Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 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)

• Whilst it may seem reasonable to insist that the case be narrowly focussed on the 'Wikihounding' issue, it's a ploy often used to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG. Let's be clear, though, that I'm not saying that its being so used here. The problem with this dance of tango is that one dancer seems to want the floor all to himself, so that he can do as he wants without interference, but the other dancer just wants to be consulted on the steps and is upset when no request is forthcoming from the party whose onus it's on to make it. In the absence of a demonstrable preparedness to pro-actively seek and then abide by consensus, blocking or granting unilateral restraining orders just won't solve the problem. Nobody owns any given WP article, and if the collective editors of a page (or a category in this case) wants no infoboxes, then the article creator must cede to consensus. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Question for Andy, Gerda and Nikkimaria

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 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)

• Bach cantatas are among my key areas of expertise, although I hardly ever visit the articles in that topic. I have to side with Slim et al. here: those articles are far better off without an infobox. I have a bunch of reasons. Let me know if you want me to list them. Tony (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to list the reasons, Tony, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes; but I expressed these reasons—or something like them—at infobox discussions some time ago, so I'm not sure I'm adding anything new. I'm not per se against infoboxes in every situation, but for articles on complex-music composers and their works they add nothing and risk detracting from the articles. They present packaged and stripped-down information that is often not useful and is sometimes misleading outside a larger context ("Related" in the Mass in B minor box, for example). They can't help but repeat information that is or should be treated in proper context and detail in the main text. Why repeat it? Who is going to flip from one article to the next just to read the infobox info? We shouldn't encourage superficial reading, if the motivation exists for it (which I doubt for readers of these topics). They sacrifice what would often be an opportunity for an image right at the top, larger than can reasonably fit into an infobox. And I find the meta-data argument most uncompelling, I have to say. Infoboxes might be tolerable for pop-music articles and pop-bios, but not for complex-music topics, where greater reading motivation can be assumed. Tony (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Would you mind having this discussion at a more appropriate venue, for example project Classical music, where these infoboxes were discussed before introduction, or the template talk of {{infobox Bach composition}}. Please don't miss the Wikipedias de-fr-nn, where every Bach cantata has an infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for explaining, Tony. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• There's an unfortunate tendency to cram the infoboxes with unexplained stuff even in pop music articles. Look at Metallica (FA) for example. What is the giant list of "Associated acts" in the infobox telling you? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:36, 20 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)

I suppose I wonder why, if an infobox is known to be controversial, it has to be placed on the talk page, rather than not introduced at all. Can you agree not to add infoboxes to articles (or talk pages) where you know it is going to cause a problem? If you would agree to that, that would be a start. If Andy will agree too, and if Nikki will agree not to remove them and not to follow Andy's or Gerda's contribs, the dispute will be over. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I support the above modest proposal 100%.--Smerus (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda's part:

• The infobox didn't "have to be placed". It WAS placed because I saw the recommendation, as part of a solution (!): Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB)". This link preceded the infobox on the talk, - not everybody saw that, if you belong to those please take another look. I said above that I will not do that again even if I don't understand why an infobox sitting quietly on a talk page would cause ANY problem, or how any infobox would "damage" an article.
• Nikkimaria: I ask you formally to keep following my edits, - I need help with English and formalities. Just please don't revert a complete infobox with an edit summary I may not understand, and consider to have mercy when I ask for it (it wasn't often).
• Andy: he can't contribute at the moment nor for days to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, the possibility of placing infoboxes was not a 'recommendation', it was a 'thinking-out-of-the-box' suggestion for consideration by Nikkimaria, which indeed the latter subsequently withdrew. It had no endorsements or I think even comments by any other editors or Wikipedia fora. You were perfectly aware that the Wagner article was coming up for front-page featuring, and you were perfectly aware of the feelings of myself and other editors about info-boxes for the article; indeed as you mention you participated in the FA discussion, and you also participated in the TFA discussion. I am aware of the significant contributions you have made in many Wikipedia articles, which I unreservedly acknowledge, and thus I would never have credited that you had the naivety not to imagine or foresee that posting an infobox on the Wagner talk page, especially at this time, without prior discussion, would provoke animated debate; and moreover to realise that such discussion would inevitably bring in the causeurs who feed on such issues, whether or not they have any interst or contribution to make to the articles concerned. Clearly, I must accept your word that you had never anticipated this; but I am sure you have learnt from the experience. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, thanks for thoughts and feelings, - Fact: It was not Nikkimaria's thinking, she quoted Newyorkbrad, another respected user. - I will try to learn to anticipate feelings better, and there will be no next time, as said twice above. Thank you for a constructive GA review, I enjoy collaboration here, especially with you "after Wagner"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Redux

