found a reliable source from a Romanian crime news site and I was able to correct it, with reliable sourcing. A "shameless" edit, in my opinion, would be to vandalize articles by deleting categories and continually inserting insulting, disruptive and sarcastic comments into the article. I have never found any reliable source in both literature or on the internet that claims, or even speculates that she is a fictional character. Had I done so, I would have included it in article in the first place. One needs only to look at your behavior to know you are clearly not working within Wikipedia guidleines. I would also like to point out that I have not used any personal blog as a reference, which you have claimed I have. ExRat (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The text above is in bold for one reason. Have a look at it. Until you have addressed my contentions head-on (no birth/death time and place, lived in an imaginary town, lack of original sources, lack of verifiable accounts, no mugshot, no police or court records, conflicting accounts, impossible cronology) I have no further comments to you. Or perhaps there is one: as long as you're ignoring these facts and continue to claim the article is factual, it is you who mocks Wikipedia, not me! 143.239.65.254 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Adevărul writes that she existed. Then again the article, as it stands, appears to claim the BBC still has editorial control over h2g2, and it appears some of those crime site are more for entertainment that particularly reliable sources. Perhaps it's not quite a black and white as it has been painted here?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That Adevărul article is entirely sourced to a site called descopera.ro, of which I've never head of before today. Romanian journalism doesn't have very high standards to begin with, but that Adevărul article is scraping the bottom of the barrel even by their standards... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

She must have had a really big apartment with room for 35 zinc coffins [100]! REAL serial murders in an apartment in Romania are more like: Chinese triad kills 1-2 people and chops them into pieces, then dumps them in a river (if they are smart) or tries to flush them down the toiled (if they are dumb). And even then the justice system finds them innocent [101]. Oh, and the Guiness Book of World Records says: "A claim that Vera Renczi murdered 35 persons in Rumania, in this century, lacks authority." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The source you cited says the coffins were found in her basement, not her apartment.--Auric talk 00:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure that it's not a hoax? The first online cite referenced in the article takes me to h2g2.com which appears to a Wiki related to the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There seems to be some relationship between this site and the BBC, although I'm not entirely sure what it is. Anyway, I've placed a {{RS}} tag on this cite[102] (which is used 5 times in the article). I tried independently to search for some reliable sources on Vera Renczi and came up empty. Supposedly, she's covered in Season 1, Episode 1 of Deadly Women. Does anyone have access to this episode to see if she's really mentioned in it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - h2g2 was originally part of the BBC website - here's the original BBC webpage. Definitely a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I clicked on "the original BBC webpage", linked to immediately above, and there skimread a page full of material reminiscent of Readers' Digest or similar and also read Add your Opinion! There are tens of thousands of h2g2 Guide Entries, written by our Researchers. If you want to be able to add your own opinions to the Guide, simply become a member as an h2g2 Researcher. Aside from its surprising temporary sponsorship by the BBC, how is this different from today's content farms (helium.com and the like)? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This all looks highly dubious. The discussion above shows no reliable source. h2g2 was not 'originally part of the BBC website.' It was an independent website which was later bought by the BBC as part of its ill-advised strategy of expansion into internet activities. (see h2g2). As an early contributor to the h2g2 site myself (long before the BBC took it on) I can testify that there were no standards of reference or citation for the content in its early days. Shouldn't we just do an AfD for the article and see if there is any real defence for it?--Smerus (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

... and according to an older edition of Guinness Book of World Records, " the claim that Vera Renczi murdered 35 persons in Rumania, in this century, lacks authority." Oops, someone's beaten me to it. As I mentioned before, it's not an "either all of it's true or none of it is true" situation.

* It appears that it is very likely a fact that there was someone born in the early C20 in Bucharest called Vera Renczi or something very similar to that, and quite likely that she was involved in some murders.

* Then as now, spouses are most often murdered by the other member of the couple, so it would seem quite likely that a victim or victims would have been a husband or lover.

* It's quite plausible that she may have lived in Hungary or Yugoslavia, but certainly not in a place called "Berkerekul", because that place has never existed.

* It would seem unlikely that she could kill so many people in such as short time and remain undetected, and the whole "35 zinc-lined coffins" or whatever seems ludicrous.

But that's simply my opinion. As always: go with what the reliable sources say.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Article easily passes WP:GNG. The question is what it should say. It's more balanced now because I've added one critical and one barely critical source. But on practically any detail you'll find two "reliable" sources (your typical "true crime" books) contradicting each other. The scant academic sources are hardly any better. And the coverage in Deadly Women is plain rubbish; the experts are there to tell us about the effects of arsenic or what a zinc coffin does etc., while the story is presented by voice-over with gaffes like saying the crimes occurred in "Bucharest, Hungary", etc.; it's also very short, most of the episode covers the other two topics. (Elizabeth Báthory is covered in a perhaps even more abysmal manner in Deadly Women. The voice over says she drank the blood of her victims as the primary reason for killing them, etc.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Shirt58, nobody's disputing the existence of a weirdo in 1920's in Bucharest who poisoned 1-2 people out of jealousy. Throughout history there probably have been countless such cases all over the world, many of which were never brought to trial. That's not the interesting 'fact' about Vera Renczi, nor it is the reason why she 'earned' an entry on wikipedia. To be able to seduce and kill 32 men in a relative short period (son and husbands not counting), without accomplices and without getting caught until the very end would have been truly remarkable. Not to mention the pièce de résistance: 35 hermetically sealed, custom made, labelled coffins carefully arranged in her wine cellar, in what one source rightfully describes as "a tableaux right out of an Edgar Allan Poe tale". Belle Gunness probably scored more hits, but even she didn't take macabre to that level. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and for Vera there's almost none. That's all. Anyway, thanks everybody for their support and contributions, the article looks so much better and unbiased now! 143.239.66.106 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 91.155.236.125 edit warring with a clear Finnish nationalistic agenda on multiple articles

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

---

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

The IP has for some time been edit warring on Runes (page history), Ancient kings of Finland (page history), Kings of Kvenland (page history),Sitones(page history), Finnish language (page history) and probably a few more, adding massive chunks of very tendentious fringe theories (which among other things claim that the Scandinavian languages aren't Germanic but have a Finnish origin, and also claims that runes have a Finnish origin), with no sources at all, dubious sources or perhaps deliberately misinterpreted sources. The user is clearly not interested in discussing his/her edits and is not willing to add his/her fringe theories as separate sections in the articles while keeping the rest of the article and not giving his/her fringe theories undue weight, in spite of being told to do so. So he/she is clearly not here to collaborate on this project but to push a nationalistic agenda. Thomas.W (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Obvious case of persistent tendentious editing. If they continue, escalating blocks should quickly be re-imposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:200.104.70.140 ignoring advice

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

---

IP 200.104.70.140 is posting a youtube video to every tornado related article they can find despite several editors telling them they cannot do this. I think a temporary block on anonymous edits may be in order. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

• IP is active. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But not disruptive. They seem to be adding pictures of tornadoes and tornado damage to the articles about the places the tornadoes struck. All the copyright info seems in order, and I'm not seeing any YouTube video being added. Howicus (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, have I made a cock up.

First things first: bot edits aren't coming through to my inbox. I depend on my eMail to tell me which of "my" pages have been edited for tags, typos or whatever. I have set my account so that it eMails everything.

But why I'm here; thanks to my sockpuppetry several years ago, I've registered my eMail address for it, so I cannot report the above! I don't know which account I used! Any chance of either disclosing the account registered to it (I'm pretty sure admins can see my eMail address, if not I'll make an edit divulging it and then it can be reverted and oversighted) or changing the address of it to something else or - and I have no idea why I am asking this because it can't be done here - just deleting it.--Launchballer 12:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Administrators don't have access to private data such as your email address. However, you can treat this as if it was a case of having lost your user name. Go to Special:PasswordReset and enter the email address. A list of user names associated with that account together with temporary passwords for each will be emailed to the address. Hope this helps, --RA (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to log in on BugZilla, except in the process I've reset the passwords for every account I've ever had. Is it possible to revert this change?--Launchballer 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Just how many of these are still active? --RA (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blanking and swearing to others

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

---

User:Playstation101abc (talk) blanked the whole PlayStation 2 article, and replaced the content with vandalism. User:ClueBot NG reverted the edits, but this user undone the bot's reversion afterwards. The bot reported on the user's talk page about the reversion, but this user replied by swearing (using the f*** word) and rudeness (don't tell me what to do). After the second bot message, the user once again sweared. I propose this user and its IP address to be blocked to avoid any further vandalism and other violations. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree, this account does not appear to have edited since 3 June. Put it another way, if this report showed up at AIV I'd mark it stale. No objection to a VOA block, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User Amosangzk and article List of open-source software for mathematics

User Amosangzk (talk, contribs) has been building a page List of open-source software for mathematics,

I suspect it is a vanity project. The first part of the article is the author's essay in favor of open source software and does not even pretend to conform to Wikipedia style or standards. The rest of the article---the titular list---is redundant with existing Wikipedia articles.