I don't know whether this discussion is worth continuing. Whether Gerda is agreeing isn't clear to me, Nikkimaria sees the issue as mainly one for Andy to respond to (see discussion here), and Andy hasn't been posting, although he did email Wikimedia-l today so he may be back soon. Perhaps we should wait for his return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we ask Gerda, Nikkimaria and Andy Mabbett to make statements in turn, clarifying whether they will (1) stop edit warring (e.g. by observing WP:1RR), (2) stop provoking other editors by adding or removing infoboxes against local consensus, (3) respect the results of past and future centralized discussions on boxes, and (4) agree not to radically alter or develop boxes that have already been created by compromise and consensus (typically at the project level).

If we do have satisfactory undertakings from all three, I suggest we end this here — if not, the alternative to be topic bans. Kleinzach 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I received an email from Andy yesterday saying that it will be at least five more days until he may edit again, and my personal impression is that he should take it easy, no pressure, after recovery.

My statements are above, repeating:

I didn't edit war and don't plan to do so. (1)

I will not add infoboxes to articles where I expect conflict. (2, 3)

To please editors, I will not even add an infobox to the talk page of an article where I expect conflict, although I still don't understand what can be wrong about an infobox on a talk page. (2, 3)

I don't understand (4), and certainly not what it has to do with this discussion. (I once expanded an infobox to make it compatible with another one that another editor chose to use it instead of the suitable one, - is that what you call "radically alter"?)

I ask Nikkimaria to follow my edits to improve English and formatting, but please not revert an infobox without prior discussion.

From Andy's last email: he invites (uninvolved) admins to follow his edits, as SandyGeorgia suggested here. That should solve 1–4.

May I remind that this was a initiative about stalking, not topics, and I question whose satisfaction should be established in a conclusion? I thought this was over and could be archived. I vaguely remember that I was told "Be bold" when I started editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to write WP:STALEMATE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a request by Kleinzach on Gerda's page to post here, why do I not see such a request on Nikki's page? If it's there and I've missed it, sorry, but I'm not seeing it. PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I got distracted Just as I was about to post something to Nikkimaria. I will do it now. Thanks for the reminder. --Kleinzach 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Done Kleinzach 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Kleinzach's suggested solution would work for this dispute, assuming Andy is amenable. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think a statement from you would be positive, just as Gerda's one (above) at least moves us in the right direction. Whether Andy Mabbett is 'amenable' or not is up to him — other editors can draw their own conclusions based what he says when he gets back to WP. --Kleinzach 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The section started below is off topic or at least off process. We are here to stop the edit warring, not to start it up again. It isn't helping. May we collapse it? --Kleinzach 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Too late. WP:NOTSOAPBOX should apply, but the self-fulfilling Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties already has lift off. Kleinzach 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties

As some here will recall, a number of weeks ago I made a drive-by comment on the talk page J.S. Bach talk page regarding what I consider to be the inevitability of infoboxes on classical music articles. Profanity was used in the reply by one of the anti-infobox parties, which to my mind is about as unwelcoming a response to a first-time editor in a particular article as I can recall in a half-decade of being a Wikipedian, so I brought my very first case to ANI. The anti-infobox clique fended off meaningful sanctions, so I put several pages on my watchlist and took a step back.

I continue to feel there is a serious problem with the anti-infobox people, who insist on having their way and employ a number of, to my thinking, questionable methods to ensure that that happens. Indeed, in the reason this matter is again at ANI, an admin is stalking an editor; this means User:Nikkimaria creates a deliberate chilling effect. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that admin Nikkimaria has been blocked by other admins, and I will point out most recently in the service of the anti-infobox goal at Sparrow Mass. where a infobox deletion was disingenuously labeled "clean-up" in an edit summary. This is one unacceptable example of the sort of thing that will most likely continue until the community gets to the "sick of it" stage, which I hope we have reached.