However my particular brief against Amosangzk consists of:

• Clean-up templates were placed by various bots at the top of the article. Amosangzk's response has been to simply delete them all unaddressed, as in this example.
• Amosangzk also did not address or respond to my talk page suggestions. I posted a pointer on the user's talk page also.
• When I finally put a PROD delete template on the top of the article---along with a note on the user's talk page---Amosangzk simply deleted that also.

There has been no engagement by Amosangzk with other editors, and no addressing of the article's issues.

It is a little disappointing. It would be a plus if a new editor with such obvious motivation and talent would channel that energy into constructive Wikipedia editing.

But I think some sanction is warranted. M.boli (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's be helpful to try editing the article into compliance. Let's try that first.--v/r - TP 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is my usual inclination also. But I think this page may have been serving as an essay for a college class, as an article it is hopeless. Partly it is the author's own opinion piece that doesn't belong in an article with this title. The rest (the list) doesn't fit in to how this information is organized within Wikipedia. Each software package on the list is lovingly described with a few paragraphs and a screen shot. Yet each already has its own individual Wikipedia page, which is where those efforts should be placed. After deleting the opinion section and putting the screenshots into the individual pages, there really isn't anything left but a list of links. M.boli (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having a list of a subject which contains elements that have broader coverage in their own articles.--v/r - TP 15:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Righto. If you think the article can be thusly fixed up, I certainly won't disagree. M.boli (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm tweaking the format. When I'm done, I'll look for sources to satisfy WP:LISTN. If you want to AfD it after that, no problem by me.--v/r - TP 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow! You are fast. Also you have a much better sense than I have about using Wikipedia's elements for graphic design. And no, I wouldn't AfD it. I got involved because the article title grabbed me as potentially useful. M.boli (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The article looks good but I've added a Refimprove template since it currently shows only 1 reference. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I found three sources for the article, cleaned up the advertising tone, cut out the essay material, and reorganized the data into tables. I think I'm just about finished.--v/r - TP 18:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic SPA

There's some problematic editing going on that the Stewart Raffill and Standing Ovation (film) articles. The account User:Rovaf123michael appeared on June 6 and began editing both articles, making significant changes. Some were ok, but others are clearly an attempt to whitewash by deleting portions of direct quotes: [103]. I placed some warnings on the account's talk page, which received no response. Another account User:Rovaf123, obviously the same user, appeared June 10 and began reinstituting the same whitewashings as the other account [104], as well as edit warring over the removal of a film poster image [105]. A couple of IPs have also been involved here and there. I'm bringing this here because it's not simple enough for AIV and because there's more at work here than plain old sockpuppetry. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• The edits made by User:Rovaf123michael in the Stewart Raffill article serve as a copyright violation, using the organization's website. That said, the editor never received a copyvio warning. I would block User:Rovaf123 as a duck. As far as the Standing Ovation (film), the editor is clearly whitewashing the article. I would then indef User:Rovaf123michael to make sure he understands and is able to comply with guidelines and policies pertaining to NPOV, COI, and copyright violations. Note that while you placed one "level two" NPOV warning, you didn't escalate after the editor continued adding/removing inappropriate content. In the future, you can just offer some guidance (if amenable), then if they continue to violate policy, just escalating the warnings. If they keep going after the fourth warning, then it is a simple report to AIV. Thoughts? Cindy(talk) 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That would seem logical, except that I only report blatant vandalism to AIV because they tend to deny everything that isn't run of the mill vandalism. And especially since I've now started a thread here, they will just reject it. I note that the user has again blanked the image from the Standing Ovation article without discussing [106]. Can someone please block these accounts since they are whitewashing, adding copyvio text, engaging in slow edit wars and refusing to respond to notes on their talk page? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Youreallycan Ban lift

There has been about a six month ban on YouReallyCan, I think that anything that happened in the past can be forgotten about now. YouReallyCan has done great work on BLP and has been a solid contributor here on Wiki. He has had his share of civility issues but I think that at this point maybe this long of a enforced wikibreak may help these problems. I think if we lift the community ban with a caution that next time may be permanent we would make it so the encyclopedia benefits and gets this great contributor back. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No. (and not quite 4 months isn't about 6 months) --Onorem (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicted on correcting myself. I just looked at the last block. But I'll still say that from Jan 24 until today is not 'about six months'. --Onorem (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find whether the ban were indefinite or definite, and if definite how long it was. Could you research and tell us? I'm just about to get offline and can't do it myself. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You really should've talked to (and waited to hear from) YRC before proposing this. @Nyttend: it was indefinite. I'll rustle up the diffs if it's necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The ban was enacted January 2013 it's now June 2013 so if it's not exactly 6 months it's pretty close. I believe it was an indefinite ban but indefinite is exactly that an undetermined amount of time. And Writ keeper he doesn't have talkpage access so I am raising it as a member of the community and his friend. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's still two weeks away from 5 months. --Onorem (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok so you're upset it's not six months? Not sure what exact point you are trying to make. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your initial statement is misleading. You seem to be using the amount of time passed as part of your argument. --Onorem (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@HiaB: I am aware that he doesn't have page access; I've communicated with him myself (and protected his talk page from trolls) since his ban. If not a friend, I'm certainly on friendly terms with him. My point is that, TPA or not, he has to be a part of this process, and he needs to tell us that he has the time/energy/wherewithal to participate in the discussion. Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of everyone's time that will almost certainly stir up pointless drama (already begun, as you can see) and quite possibly further ill-will toward him. (AFAIK, the community is not a huge fan of unsolicited third-party requests of this kind; that's original research, though.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Would that extra time make your opinion change one way or another? @ Writ Keeper I agree that's why I have already left this [[107]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, that's how I found out about this thread. The point is that you should've waited to open this thread until after you've heard from him that he want's to try for an unban, and I personally would suggest that this thread be closed until you *have* heard from him. It is completely pointless until we know what YRC wants. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but it's a moot point if the community doesn't want him back at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're putting the cart before the horse; the community (certainly in theory and quite likely in practice) needs to hear from YRC about his intentions, etc. etc. before it can decide whether it wants him back. It all starts with YRC. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily opposed to having YRC return, but I'm not prepared to support an unban without us hearing from him about what he wants, how he's changed, how he intends to move forward, etc. Without that information, it's really not possible to make any decisions here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't change my opinion, but it might influence the opinions of others who would treat this as a possible WP:OFFER case. --Onorem (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough on that point, myself I don't think that the extra few weeks will do more to enforce what has already happened but I can understand your point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear on the math: 6 months from January 24 is... July 24.

(I have no strong opinion either way on the actual issue, but the bad math bugs me.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A return for YRC?

• I'm personally well inclined to listen to a case for a return of YRC, who under his previous (and well disclosed account (User:Off2riorob) I had good encounters. As noted, his BLP work was very strong. However I also take the same view as Fluffernutter and Writ that I'd like to see this done directly, and not by proxy. To that end I'd be pleased to allow talk page access, subject to a nod from User:Bwilkins. Also isn't WP:AN the right venue? Pedro :  Chat  17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That would be my fault wasn't sure what board it would need to be on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No probs, just thought ban / unban normally lived at WP:AN. Pretty bureaucratic anyway really on which page it goes on! Pedro :  Chat  17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page access restoral

So 3 admin have opposed until we hear from YRC, ok I understand that point, so either he can email myself or WK or we can restore talkpage access. I have notified BWilkins and requested his input. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ideal, thank you, though I should confirm my preference is not email but to reinstate talk page access (which can be trivially removed again, and I can't possibly believe that this would have to be done given YRC wishes to return). Pedro :  Chat  17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

TP access restored via his request by email I am assuming. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unbanning YRC, continued

Would it be a problem if YRC was to be unbanned first, without regard to his/her intent, and monitored closely for a while afterwards? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 17:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think so. I think that it is an invite to come back to the encyclopedia that he could choose to come back if he wanted to, the message that the community at large or at least the people who commented at the banning thread has very little patience. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "unbanned first" Rickyab - I can't begin to think of a situation where we would remove a ban but deny the editor talk page access. Pedro :  Chat  17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