I suggest strong action against Nikkimaria - This administrator has been blocked several times for edit warring. I include consideration of de-adminship. It is clear to me something must be done in this case. I do not buy the "But they didn't abuse the tools" argument because an admin wields power and must be squeaky clean in their actions.

I suggest a strong warning for Andy - He is hardly blameless either, but is not culpable to the effect NM is.

A Wikipedia-wide Rfc on infoboxes. This grinding infobox debate will continue to be an endless bone of contention until the root cause is addressed. Let the entire Wikipedia community decide if infoboxes are ok for every appropriate article, not just a small number of editors with a rigid agenda. If an Rfc doesn't solve the issue, then the last resort will have to be ArbCom. Let's make a dedicated push to get this nagging problem over with, and move on to more worthy pursuits. Jusdafax 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the obvious social handicap as far as User:Jusdafax is concerned of not being partial to infoboxes; but is it that alone which prevents me from comprehending the logically consequential link between his first two proposals and the third? As a Jew I'm not entirely unfamiliar with being classed as a member of an evil minority determined to destabilize the universe; now I find I'm the member of another similar 'clique'. Perhaps User:Jusdafax can tell me where I can find psychiatric help; or is it just, as Richard Wagner advises, that I need to seek Untergang? We seem to be dealing here with a classic case, on User:Jusdafax's part, of the declension: 'I have principles; you have obsessions; they are an anti-social conspiracy'. I don't disagree that in principle both Nikkimaria and Mr. Mabbett should receive some raps; but User:Jusdafax's pompous and portentous heading 'Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties' seems to indicate that his scope is not focussed on the issue here, and that his conclusions may not be entirely dispassionate. Worriedly, --Smerus (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pompous and portentous." Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable. Perhaps we could have some commentary here from those a bit less involved than Smerus, who in my view is in clear violation of WP:NPA in the service of his agenda. For the record: I have created a very modest article on a bit of classical music, Le Pas d'acier. Notice there is no info box. I don't give a fig either way, you see, and attempts to paint me as partisan are merely a smear, which I strongly resent. What we need to do is fix the problems I have outlined, not indulge in "clever" attempts to change the subject. See how this matter is being gamed, folks? Jusdafax 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaming - an interesting allegation. This thread started because a big boy accused a big girl of bullying. Neither of the two are strangers to knockabout stuff on Wikipedia. And I find it difficult to believe that either suffered sleepless nights because of this discussion. But User:Jusdafax says that the outcome must include a WP wide debate on infoboxes. Gaming? Changing the subject? - As Schopenhauer says somewhere, when we blame others, we are blaming ourselves. The extent to which I am 'involved': I have made it clear here as elsewhere that I don't like infoboxes. I have never deleted an infobox. I do not want yet another debate on infoboxes as a whole because: 1) if it comes to a resolution either one way or the other, it will drive away from WP a substantial body of experienced editors and 2) if it comes, as in the past, to no decision, then a lot of hot air and time will have been wasted. There are better things to do in life. We can live with this sort of trivial knockabout stuff, if it's the price we have to pay for keeping everyone on board. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable." User:Smerus wrote, "pompous and portentous heading". That's not a personal attack; it's a description of a heading. "Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties" and "The anti-infobox clique" are closer to personal attacks, although I wouldn't classify them as such either. Get real. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As in the former case, I think no actions are required. I like to work "amicably" with all editors involved (thank you for the phrase, Smerus!), and I do (thank you, Smerus and Nikkimaria). Putting people in a "clique" or "gang" does not help. I can speak only for myself: I am nobodies follower here, the spirit is my own. If someone can explain to me why putting an infobox on a talk page with the intention to keep it there is a "digression", they are welcome. Talk pages are for talk, there's "freedom of speech", right? - I think this whole thread can be closed. Andy, who wanted satisfaction, cannot edit, those who want different satisfaction can start a thread of their own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My dear Gerda, in my view the answer to your question is a simple one. It's about power: the power to tell others what to do. Heaven forbid editors should ever have to contemplate one of your infoboxes on even a talk page, oh, how defiant of right-thinking! Someone might get the idea that an infobox could just be an asset to those casual readers interested in classical music, and copy and paste one elsewhere. No, you must be condemned and attacked as "disruptive" and the offending infobox cleansed away by rapid archiving or outraged removal, and various semi-threats made to silence anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. I have seen cliques before in my years here, but this one takes the cake. Or as a warning to me back in April goes on my talkpage (with apologies to the editor who wrote it, for my reposting it here): It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them! I say again: I really don't care that much about the short term outcome on infoboxes on classical music articles, as I am an eventualist and believe it all will get right over time, seeing as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. What offends me is the rampant Wiki-bullying on display here, mostly by the anti-infobox faction who I deem morally bankrupt because of the way they try to push people around. It would be so much easier to walk away from this absurd mess and not deal with any of it, but the fact is that this no-infobox mess is an ugly boil on Wikipedia that is demonstrably driving away good editors, as you have seen. Again, power-mongering is the core of the problem here, exemplified by an admin, User:Nikkimaria who follows Andy around the 'pedia, but also others who I believe exhibit a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards Andy, and you, and now me for daring to stand up to them. What kind of an online encyclopedia are we to be? That's the deeper question here, and the attempts above to inject ethnicity, crypto-threats like "interesting allegation" etc, etc. are merely transparent devices to shame and blame. Conduct a well-publicized Wiki-wide Rfc on infoboxes. Nothing else directly attacks the root cause of this deeply unpleasant and ultimately absurd ongoing issue, although the alternative is to just file a case at ArbCom and see if that body cares to pour through years of edits to discern the long-term pattern, which I contend would reveal a breathtaking architecture of outright abuse. To do nothing just kicks the can down the road until finally a reckoning comes. Jusdafax 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them!" There goes a "wall" of personal attacks and straw men (which you did not write, but apparently approve of). I notice that you have made the "bullying" accusation again; when you previously accused me of bullying, you weren't even capable of producing any evidence for your claim.

Editors may also like to note another straw man in the quote above: you omit to mention the fact that we have arguments: "has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. [emphasis added]" Toccata quarta (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A number of stalemates that were probably similar have been documented in guidelines, for example WP:CITEVAR or WP:SHE4SHIPS. I see the MOS lead itself has the catch-all provision "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As a long-term observer largely uninvolved with the issue (all but one of my peer-reviewed articles, IIRC, has an infobox, and I have no particular interest in classical music), I think your assessment is almost completely wrongheaded, Jusdafax. The current state of play for infoboxes, which I think is largely reflected in policy (and would probably be borne out in an RfC) is that they are appropriate for some, indeed, most articles; inappropriate for a very few; and that there is some gray area of articles in between for which an infobox may or may not be appropriate. The provisions about forming consensus on an article-by-article basis and so forth are intended to encourage rational discussion and consensus formation among interested editors. Of course, the "problem" with that approach is that editors might decide *not* to have an infobox on a given article, which for Pigsonthewing is an unacceptable outcome. He, with the occasional aid and support of other technically-inclined editors, has spent years filibustering these "gray area" articles to try to prevent discussions from reaching the no-infobox answer. (One of the more ingenious tactics that I recall was to show up at an article, declare that the author's opinion could be discounted because of WP:OWN, that of WikiProject participants could be discounted because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and that as the last person left standing, his opinion determined consensus and the article should have an infobox.) This insistence on shoving infoboxes into articles where they aren't generally desired, to demonstrate that no editor or group of editors can block them, earned him a topic ban last year.

This is not a new phenomenon. He was banned for a year by ArbCom in 2007 for abusive conduct, largely surrounding his attempts to...force infoboxes onto articles about opera and composers! SIX. YEARS. Trying to make these WikiProject kiss his ring and accept that he could force an infobox into any article he chose, regardless of their arguments. Frankly, looking over the behavior complained of in that ArbCom case (not only music infoboxes, but the use of coord templates) and seeing that he's largely recapitulated it within the past year, it's a wonder he's escaped more serious sanctions.