By "unbanned first", I meant a tentative unbanning along with restoration of talk page access. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It has been restored and he also sent emails to myself and WK. He does want to be unblocked but his email to WK gives details. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It would be a problem. Why would we unblock a banned user without regard to his/her intent? --Onorem (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point who cares, talkpage access has been restored, let's discuss the issue at hand not the now outdated question. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The question said nothing about talk page access. As far as the issue at hand goes...NO, YRC should not be unblocked. His statement is not yet good enough imo. --Onorem (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To your mind what is an acceptable statement? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To start with, something that admits and explains fault for the ban to begin with. Simply saying he'll avoid dramah (sic) boards doesn't inspire me on his motives. I don't know what I need to hear exactly. There might be nothing he could say. What has been said isn't enough for me. I simply do not trust that he's here to be constructive unless it's on things that everyone agrees with him on. --Onorem (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My last comments for the night cause it is super late in HK, is that his statement below addresses those specifically the reversion issues, civility issues and a willingness to listen to advice. Your opinion is your own so thank you for expressing it but I'm going to call it a night and check in the morning to see where things are at. (feel free to indent if it's important to you). Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I was overly involved and attacking of other users in disputes, I am sorry for that and apologize to anyone that suffered from that editing fault and I will strongly focus on avoiding that moving forward. I will also seek to avoid editing topics I have had tensions in previously. Youreallycan 18:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What topics do you plan to edit? How exactly do you plan to be productive? It's not 6 months, but why not treat this like a standard offer now that we are here...--Onorem (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you recall what topics you had tensions in in the past? Which topics were they, and how do you propose to avoid them? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I would consider (User:Russavia) and (Russavia's) posts as a topic to avoid. Youreallycan 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is apparently a reference to the controversy over the Delicious Carbuncle and Fae incident. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Rickyrab, I prefer to think of this as "that time when Fæ, Russavia, and unnamed co-conspirators lied about various things", but that isn't really specific enough since that happened more than once. Perhaps we can just call it "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ" and leave my username out of it altogether? I think you know how it turned out. I would prefer not to dig this particular corpse up again, and I'm pretty sure that ArbCom would agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the corpse is what it is, and we need a better way of naming particular incidents of dramah when a current incident of dramah that refers to earlier incidents of dramah occurs. In this case, Russavia apparently said something and Youreallycan opposed it. Russavia seems to have been talking about you and Fae, and this may have had something to do with calling people "gay" in an insulting manner. I wasn't party to any of this, so I wouldn't know firsthand, but a lot of that dramah had to do with anti-homosexual bias. So maybe the "Fae and Homophobia Incident"? "The Homophobia Affair of xx.xx.xxxx (where the x's refer to a date)"? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the drama had to do with accusations of anti-homosexual bias. In my case, those accusations are unfounded, so I would prefer not to have my username used as some kind of shorthand for "homophobic attacks on Fæ" or associated with anything Youreallycan may have said. As I have said before, I believe that Youreallycan should avoid the LGBT subject area altogether and take especial care in interacting with LGBT editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's call this the "Voidokilia Beach Affair"... how does that sound? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think statements matter any more. In a little over a year on this account, YRC was blocked nine or ten times. In several cases, he got an early unblock after making statements promising to change/behave better/avoid drama. Then there are the 10 blocks on his previous account (discounting the two that did not appear to be supported). So on these two accounts, YRC has been legitimately blocked 19 times since 2009. A statement on what he intends to do seems fruitless as he can't say anything now he hasn't said before. Either we unblock him and see if his actions can finally match his words, or we decide that a leopard cannot change his spots and forget about it. So with that in mind, the statement I would like to see is what he thinks the communty should do if we end up seeing him back at ANI on a 20th block for disruptive editing/harrassment/personal attacks. Resolute 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Email and initial comment from YRC

I would love to be unblocked so as to contribute in a small way. I would be prepared to offer three months one revert restriction and a three month dramah board restriction and as I have been away four months I am less attached and would from that space focus on commenting only on the content and not the contributor. I am open to additional suggestions or if rejected, advice for any future unblock request.

— User:Youreallycan

Received today at 17:52 UTC. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Three months 1RR, but plenty of WP:BRD when reverting - emphasis on discuss. Voluntary self ban on WP:ANI / WP:AN except if the case/incident indirectly involves Youreallycan, when he should be free to comment; If it directly involves YRC then it's likely the indef will come back anyway, so I see no value in bureaucratic sanctions (albeit self imposed) Pedro :  Chat  18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• 3 month 1rr sounds good. Just to clarify that it's an indefinite ban from ANI/AN with the attached caveat? Blackmane (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite in this case meaning "of no set duration", yes. YRC can always ask for that ban to be lifted as well, once he/she has a few months of solid editing in. No objection to a 3-month 1RR. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think time-limited restrictions are the way to go here. There's nothing magical about 3 or 6 months or whatever that fixes things editors struggle with. I'd be much more comfortable with open-ended restrictions. My ideal would be indefinite 1RR and indefinite AN/ANI (barring threads about him) ban, with the expectation that once YRC has some new contributing time under his belt, he will be able to demonstrate to the community's satisfaction here or on AN that the restrictions are not necessary. That could be after a month of heavy editing wherein he shows us that he's completely turned around while on break, or it could be after a year of working hard onwiki to manage his coping/DR skills; the time isn't the important part so much as the being-able-to-show-us-improvement is.

  I vaguely recall there being some BLP issues around the time of YRC's ban, as well, but I can't remember if they involved making BLP violations, or just edit warring to remove what he though were other people's BLP violations. Depending on what that situation was, we may wish to consider some sort of BLP restriction as well? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • My recollection (though very far from perfect) is that it was the latter. (That is, YRC went overboard in combating BLP violations, not making them.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• If YRC can live with Pedro's terms (i.e. a 1RR restriction with no loopholes or exceptions) then I think an unban is worth a try. Pedro's terms are quite reasonable, I think. 28bytes (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=559437715&oldid=559436416

Yes - I can accept Pedro's conditions

Rob

please Post to WP:ANI Youreallycan 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unban per Pedro's conditions. :) John Cline (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unban per Pedro and 28bytes. Andreas JN466 00:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unban support.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unban and I don't care about conditions, but think Pedro's suggestion is close enough to harmless that it will suffice. The poison cocktail of RfC restrictions, under severe duress as they were, were a travesty and the whole way it was exploited by his enemies was another travesty. It is time to put the whole absurd affair in the past and get on with it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• unblock – there will be an adequate supply of eyeballs watching to ensure reasonable behaviour. I don't even believe we need sanctions or restrictions above those of any new editor. The threat that blockable behaviour (by usual standards) will inevitably be noted and that reactions to it will be undoubtedly stringent should be adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction proposal for YRC

• I think what YRC needs is an indefinite 1RR restriction, and also a more restrictive version of this that also applies to reverting vandalism and BLP violations (which are normally exempt from such restrictions) that will expire after 6 months. I'm not in favor of an AN/I ban, because he has to come here to communicate any problems, and we should be here to help him deal woith any such problems. If he misbehaves here, then that's an unfortunate problem we then have to deal with. It's better that he be restricted more for some time from reverting so that he has to come to the appropriate noticeboard to comminucate problems than to restrict him less and let him engage in fights with (possible) BLP violators on his own. Count Iblis (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This user wants me to accept an indefinite 1RR restriction, and also a more restrictive version of this that also applies to reverting vandalism and BLP violations (which are normally exempt from such restrictions) that will expire after 6 months.
  • I am unable to accept this severe editing restriction. Youreallycan 18:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How come? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 19:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

vandalism and blp - No - I am unwilling to accept any editing restrictiion to those areas - please show I have violated those areas if you request restrictions - Youreallycan 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

YRC, note that you can still revert vandalism and BLP violations, but I think you need to learn to communicate more effectively with your fellow editors in the BLP area more, basically that you get more of a mindset that this is really a collaborative project and that there are plenty of other editors here who care just as much as you about any particular BLP. If you have that mindset, then it doesn't matter who exactly reverts what BLP violation. Once you have that mindset, you will be a lot less angry when someone reinserts a BLP violation that you reverted. That anger you had from time to time here caused you to behave in an incivil way toward other editors (not just those who inserted the alledged BLP violations in articles). Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am heartened by YRC's comments above, including his recognition of past behaviour problems. We all live and learn. I forgive YRC unreservedly and trust that he will be a productive editor and member of the wikicommunity. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that my own vote last time we were discussing restrictions on YRC to allow him to continue editing began with exactly the same four words. That's not to say we should/shouldn't unblock, but I think worth thinking about. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Revert issues were only half of the problem. The other half of the problem was his repeated incivility, which as I recall included anti-Semitic and homophobic comments against editors and public figures. The community ban that he's currently under was triggered by a homophobic attack against another editor. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Are you forgetting that you have an interaction ban with YRC? It wasn't rendered void when he got blocked and it certainly shouldn't be considered void in a discussion of his appeal.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

YRC history

(ec) Looking at the history, in August 2012, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal reached the conclusion (supported, to his credit, by Youreallycan) that a time-limited, four-part editing restriction – violations of which would result in site ban – would hopefully address the problems with YRC's editing and allow him to contribute positively to the project. Prior to the RfC, YRC had racked up five or six blocks in 2012, most shortened after a promise of good behavior from YRC.

After the RfC was closed on 16 August 2012, YRC received two additional blocks: an indefinite block over concerns about outing in October 2012, lifted after four days with yet another promise of better behavior; and a one-day block in December 2012, lifted soon after as part of a de-escalation involving unblocking all the parties to a three(?)-editor conflict. He was blocked indefinitely in January 2013 for a violation of the terms set out in the RfC.

Given the ongoing conduct problems – both before and after editing restrictions were imposed in August 2012 – it is not entirely obvious that it would be to the project's benefit for YRC to return under a shorter-term, less-strict parole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with ToAT: it's not clear that Wikipedia would benefit, and it's not clear why the restrictions should be looser than what was originally imposed. As for benefit -- in earlier discussions there were many comments about how YRC was essential for the proper functioning of BLPN, but it has functioned perfectly well without him and can continue to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the information above from TOAT and my own poking around, I only have one question here: What's different this time, YRC? Promises have been made and broken before. — The Potato Hose 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Look, we should not blame YRC for everything, we made a mistake ourselves by not having imposed the right kind of restriction in the past. In the RFC I explained that the restrictions that YRC had agreed to would not work given what his problem is. Still for Wiki-political reasons we went ahead with this and it failed. So, this history of failure is not all YRC fault (given what hs problem is), it is also our own fault. Let's now finally start with doing what is likely to work. Count Iblis (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I, too, am extremely doubtful that YRC is even capable of changing his spots, despite his intentions. Nineteen blocks, countless broken promises and God only knows how many "last chances" are powerful testimony against any promise that he won't make anti-gay, anti-semetic or otherwise totally unacceptable personal attacks against his fellow editors in the future. It is reasonable to assume that, by nature, he is highly prone to fly off the handle, and it is reasonable to assume that he will do so again. I don't see any benefit to the project having such a volatile and hostile editor around. Quite the opposite- he has consumed countless hours of editor and administrator time with his outbursts and their repercussions. The best advice I can give him is to find another hobby that better suits his disposition. Wikipedia ain't it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say, as someone who was leaning toward supporting an unban when this thread opened, that I find YRC's responses thus far disheartening. I'm seeing the same refusal to accept community opinion that we ran into last time around, and given that YRC is asking the community to take a leap of faith with regard to his ability to edit constructively (a "leap of faith" because we do not have any evidence to show that there won't be immediate problems if YRC is unblocked), I'm not encouraged to see things starting off with "sorry, I won't accept some or all of these restrictions." YRC, please, give some thought to whether you prefer to return to editing or to hold the line with regard to refusing restrictions - I suspect both are not available to you at this point. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Commenting here, because it's the bottom I'm, sorry but multiple procedural faults (the inception of a 3rd party block appeal, leveraging a small group of editors comments into a consensus, the appeal being made at ANI instead of AN, the timing of this appeal (during North America working hours), the attempt to get the change enacted earlier than 24 hours) all suggest that there is "interest" in hearing a YRC appeal from blocking, however the discussion should be started fresh without any aspersions at the intercessor or the apeallant being cast. Even better would be to have YRC remand the appeal over to WP:BASC so as to give it the consideration they deserve. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Please, feel free to object on any number of grounds but "procedural faults" is just lame. In already mentioned it should be on WP:AN, but seriously who cares.As for time keeping ..... These things take as long as they need, and contrary to popular opinion North America is not the only country in the world. NOTBURO and all that. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest that YRC not be unblocked. The facts that TenOfAllTrades and Resolute identified above make me think that we have given YRC enough chances already.--Rockfang (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose lifting the ban. We've seen plenty of disruption in numerous forms from this editor and wasted enough time dealing with it on ANI, RFC and plenty of talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• We've heard these promises before, and it always ends with YRC breaking them. I'm against lifting the ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I can't understand why anyone is considering this. An examination of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AYoureallycan http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOff2riorob demonstrates that we are dealing with an editor that simply cannot behave himself for any extended period of time. It's a waste of everyone's time to unblock him.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  As a matter of general interest, have you ever been in favour of lifting a block on anyone? Eric Corbett 22:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. I've even mentored sockpuppeteers when I determined that there was a potentially good editor involved.User:TBrandley, User:Petergriffin9901, User:Wiki-11233, User:Iluvrihanna24, among others. Usually doesn't work, but I give it a shot. Editors that continually repeat the behaviour that leads to getting blocked aren't worth the effort, though. Two or three chances, maybe, but not dozens.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock. It is a trivial matter to restore the block if YRC can't stick to the caveats, and if he can do so, he is an obvious net positive to the encyclopedia. And if we do have to restore the block (and I'd be quite happy to do it myself if necessary) it should be clear that it's permanent. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  Absolutely right. It's trivially easy to block someone. Eric Corbett 22:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock as per Black Kite. Eric Corbett 22:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock as Black KIte says, it is relatively easy to block again if, but hopefully not, necessary. I generally favor an unconditional unblock but with conditions is fine too. --regentspark (comment) 22:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Between you and Black Kite, an interesting idea has occurred to me: what if the user is unblocked, no conditions, on the understanding that the next block results in a community ban? Gives YRC/O2RR the opportunity to prove he really has changed, and sets a really bright line: you get blocked again, that's it. Allows him agency without chafing under restrictions, allows the community to have a simple recourse. — The Potato Hose 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • His current block is a community ban. Prioryman (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. I see absolutely no reason to suppose that he won't resume behaving in the same way that got him blocked so often (19 times? 20?). YRC has promised every time to improve, and every time he has broken that promise. His record is symptomatic of someone who experiences severe difficulty in behaving constructively in a collaborative environment. I can guarantee that if he is unblocked now, particularly if he is unblocked without restrictions, he will rack up at least one more block for incivility or edit-warring before Christmas and people will be asking "why was he ever unblocked?" Prioryman (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked / oppose unblock What is the obsession certain Wikipedians have with bringing back awful users for no particularly good reason? Bottom line: negligible potential for improving the encyclopedia, huge potential for dramah! No thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• The obsession is humanity. People can and do change, and if we say that some people are irredeemable write-offs, then where is the difference between us and the Nazis? We are all in this together. My bottom line is that there must be some acknowledgement of past misdeeds, a promise to do better in future, and (in this case) an explanation of why he isn't treating this time as yet another free ride. The history cycle of block-unblock-block must be addressed by YRC. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's been done nineteen times before. Comparing those who have lost faith in YRC's promises and ability to change with Nazi's is ludicrous and highly insulting. Nobody has said that he is an "irredeemable write-off". Just that he has amply proven himself incompetent to be a WP editor. Hyperbole severely undermines your argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