Now, all that said, I am concerned about some of the actions on the other side, more so as regards interference with Gerda's use of infoboxes in her articles than any response to Pigsonthewing. But the major "chilling effect" here has been that created by his behavior, which regards good-faith discussion and compromise by other parties as way stations to getting his way in its entirety. Deal with that problem, and you'll go a long way towards clearing the unpleasant atmosphere in this area. Choess (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Andy's behaviour results in a chilling effect. There would have to be demonstration of some obvious trend not to participate for fear of reprisal for that to be the case. What reprisal is supposed? The worst that happens is a talk page thread, and the occasional reinstatement of an infobox that is invariably summarily removed again the next time one of the bloc happens to chance upon it. It's unfortunate that certain WikiProjects take such umbrage with occasionally being asked to actually explain themselves to outsiders (and no, "we decided this a long time ago, and we worked hard on these articles, and you're hurting our fee-fees" is not an explanation), but there's plainly only one party here who genuinely has to worry about reprisal (including but not limited to flagrant personal attacks, hounding and general degradation on any soapbox that's handy, along with being threatened with a new topic ban every other day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice from my daughter

My daughter visited for father's day, and we went for a walk. We talked about a number of things, but I asked her for advice on a Wikipedia issue. I couldn't give her all the background—we were only out for two hours, but I covered the basics, including BRD, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. When I mentioned that Andy had documented 22 cases where his edit was reverted, but only three edits were followed by a post to the talk page, and none included a response by Nikkimaria, she suggested that we tell each party that they should be using the talk page to reach consensus. If one does regularly, and the other does not, we will be able to identify the problematic editor. My initial instincts were to suggest that this was too simple, but now I'm wondering why. While I won't pretend it will make the entire problem go away, it seems like a reasonable request. Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The situation has been clearly explained, but it's difficult to see unless you have participated in one of the punch-ups on the talk page of a contested article. The problem is that people who are unwilling or unable to make useful contributions to a serious encyclopedic article on a composer nevertheless feel an urge to add an infobox. Since everyone is equal, the view of an editor new to an article is just as valid as that of the editors who created and maintain the article—in fact the outsider's view is more valid because the creators and maintainers are just violators of WP:OWN who do not understand the policy that all articles must comply with technical standards. I have seen a couple of the discussions and they are extremely unhelpful because editors are human, and they don't like being pushed around by people with an agenda—good editors become frustrated and stop editing. It only takes a moment for someone to add an infobox, and there are lots of people who like to do things like that, and then the editors who build the content have to spend another six hours in pointless back-and-forth. There is no good solution to a problem like this because the infobox adders can rely on relentless pressure to win (there are more of them than there are content builders), and those on the other side can only grind their teeth. One not-good solution would be to have the ultimate RfC to decide whether it is mandatory for every article to have an infobox. If yes, add them. If no, block those who persist past 1RR. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick: Yes, in fact, I do disagree. The editors involved have been drowning one by one in these discussions. Here is a list of music-related box infobox discussions since February:

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)

• Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes Report by Jusdafax, 2 April 2013
• Persistent edit stalking Report by Andy Mabbett, 5 June 2013 against Nikkimaria.

User pages

• User:Ched/RfC - Infobox and User talk:Ched/RfC - Infobox Rfc plan started by Ched, 5 April 2013

Classical Music Project

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Orchestra_infobox:_proposal new box proposed by Kleinzach, 16 March 2013 (see also Template talk:Infobox orchestra)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Abbreviations_in_infoboxes by Kleinzach, 23 April 2013

Composition articles

• Talk:Sparrow Mass Infobox discussion started by RexxS, 30 March 2013.
• Talk:The Rite of Spring Infobox discussion started by Andy Mabbett, 30 May 2013.
• Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103 Infobox discussion started by Nikkimaria 27 May

Composer articles

• Talk:Robert_Stoepel#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 27 February 2013
• Talk:Enrique_Granados#Infobox_on_this_article: discussion started by Kleinzach, 4 March 2013
• Talk:Peter_Planyavsky#Infobox discussion started by Gerda Arendt, 5 March 2013
• Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Infobox_proposal infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 21 March 2013
• Talk:George_Frideric_Handel#Mini-infobox infobox proposal by Gerda Arendt, 25 March 2013
• Talk:Richard_Wagner#No_infobox ‘no infobox’ proposal by Gerda Arendt, 16 May 2013