People aren't rocks. We learn and grow and develop, and hey, sometimes we have life-changing moments where we see things differently. If we deny the reality of our own experiences, where we change our behaviour as we mature, then maybe we might see other human beings as similarly unchanging, forced into final shape through factors of race or birth or belief. If we truly see YRC as forever "incompetent to be a WP editor" then where is the difference? I prefer to look on people as able to learn, to grow, to reprogram their behaviour. What is important to me is that there be evidence of a change and acknowledgement of past poor behaviour. Sorry if you took my comments personally - not my intention! --Pete (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Giving someone a second chance, or even a third chance, is "humanity". Giving someone 20 chances when they've wasted every previous one is just being willfully blind to reality. When 'good' editors continually enable bad ones, they become part of the problem themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Change has to come from within. It can be helped and guided, but ultimately it cannot be forced. I don't think that YRC has yet met the criteria of acknowledgement and acceptance that I mentioned above, but when he does it would be a strong indication of progress. We are all capable of change and progress, but some cannot see this in themselves, let alone others. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Uphold block. Youreallycan and his previous incarnation was always too quick to assume bad faith in others, and too prone to impose his reactionary viewpoint on BLP matters regardless of how liberal was the policy. His promises to reform have been repeatedly broken. I see no need to invest energy to watch him break another one. Instead, let's all spend the time writing the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Question? Has he made any statement to the effect of how his editing in BLPs is going to be different from how it has been before? i would be easier convinced if he showed that he understood what made his behavior problematic and what he can do to avoid such problems, and that it was not just because of the "haters" as he used to call those who didn't find his behavior. The comments I see on his page talk about avoiding specific editors, which seems again to repeat the idea that it is the others who are the problem and not his own actions. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock within a framework that precludes problems. I'm convinced that YRC can be unblocked within a system that keeps him out of trouble and allows him to do what he wants to do here. The details need to be worked out, but it has to include a (temporary) 1RR for reverting BLP violations. Now YRC has said above that he doesn't like this, but we have to make clear to him that he should collaborate with other editors on this issue. Even if he could revert more than once, he should have a convincing argument why his reverts are justified, but then he could just as well only present that argument and let others do the reverting. I think we can help YRC by proposing a system that he can accept. E.g. there are probably a few editors who he often agrees with on BLP issues who have a clean block log. If YRC makes a directory on his userpage where he posts his reverts that in his opinion were necesarry to remove BLP violations, then these other editors can look at that page every day, if some of YRCs reverts have been undone and they agree with YRC's reverts, they will then take up that issue. Count Iblis (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• The user has exhausted patience before, and the arguments for unblock merely seem to be bald statements of "net positive, if . . .". In short, the case for unban with supporting arguments and evidence is not made at present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. YRC's indefinite block was the culmination of years of disruptive editing and of harassment of other users. Why should we believe this promise of reform any more than any of the other promises he broke? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Addendum: While there are no conditions that would lead me to support an unblock, if community consensus favors an unblock I recommend the imposition of the a topic ban from Jewish and LGBT issues in any namespace whatsoever, including references to the ethnicity/religion or sexual orientation of any user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• To paraphrase DGG, blocks are cheap. Unblock Rob. He's caused plenty of drama, and I wish his mother were an English teacher who could still slap him with a ruler for every crime against grammar, but he was a net positive, albeit sometimes barely so. A 1R restriction or something like it is probably a good thing to try and prevent some drama (sic). Alanscottwalker, sure, our patience was exhausted, but drip...drip...drip... that bucket of patience can slowly fill up again. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not water torture you're describing? :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - There are so many blocks on the log and the probability of Rob being able to adhere to a 1RR is so low that this seems tantamount to handing an alcoholic a rocks glass and letting him open a bar tab on a promise that he'll stick to Diet Pepsi. We know how this will end. I have nothing against Rob, he's an effective voice in BLP debates even though I disagree with him close to 100% of the time on such matters. Is that voice worth the edit-warring and the non-stop drama? I'm not that wise, I have no opinion. I don't wish him ill, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about how this turns out... Carrite (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• People should review my analysis of his block log on the original RfC/U's talk page. The number of blocks is quite meaningless. As I noted above, I fully support lifting his ban because it was based less on reason and more on emotion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Him telling me last year to fuck off with my queer agenda (and the lies that surrounded that episode) was the last straw for me. His "promises" to stay away from me (for example) are cheap, when taken into account with his actions on Commons (which got him blocked temporarily) and his continual talking of shit about myself on JW's talk page whilst I was butthurt blocked last year. Tied in with his previous harassment of myself, I've had enough of the vile character that is Off2riorob/Youreallycan, and it would be a cold day in hell before I would welcome him back. Good riddance I say. Russavia (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting you complain about a personal attacks by making personal attacks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock, with 1RR editing restriction as outlined above, because he made many good content contributions from their first account. If he only edited from the latest (2nd) account, I would not support unblock. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• From Rob's talk page: "Yes I can easily accept a blanket one revert condition. I think I misunderstood the request." Drmies (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Prioryman and Binksternet. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocl and keep ban in place. His statements regarding 1RR restriction are an indication of indefinite drama. No, he really can't keep disrupting Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. When I look through the years of contributions by YRC/O2RR I see a consistent pattern of problems. Time and again he is dragged to ANI for one issue or another. Time and again, he is rude and insulting to other editors. Time and again he has promised to reform or disengage. And the cycle has repeated. Rob claims to be a champion of our BLP policy, but when he finds himself in conflict with climate change editors, he goes to William Connolley's BLP and adds unsourced negative information, which he later upgrades to very poorly-sourced negative information. And he is willing to break the 3RR to insert that information. Now this is an editor who made his name taking a hard line on BLPs who is suddenly willing to throw all that aside to settle a score. Now, I was willing to accept that as ancient history, but the thread that earned him this block starts out the same way - Maunus' initial complaint centred around the assertion that Rob was treating BLPs of Pakistani Muslims differently from BLPs. On the heels of the Qworty scandal, we don't need more editors willing to use BLPs to settle personal scores. Guettarda (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please review my analysis of the block log that was linked to above regarding the Connolley article. The apparent 3RR violation was a clear mistake prompted by numerous edit conflicts, not deliberate edit-warring. Oh, and we all know the "negative information" he added was accurate and easily sourced.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock (with suggested restrictions). The past is no guarantee for the future, and if it turns out to be, there is a simple way of solving the problem then. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it wouldn't be simple -- it would turn into yet another dramafest, a thoroughly polarized discussion where some will try to stand in the way of resolving the problem no matter how poor the behavior. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strenuous Oppose Unblock YRC is still attempting to cut corners and dictate terms for his return, just as he has in multiple previous incidents that lead to a block. He's still short of six months blocked, shows no signs he truly has adopted a new view of how to behave here, and has a long history that suggests nothing will change if he is unblocked. He'll behave for a few weeks at most, and then the drama will begin again. He's had his last chance. --Drmargi (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock With restrictions as noted. This is not a case where someone cannot be reformed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• oppose unblock I see a net negative and someone who had to have administrative action taken against them even after they were site banned (Feb 17th, talk page access revoked). The "I think I misunderstood the request" comment feels troubling--I've no idea what could have been misunderstood there. It just feels like we are going to go down the same path again. Is an unban something I'd be okay with in the future? Sure, I like to think people can grow. But this is too soon (<4 months after being banned from his own talk page), I'd want an indef with the same restrictions as in the RfC/U (where indefinite != infinite) and I'd certainly want it to come from the user with a statement that he clearly gets what the problems were and that they won't happen again. Oh, I'd also like to know of any editing done by this user while under the ban... Hobit (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock This editor's history of antisemitic and anti-gay comments, and of extreme rudeness to those who disagree with him, created an unpleasant atmosphere for many editing in areas where he was active. I see no sign that he recognises this, or that he will modify his behaviour in this respect. If he is unblocked, I would like to see a topic ban in any edits relating to these problematic areas, including alleged BLP violations and vandalism on relevant articles. RolandR (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Gods of the Copybook Headings. Warden (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Roscelese, Guettarda, and RolandR. I absolutely believe that people can change, but in this case the change would have to be profound, and I see no evidence of that in YRC's comments on this page. I also am a great believer in "one more chance", but YRC has been offered many chances, only to squander them and, in the process, squander his fellow Wikipedians' time, equanimity, and patience. Anyone doubting how much drama YRC has caused over the years should consult not only his block record but the ANI archives, which contain a wealth of YRC-related threads that didn't culminate in blocking but demonstrate a conspicuous pattern of repeated misbehavior. If, say, a year were to pass and YRC were to return to make a request that does not include self-imposed conditions but does include clear indications that he understands why his behavior was a problem, I wouldn't oppose. But this thread is simply déjà vu with a slightly longer lead time than usual. (And about those self-imposed conditions: there need be no negotiations in cases like this. The community sets the standards for editor behavior, and editors either agree to them in full or shouldn't edit at all.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock, with strict initial conditions - what's the worst that can happen? If he steps out of line again then one of the many, many admins that will be keeping an eye on him will re-block, and this time probably for good. GiantSnowman 09:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Noting that YRC was a strong defender of BLPs whose presence has been missed indeed. Also suggest that those who have been in conflict with him previously be told that seeking conflict with him will be viewed as blockable behaviour on their part (noting some posts on YRC's talk page, and some are already under interaction bans with him). I wpuld also suggest that the weight given here to such previously involved persons shouting "block forever" be noted by anyone closing this discussion. Collect (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So you believe his "its the haters' fault not mine" argument? He has certainly done a lot of good for BLPs - unless its a blp of a muslim or gay person or someone with whom he has been in a personal dispute. Your argument entirely shifts the burden to those who have been in conflicts with YRC, but who have not been blocked for their behavior - and means that if he comes back he can continue to behave exactly as he did before with near impunity, he would even be free to harass those with whom he has previously been in conflict because they would be assumed to be at fault. If there is a consensus top unblock him then so be it, but what you are proposing just doesn't seem acceptable to me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock subject to the conditions agreed. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• What an absurd request. YRC was banned because he's incapable of working within the community's behavioural norms. He's made similar whole-hearted apologies and promises to behave in the past, and reneged on them every time. There are exactly two reasons one would support an out-of-the-blue unban: naivete and lulz. I'm strongly inclined to believe that the initial request falls into the latter category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. --Onorem (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock as per conditions agreed above - we should never say never, and if we don't get a net positive result another block is easy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • People keep saying another block would be easy, but just look at how long it took to get to where we are now. 20+ blocks for harassment and disruptive editing. Multiple discussions of a community ban, each with users arguing for YRC to be allowed to continue damaging Wikipedia because he just needs another chance, he's promised to be better this time, vandalizing BLPs is okay for him because he's such a strong defender of BLP, Jewish and LGBT users can suck it, etc. What makes you think that YRC's inevitable relapse will be easily corrected? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If he's under 1RR with editors in good standing helping him with when the BLP violations he's corrected are reinserted (see my proposal posted on his talk page), then that steers him away from engaging in battles to defend his edits toward editing articles and having to rely on his strength of argument to make his edits stick. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock with the agreed restrictions. Begoon ^talk 15:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock The number of chances given this editor is absurd. Every single promise to behave well with others has been broken and there is no reason to submit the community to the inevitable abuse that will follow an unblock. MarnetteD | Talk 15:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unsure, but leaning towards oppose.I an also a believer in second chances. This guy has a history of asking for them, only to squander them; he has also made antisemitic comments in the past, but, who knows? "The horse could learn to sing". — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Roscelese, Guettarda, RolandR and Rivertorch. Sure, it would be great to get the good parts of YRC back without the bad parts, but that's not going to happen. As to how easy it is to reblock, I think it would take 10,000 words on admin boards and a discussion with 100 participants to reblock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  That's the rub, isn't it. If unblocks are cheap in this case, then reblocks should be just as cheap. But we all know that is not going to be the case. I wonder if that is included in the "cost" of a block. Resolute 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  Neither is cheap: that's the reason we ban users: to stop having our noticeboards clogged with these discussions. Some people apparently don't get that point, and think that bringing up "shouldn't we unban so-and-so" discussions are productive. They aren't. I'm wondering if we could get a consensus to have our banning policy include a ban on bringing up unban proposals for two years after the initial ban.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Unfortunately YRC has already demonstrated that he is incapable of changing his behaviour. This has been witnessed repeatedly over the course of his editing history. Numerous blocks are applied then lifted with restrictions which he grudgingly agrees to, then fails to abide by the agreed restrictions. He is a serial offender in this respect and a season ticket holder in the Last Chance Saloon. Pursuing further metaphors, this particular leapard cannot change it's spots. If YRC is unblocked we will just revisit the exact same behaviour pattern again over the forthcoming months, with all the attendant disruption that ensues, and be back here again in another year. Groundhog Day springs to mind, ad nauseam. Time to draw a permanent line under this.--Cactus.man ✍ 19:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock enough is enough. --Rschen7754 19:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - I'm not persuaded by the unblock arguments, which are mostly built on a weak foundation of "net positive" and "good BLP protector". With less than 14% of his edits contributing to encyclopedia articles, and given the volume of drama that he has created in the recent past, I simply can't accept these arguments. I'm also not convinced that his attitude has changed significantly in the roughly five months since he was banned, based on his participation in this discussion and his talk page posts. The desire, by some, to retain a single good contributor should not supersede the larger goal of maintaining a collaborative editing environment for everyone so that we can build an encyclopedia, together. We should be raising the bar on civility, not lowering it. That said, I believe that people can change if they really want to, so I remain open to considering an unblock for YRC sometime in the future. - MrX 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

YRC remains blocked but can edit from his talk page

I'm wondering if the following is acceptable to the people who oppose lifting the ban. YRC's main interest has been the editing of BLP articles, the removal of BLP violations in articles etc. If we were to allow him to point to BLP violations in articles on his talk page, make suggestions for edits to articles, then that would allow him to engage constructively in the editing process, while he is forced to collaborate in a constructive way. It's then almost impossible for problems to occur. If he does this for a few months, we could look again at his ban. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:PROXYING explicitly forbids what is being proposed in this subsection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that's the whole point of this section, we obviously have to give YRC permission to do this as editors who are banned are barred from indirectly contributing to Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

YRC unblocked but will be automatically re-blocked after 3 months unless there is a consensus to renew the unblocked status

This is the only alternative I can think of to convince the people opposed to lift the block under some appropriate arangement (like the 1RR prosal I posted above). So YRC will get immediately blocked in case of violations of the conditions, but the concern is that you always have borderline violations that generate a lot of discussions without a consensus to take measures to deal with the problem. Then given that YRC is blocked now anyway, he has nothing to lose agreeing to the 1RR proposal plus the additional condition that if he fails to convince a big majority that he can continue to edit here, he'll be re-blocked. If here is a consensus that he should not be re-blocked there will be another evaluation after 3 months, unless there is a consensus that the automatic block clause will be lifted. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, am not in the slightest bit interested in ANY "arrangement". Remember that we are talking about an editor that has been blocked NINETEEN times before, has been given God only knows how many "absolute last chances", has made God knows how many apologies and promises, has wasted staggering amounts of editor and administrator time, has driven away God only knows how many productive editors with his vicious personal attacks, and has squandered each and every opportunity to show that he can change his behavior. I think that it would best for the community, and for Rob himself, for him to wake up tomorrow morning and finally realize that Wikipedia is no longer part of his life, and never will be again. Let the grass grow on this grave already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Failure after doing 19 times the same thing suggests to me that we need to try something different. What if the community 150 years ago had decided that steam engines should never be used because they tend to explode? Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"When nothing I do don't seem to work, it only seems to make matters worse..." --The Rolling Stones, "Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I know what we could do: let's try learning from history. The lesson that history gives us here is that YRC cannot control his behaviour to fit within community norms.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: I agree that something new has to be done. Like not every unblocking him again. Let's give that a try. It's been almost five months since he was banned, and so far, so good. Why mess with success? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No. If you unblock him, unblock him. I'm not a fan, but I see no reason to treat him like a child. Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

New request from YRC

Hi - I am not looking for any conflict at all with anyone, I am just looking to be able to make a few gnoming edits here and there. Perhaps I would slowly increase editing , but only slowly as I gain respect. I would be happy to generally aviod any topics users felt I should avoid for a few months and I will definitely avoid users I have previously been in conflict with. What if I restrict my contributing to atricles about English villages for three months? I would prefer to contribute in a small way to improve those, to nothing. Rob Youreallycan 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC) cross-posted from talk page by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you just want to gnome without conflict, why not accept the 1RR restriction? --Onorem (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am accepting a zero revert three month condition - Rob - Youreallycan 19:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)cross-posted by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This I'm nearly comfortable with. Editing anything else other than your own talk page and perhaps being able to use other's talk pages solely to discuss said articles, would cause the ban to return. I'd want the case to return to AN afterwards and probably some longer-term restrictions (civility, maybe 1 revert) for a bit. But I'd like to have some way for you to restore the community's faith in you and this seems darn reasonable. In any case, the exact wording would need to be crystal clear, but I think that's doable. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Waste of time and space

This discussion has now run to very nearly 10,000 words. By my count, 64 editors have taken part. Of these, 33 have opposed lifting the block, 19 have favoured unbanning YRC, and the others have not made their views clear. This, to my mind, is a very clear illustration of how this editor polarises opinions, and why his presence, which demands an excessive amount of time and space consumed in discussing his behaviour, is not beneficial to the project. I certainly don't see a consensus to unban arising from this discussion, and suggest that we close the matter now with no change. RolandR (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Robin z Sheraton

It is a sock puppet of User:Stepa (blocked indefinite on pl-wiki for vulgarity). See contribution of Robin on en-wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Robin_z_Sheraton (three admins from pl-wiki were attacked). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Smolov Squat Routine edit war of sorts

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

---

There is a low-level protracted edit war of sorts between myself and IPs (probably the same user) at Smolov Squat Routine. Every few days s/he comes back to revert the edits. I deleted the material repeatedly as I see it as too much technical detail as WP is not a manual. I do not want to use the tools on low-level issues on articles like this and much prefer to seek independent opinion on how to deal with this, assuming I am correct in the content removal decision. Can anyone take a look and advise? -- Alexf^(talk) 18:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this sounds trivial, but have you attempted to engage him in discussion? I can't see one on the talk page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the Smolov page back to include the percentages. I am not the one who edited the page before. I feel that the sets, reps, and intensity shown are necessary to define the program. The linked sites seem to be broken or contain different numbers so it would be nice to have the "official" percentages, sets, and reps posted here. I do not think it has enough detail on how to do the program to be considered a manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.93.125 (talk • contribs)

• Content discussion requiring no intervention (though an explanation on the talk page would be helpful). FWIW, I agree with Alexf on the issue and have reverted. I'll take the IP at their word. Best way to prevent this, besides protection, is to improve the article. Alex, mind leaving a note? Move to close, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Huge copy right violation in Iranian presidential election, 2013

Please take a rapid look at the history of this article. The article is mostly based on copy pasting text from some news websites. I started removing copyvio contents but the user (User:Tabarez) who added these materials reverted my edits.Farhikht (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you see my last comment at the page's talk, you said I also said before you that it's not good but I add in request of one user. Also I think editing is better than removing. And next this is your edit. What you doing? It's good? Tabarez (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for now. This user shows a very clear misunderstanding of our copyright policy which is so wrong I thought it best to block until they show understanding of it, especially given that it looked like an edit war may be about to break out. Dpmuk (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Hello71#"Less than neutral" link?

Can't see the contribs, and being a (semi-)active vandal-fighter, I have no clue what this editor is referring to. Could someone sort this out? ⁓ Hello71 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Found it by checking contributions by the IP whose address is included in the message — the diff is here. All of the user's contributions are to Fred Eiseman and John Burroughs School, and the IP reverted all of them. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Alarming off wikipedia (but wiki-related) conduct of Administrator Alison

Obvious troll is obvious. Blocked; DFTT. Ishdarian 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The administrator Alison has contacted me off wikipedia with all manner of unspeakable suggestions and comments. Many of these violate the very fibre of wikipedia. The Admin has behaved in a manner similar to a dangerous predator. Here's an exerpt: XXXXX@yahoo Listin up, you scumbag. I've had all I can stomache of you and your s**t. If you keep it up, you'll be hurting for real. I'm not afraid of you or the law - I'm abso-f******-lutely mad. MAD. I have half a mind to snap your pencil neck, you geek. Bugger off you whiny s***, or you'll land in trauma! P*** off. Can someone help? Kevin Guidry (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC) No real evidence of such accusations, and it'd be near impossible to do so without violating WP:OUTING. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC) This is awesome . My spelling is *waaay* better than that, so please try harder next time. Please feel free to post the entire message, including headers and routing information, when you fire up your next sock account. Needless to say, I didn't send anything of the sort and I'm offended by the low-grade insults cited. I think I could do better than that - Alison ❤ 01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL , yeah, pretty dumb trolling. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:65.123.151.60 blanking page at supposed request of page subject

User:65.123.151.60 is repeatedly blanking Jessica Yee. After I warned him, he stated "This is not disruptive editing. It is at the request of Jessica herself who has advised there is false information here and personal details that are causing her harassment and potential assault. Please keep this page to a minimum"1 . I am wondering what action should be taken here. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If the IP was removing unsourced information, that'd be fine. However, the IP's removing sourced information, has a conflict of interest in doing so, and is edit warring. A small block should catch their attention and let them know that's not how things are done around here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I shot an email to the powers that be due to a recent message that is disappointing whether or not I AGF (moreso if I do AGF). I've emailed emergency about it (better safe than sorry), and until I get more evidence that this IP is a troll, I'm waiting a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Abortion 1RR violations

Could a neutral admin take a look at Jimjilin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They appear to be violating the Abortion general sanctions, even after several warnings yesterday. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have logged a warning to User:Jimjilin under the WP:ARBAB case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black and her continual personal attacks towards other editors

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

---

Hi. Recently, it was brought to my attention that Lucia Black has continued personal attacks, as shown here and here. She is also on the border of hounding at User talk:PBASH607 by giving him a no-edit rule. I'd appreciate some input, as she was here only a few weeks ago with User:ChrisGualtieri. Thanks guys. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 02:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggested she take a wikibreak for a week or so, everyone gets upset stopping for a cooldown always helps you think and feel better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the right to kick any editor out of my talkpage. I have the right to remove content. ALSO, there is no personal attack. This supposed "threat" is a warning or else that editor.