MOS

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes/Archive_7#Collapsed_or_hidden_infoboxes protest against collapsing infoboxes started by Andy Mabbett, 6 March 2013

Templates for deletion (TFD)

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15#Template:Collapsed_infobox_section_begin now closed as keep. nomination by Andy Mabbett 15 March 2013
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_Bruckner_symphony proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Template:Infobox_musical_work proposed by Andy Mabbett 5 June 2013

IMO a one revert rule-based approach would be more practical. Of course, we can have talk page discussions when necessary, but not used as an attrition tactic to wear out the music editors. Kleinzach 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ Sphilbrick: as regards the issue of this thread, yes, your daughter's proposal is of course highly relevant. (What a way to spend Father's Day!). I don't myself see the point or relevance of pursuing the infobox theme further under this discussion.--Smerus (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of this thread - a little reminder - is NOT the infobox. I invite everybody to look at the (18?) linked discussions. The cantata BWV 103: The discussion was constructive, the infobox improved, Smerus reviewed the article and approved as it GA: peace can be so simple if we respect each other and talk instead of revert, - that seems to be daughter's advice. For those who still think this thread is about infobox: project opera introduced their optional use for operas yesterday, the template {{infobox opera}} was developed with Andy's great help and has a cute example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach for those links. While I am aware that the infobox wars have been contentious, I haven't read all of the background, and that is a useful resource when it comes time to revisit the infobox question. However, that's not why we are here. As Gerda pointed out, the issue in this thread is not infoboxes, nor even the broader problems as pointed out by Johnuniq. The issue is that Andy alleges he was being stalked, and wants to know what the community plans to do about that. Andy points to 22 instances where edits of his were reverted, but the evidence is that neither he nor Nikkimaria followed up as required by accepted community practice in almost all of the cases. I am a firm believer that the community ought to address the underlying issues (but not here) as we ought to be resolving the policy questions, not just papering over the symptoms. However our narrow remit at the moment is to determine whether Andy's claims have merit, and if so what response is appropriate. My view is that, in view of the failure of both parties to follow accepted community protocols, there's nothing to be done here. I do appreciate that much virtual ink has been spilled over the underlying questions in other places, but the burden is on Andy to provide the evidence to support the claim, and I find the claim wanting. I think it is time to close this thread.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel the strong need to emphasize again that, for an admin with a checkered past who is clearly subject to WP:INVOLVED, it is not ok to stalk Andy's edits, no matter how much he has blundered in the past. That's the immediate core problem here (aside from the overriding infobox stuff), and to do nothing just means more time wasted down the road. Fix this now, please. Jusdafax 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is not relevant in this situation because INVOLVED concerns an involved admin using, or proposing to use, administrative tools. The actual problem is that a small team of technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders—that is the problem which should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Day by day I hop this thread will archive. "The problem" in it is NOT the infobox, NOT "technical editors are unnecessarily disrupting content builders", - the problem is that one editor feels stalked by another, and I of all people certainly know how that feels. With other problems, go to other threads. 18 discussions have been listed above as "drowning" content work, please look yourself if that is true, I don't see it. Show me one of those where an infobox was added to an article in a way that could be called "disruptive". Perhaps check your premises. Are you aware that Andy can't even edit, while Nikkimaria keeps reverting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Each of the two links at "keeps reverting" points to a discussion about an infobox. I have only dipped my toes into this dispute (and that was perhaps six months ago) and have no particular passion for either side, but the situation is clear: some editors LIKE infoboxes, and LIKE putting facts into them, while other editors DONTLIKE infoboxes and DONTLIKE what they regard as superfluous facts. This ANI report was started by an editor who regards someone checking his edits as stalking, but it's not possible for anything short of a three-month arbcom case to decide whether editor A (who is known to have been enthusiastically promoting infoboxes literally for years) is more or less at fault than editor B (who is known to have been enthusiastically resisting the promotion of infoboxes). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@SP, nice idea, but there's a simpler way...count the number of edits to this thread (main and subthreads) by Andy and Nikki. The numbers will tell you who's been trying to find a solution and who's been blowing this off. It continues to boggle my mind at how long and hard users will argue over the simplest of things here. If people would behave the way that had to at work to keep their job, we wouldn't have these problems. If wiki had a DR system that worked we wouldn't have these problems either. There are many reasons for this and I see no solution. The United Nations can solve things quicker and easier than wiki can, and that's scary. PumpkinSky talk 02:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no solution other than a central decision that infoboxes are or are not mandatory. The time an editor is prepared to spend arguing their case at ANI is not a reasonable way to measure whether one editor is stalking another. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close redux - with remedies