Also the ANI process is incredibly inconsistent, and im going to question this entire process at village pump. personal attacks? Providing links doesnt provide anything, all you have to prove with those links is how incredibly ANGRY I am. And when I ask them to prove where the personal attack. They get fed up and want to bring to ANI.

This isnt about serious issue, these are editors not knowing what NPA even is. All these claims of NPA, and not ecery single one has actually quoted NPA. Not once. Meaning these are empty claims even if they provide links to my comments. It proves NOTHING.Lucia Black (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I recently tried to help solved the situation, but Lucia wanted "Justice" on Chris and threatened me and Chris as seen on my talk page and her talk page (Removed). After that to make matters worse, I was threatened on my talk page. WP:NPA should be read more carefully before you question an editor. -PrabashWhat? 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if you are questioned you better make sure, to prove it. My threat was a warning. And we are all allowed tk make warnings, and you persistently came back toy talkpage. And I gave you a final warning. I shouldve just put you in ANI without a third warning.

Dont try to turn NPA, into something it isnt. Dont twist this into something else. You still came in to my talkpage and got involved into something you shouldve let died down. But you werent there to calm down, you made everything worst. This is all on you.Lucia Black 02:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they've been incorrectly blocked, do commonly tend to rant about justice and such things, and indeed to be very angry. Dealing with such a person by the equivalent of repeatedly whacking them over the head with a foam mallet, is not necessarily very constructive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• WorldTraveller, you're going to need to provide some diffs (see WP:DIFF) because the above links to talk pages don't produce any glaring instances of personal attacks that I can see. You should also re-read some of the advice from Dennis on your talk page, as right now you seem to be ignoring it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 this is an example of the personal attacks [108] --PrabashWhat? 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Prabash; I'd read that one, and I include it under "not a glaring instance of a personal attack" and also under "very angry". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if you are questioned you better make sure, to prove it. My threat was a warning. And we are all allowed tk make warnings, and you persistently came back toy talkpage. And I gave you a final warning. I shouldve just put you in ANI without a third warning.

Dont try to turn NPA, into something it isnt. Dont twist this into something else. You still came in to my talkpage and got involved into something you shouldve let died down. But you werent there to calm down, you made everything worst. This is all on you.02:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm on my phone currently, but you can still see the attacks. And DB's advice didn't mean I can't report a problematic user like common protocol. Thanks, D. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I also tried to work out a diplomatic solution to the issue, as seen here: [109] This started off nice but ended up with certain threats against me and other users, the discussion was then moved to my talk page. --PrabashWhat? 02:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Dennis is still in Vegas, so you and he can discuss that interpretation when he gets back, if necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If I were him I'd stay there. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is getting tiresome--the claims of "bias admins", oh the injustice of it, and of being blocked over a "frocking accident". Note that Lucia Black blamed her cell phone for the edits in which she repeatedly changed other user's comments--she was blocked specifically for this one. How does it happen that a freak accident changes the meaning of her opponent's comment to the exact opposite? When some Yip or Technoquat or Mango or whoever impersonates someone she jumps to the conclusion that it must have been ChrisGualtieri, and poor abused admins like me have to read the long, grammatically challenged rants according to which everything is someone else's fault. Demiurge is probably right that this is not a "glaring instance", but sheesh, enough already. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Lucia, you took to assuming a troll was me and attacked me at ANI.[110] Then lied to an admin (Drmies) claiming the troll said it was me;[111] to deflect accusations of the personal attacks. Check the history for proof.[112] Also prior to the revert of Lucia's talk page, the discussion showed numerous personal attacks, a warning and my attempts to make peace.[113] Again Lucia seems to be trying to continue her destructive "stubs must be deleted" campaign.[114] Did the 10+ pages of discussion at the VPP not mean anything to you?[115] The community soundly rejected that very idea! I don't know about anyone else; but the constant personal attacks and WP:IDHT have worn thin. Even during Lucia's block for altering editors comments you actually altered my comment in the very request.[116] But its all "my fault". Lucia Black, you are responsible for your own actions and your own words; your hostile reaction to every editor you interact with shows you are more concerned about revenge and "justice". That is the true problem here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• PBASH607, you were asked, angrily, [117], to stay off Lucia's talk page at 00:34. You retaliated by posting on her talk page again at 00:46 [118], and then again (after she blanked your message as she has every right to do) at 01:23 [119], and then at 01:24 you reverted her on her own talk page (ignoring WP:BLANKING which says she is permitted to blank warnings) [120]. What on earth did you think you were doing? And what did WorldTraveller think he was doing a few minutes later, re-adding the warning that she'd blanked multiple times? [121] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah I kind of hinted that on her talkpage Lucia has every right to blank comments on her talkpage from others (Does not include blocks) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That was not a retaliation but just a caution that we don't attack each other, I gave her a second warning after my talk page was updated, then I restored the blanked content, because it fits under WP:RTP --PrabashWhat? 03:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not correctly understand WP:RTP. Stay off her talk page, please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy shit, what? You gave her a caution, she told you to stay away, and then you gave her another chance at understanding what she didn't want to hear from you in the first place? Yes, stay off. The blind are leading the blind here. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I read WP:BLANKING as you instructed and I clarified myself, you're correct and I left Lucia's talk page as soon as I was threatened several times, I am constantly sweating and wasting energy and time for this issue. Look closely at all the help i tried to do with Lucia, but she never listened. --PrabashWhat? 03:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I also gave her a kitten in apology, but the poor kitten too was rejected by her. I would apologize to her but I'm not allowed on her talk page, I've been wasting precious time and Internet for the smallest issue ever, I tried a diplomatic solution and I was very nice to her and I got yelled at instead, before I enter a coma, I want to see Lucia be happy with Chris for once. --PrabashWhat? 03:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When someone asks you not to comment on their talkpage though that means it is off limits as going on can be seen as harassment even if the intention was good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I am wrong in this instance, have you read the conversation I had with her? I was ignored to the fullest and I tried to be really nice to her, but she wanted Justice and revenge, which she has been trying to do even before her block (sources in Chris's comment), this is my final comment here in this discussion. Before my brain tissue rots, I think Lucias actions before and during her block are unjustified, and so were my actions in refusing her request. --PrabashWhat? 03:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And you shouldn't need a policy for that--common courtesy should be enough. Yes, final comment. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:AfricaTanz

AfricaTanz seems to be unable to engage in any constructive and respectful way with other users. I've been the subject of one of his frivolous 'edit warring' reports, along with another user on the same day, as he creates edit warring reports very liberally (diff, diff). In neither case were provisions taken against the users he reported, and in one case he ended up being himself warned. He later described the result as "a useful exercise", which seems to suggest that ending the imaginary edit war was not the objective for him.

Other users were treated in a similar manner: he refuses to engage in (seemingly benign) discussions, threatens with ANI reports (which adds to the impression that he uses it as a weapon, rather than to solve disputes), alters messages on other people's talk pages, and makes accusations of uncivil behaviour as well as unsubstantiated accusations of edit warring.

A dispute resolution has been opened on the matter that lead to his original accusations of edit warring towards me, but I feel that his conduct is by far the bigger issue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mikefromnyc and company articles

User:Mikefromnyc just came onto my radar through a recent edit they made to the MicroStrategy article, where they first added an advert tag (not that big of a deal, though they appear to have the opinion that any article about a company is an advert), but then removed the external links section and all of the categories. I've just delved into their editing history and this doesn't appear to be an isolated incident.

Here they add an advert tag and remove some references (of which I have no opinion on), but then remove the See also section and the categories. Here the user removes just huge chunks of well referenced section in the article, including the history section.

This just goes on and on through their contribution history. Every edit they've done (which isn't all that many) has been to remove information from what looks to be a select series of articles. I don't know what to think of it. Silverseren^C 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If this sounds snarky I don't mean it to, just the limitations of conversing in written text, but couldn't you have asked him about it? They're a month and a half old account after all(AGFing that there is nothing else sinister going on or that it's not a cleanstart account). Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that practically their every single edit from first creation has been to remove information from company articles, often information that was perfectly referenced or had no reason to be removed, it looks like they have some sort of campaign against company articles going on. I'm half of a mind to consider the edits outright vandalism. Silverseren^C 09:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Many of the edits are problematic, such as removing infoboxes, but not all are. Look at this one, which removes unsourced content that sounds like something straight out of Dilbert. I don't have time to investigate more fully, so I'll just note that we shouldn't treat this user as we would someone who's doing nothing but harm. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That problematic edit you linked is very emblematic of the problem though. He thinks that having the logo of a company in a company article is advertising. I suppose the best thing is to wait for him to comment here. I already notified him when I opened this thread, so hopefully he responds soon. Silverseren^C 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he did respond on his talk page. I've asked him to move his response to this thread. Silverseren^C 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

S.P.B article

• S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Bbb23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Diff

The user is removing crucial info which has been present since many years from wiki and is imporatant to appear in wiki as it decribes crucial information pertaining to someone's carrer. Also user is calling me whose fan?My additions were not made by me but was earlier present in the article and since they were missing I have added them back. The additions are niether glorifying S.P.B but instead give out information about his first recording in Knananda, M.S.Viswanathan's impact on his career, his breakthrough in Malayalam. Do not revert unnecessarily. Only fan stuff should be reverted not such crucial facts. But the user Bbb23 keeps reverting and making it appear as if am adding fan crufts!!!Haleveldzc (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't notify the other editor, so I have done so for you. And I fixed your post above with links to relevant things. Stalwart111 07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23's actions are 100% correct. I cannot see a single source for ANY of your edits there, and just because information has been present in an article for years, doesn't mean that it belongs there. Also, your writing style is very, very promotional, so these edits are indeed fancruft. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• You brought this to ANI before attempting any discussion on the article's talk page and only five minutes after posting a comment on Bbb23's talk page. Five minutes is not a reasonable time to give someone to respond to a comment.

As far as the information being in the article for many years, Wikipedia is not perfect and should be expected to evolve over time. There is no "grandfathering" of data

in this project. Taroaldo ✉ 08:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

IP User 99.90.197.87

This IP, which appears to be static, has been blocked before (see their talk page [122]) but has gone back to the same behaviour. This user adds nonsense and poorly written prose to articles [123] [124] are a couple of recent examples, just look at the contribs for more. Recently he/she has taken to breaking a redirect without any discussion [125]. The contributions are almost all useless as they are poorly written or dubiously sourced. People have over the years, tried to work with the IP to no avail. A recent Six month block expired and he/she is right back at it. I hope an admin can do something here. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, we don't sanction people for making spelling errors or including unsourced things on talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that However, we do sanction people for disruptive editing (Here is another example [126]). It is exactly the same sort of edits as before, which lead to 3 and then 6 month blocks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. Some of the edits are reasonable, some not so much - but the Michelle Obama monkey thing did it for me. Comments about "Natenyahoo" did not help. Happy to consider an unblock if something worthwhile will come of it, but I don't see a whole lot of willingness to adjust their behavior from this IP. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Something Strange in your neighborhood

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

---

I wont gos o far as to say its meatpuppetry or socking, but somethingw ierd is going on with WorldTraveller101. S/he seems to be inserting him/herself into all kinds of drama - most recenty involvong Lucia Black which can be seen above in an earlier AN/I. It seemed to start with WorldTraveller101's friend PBASH607, aprapos of nothing, posting a kitten on Lucia Black's talkpage on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. When Ms. Black didnt react kindly to it and deleted it, Both PBASH and WT warned her and opened an AN/I. The diffs can be found on Lucia Black taakpage. This morning another friend of WT left cookies on her page and another user Goodraise hasd emonstrated hostility on overlapping projects.

Befor that, WorldTraveller101 warned and provoked Lucia Black in response to the ongoing conflict between her and ChrisGualtieri. A conflit he wasnt involved in.

Im not sure if WT is an administrator or what his status is, but hes making things worse by restarting and involving himslef in conflicts of others. I also dont know if its a case of group WP:HOUNDING or Meatpuppets or worse.

Could an Admin have a look? I dont have a dog in this fight, I just like anime and manga.

CaptnBeefheart (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Wow, that archiving was quick. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because a) the situation has been in the process of being dealt with, b) the OP has never tried to resolve the issues directly with the editor, and c) there's no need for dramah while discussion is underway - I think my explanation in the close was pretty clear (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had come in anticipating that it would be archived anyway, so my comment was going to be "in before it gets archived"... in other words, just an acknowledgement that the archiving was pretty quick in this case. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:NacomaStrickland repeatedly creating page about himself

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

---

A newly created article, Nacoma R. Strickland, created for self-promotion by User:NacomaStrickland, was speedily deleted yesterday for non-notability (A7), but has been recreated today, by the same user. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion but I wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the distinguished ladies and gentlemen on ANI, both to speed up the process and to suggest that the article name be salted to prevent the user from repeating the process ad nauseam. Thomas.W (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, they claim on MaterialScientist's talkpage that they simply chose the name, and are not the subject. The "article" has been deleted a second time and salted. Some people's concept of notable is lacking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that. I posted about something else on Materialscientist's talk page when my eyes fell on NacomaStrickland's personal attack there, caused by the first deletion of his self-promotion project, an attack that lead to me cautioning him. And when looking at his edit history (which I have a habit of doing when someone has broken the rules) I noticed that his sandbox was loaded and ready, with a completely recreated "article", so I added the article name to my watchlist to see if, or rather when, he would try to recreate it. So when he did the article was tagged for speedy deletion before the virtual ink had dried on it. Thomas.W (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Nishidani

On June 9, I reverted some changes User:Nishidani made in the article Itamar and tried to explain the reasoning as best I could in the edit summary. We have since been engaging in a conversation on Talk:Itamar about what is appropriate in the article and what isn't. He/she has recently started personally attacking me. This includes insulting my command of the English language, accusing me of POV pushing without substantial evidence, and calling me "incompetent to edit on Wikipedia". Wikipedia:No personal attacks states that "belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" and "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks.

Here, on 10:40, 10 June 2013, Nishidani accused me POV pushing to malign Ha'aretz. I have nothing against Ha'aretz whatsoever and have used it as a source in other articles. On realizing that some of the text could be construed as misleading regarding a Ha'aretz journalist, I altered it to specify that the journalist had made the comments described in a television interview, not the newspaper in question.

The attacks on my diction started here, on 10:38, 11 June 2013, when Nishidani told me to "Please learn to construe English correctly before either editing or engaging in a discussion" and suggested that I "can't distinguish elementary points" of the language.

I took it to his/her talk page because WP:NPA recommended doing so and asked him/her not to insult my English or to make assumptions about my motives and behavior without substantial evidence. I pointed out that some of things he/she said are defined as personal attacks according to WP:NPA and provided a link to that page.

He/she responded by saying that he/she was only "[stating] the obvious". He/she insulted me again by saying that I "do not understand English with any degree of sophistication, or choose not to" and that I "don't understand simple English, or don't care too much about what is being edited and discussed, as long as [my] view prevails". He/she also claimed that, following the first revert, the "rest of [my] editing was to prettify the settlement's image". Every edit I made afterwards was directed at adding references where there was a "citation needed", adjusting the text so there's no original research, replacing unsourced information with sourced, and altering the description of one particular incident to show the Palestinian side of what happened, as it had previously only shown the settlers' (edits shown here and here). Before that, I had only fixed red links and added a date to the lawsuit section.

There appears to have been some sort of misunderstanding, as Nishidani said that I accused him/her of "[passing off suspects to a murder, released for lack of evidence, as indeed murderers]".

Here, I explained that I only objected to this text: "Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers". I was not saying that he/she accused the suspects (Gadi Tene and Yaron Degani) in question of murder but that I didn't think it was right to say that two settlers murdered a Palestinian man when none were convicted and the only two charged were released for insufficient evidence. I apologized for not being clear enough, reminded him/her that he/she was using personal attacks according to the guidelines, and asked him/her again to not verbally attack me.

Instead, here, he/she called me "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor". Here he/she changed the title of the section to "Personal attacks (1ST7/ POV-pushing incompetence (Nishidani)". He/she went on to describe my explanation and apology as "Proof of [my] incompetence, carelessness with sources, indifference to verifying texts, and use of WP:OR". He/she insulted my English again, called me incompetent again, and accused me of "[ignoring] all wiki protocols".

It appears that I did remove two sources Nishidani added without realizing it; that was an accident, and I would have restored them quickly had he/she pointed it out on the talk page, but the subject never came up until this most recent response.

However, I don't see this as an excuse to insult someone personally the way Nishidani has been doing. I have asked him/her twice to stop attacking me like this and to focus complaints on the content of the article, but that has only escalated matters. This seemed to be the best place to go next. If an administrator could please help with this situation, it would be much appreciated. --1ST7 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)