From what I can see, the basis of this case is a complex battle between teams of dedicated turf warriors. While I applaud Sphilbrick for making a real effort to look through the history of the battle in a short (couple-of-days-long) examination, I think there is general agreement that the two main root issues can only properly be addressed by the ArbCom. These two issues being (1) what is considered best practices regarding the placement of infoboxes in classical music articles, and (2) which if any of the main turf warriors have been acting in violation of Wikipedia's rules on collegiality and should therefore be sanctioned. In this AN/I, there has been a lot of sniping back and forth but very very little input from either of the figures in the central discussion (10 posts from Andy and 3 from Nikki). A casual reader would wrongly assume that Gerda (at 27 posts) is on trial here.

So If the central issues cannot be addressed by AN/I then it's time to close this discussion, however I do think that there are stop-gap measures that AN/I can introduce that would greatly improve the situation by defanging the central warriors in this turf battle. I strongly recommend imposing a 2-way interaction ban between Nikki and Andy for now (narrowly construed - only regarding the infobox issue - neither can revert the other, neither can participate in an infobox discussion that the other is engaged in). The benefit of this solution is that it will halt the most problematic aspects of the battle - the slow-paced reverting back and forth, the potential for edit stalking, and the further expression of their contrary and absolutist editorial POVs. And it will also provide a clear impetus for both editors to bring the underlying case to ArbCom as several reasonable editors at this AN/I have previously suggested. If Arbitration determines either Andy or Nikki to be entirely blameless then they can certainly lift the interaction ban, modify it, or take other action, but this issue needs to be addressed because this whole thing is giving Wikipedia a black eye. I'm sure it would make some anti-Wikipedia blogger's day to discover that this kind of thing is going on at WikiProject Classical Music of all places.

Let's force them to drop the stick for now by imposing this stop-gap interaction ban and then wash our hands of it to allow them to build their case for ArbCom. -Thibbs (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I believe this summary (and many of those above as well) entirely misses the point and mischaracterizes the issues, which go beyond the infobox one-- having more to do with groups of technical editors who target in particular but not exclusively Featured articles to impose personal preferences against guidelines and consensus, in some past cases using socks to evade detection and scrutiny while moving from one suite of articles to another to install personal preferences, and doing this against the consensus of WikiProjects and established content contributors, who know the topics, edit the articles frequently, and can and do explain why these technically minded edit warriors are frequently negatively impacting content. Featured articles are targeted because by installing personal preferences there, editors can more easily force those preferences on other articles. This has been a problem for a long time, and the names that pop up in these discussions are often familiar.

Infoboxes are not the only area where this occurs, and we most certainly have lost valuable editors in the past when groups of technical editors have suddenly appeared on articles to impose their personal preferences, be it citation style, formatting, dates, infoboxes, lists, whatever. Anyone unaware of the number of valuable content editors we have lost to this very issue-- and the effect on Featured articles in particular-- likely isn't aware enough of the particulars here to be weighing in effectively. It is music and infoboxes today: it was something else six months ago, something else a year ago, it will be something else six months from now, but those who cannot or do not add content have long found ways to impose their personal preferences on the Project over the objections of those who actually build the content.

Because PotW wants to characterize this as a stalking issue doesn't make it so. ArbCom has weighed in recently on what constitutes stalking, and my read on that (which of course could be wrong FWIW) is that it is not stalking for admins to follow edits of known problematic editors who act against guideline, policy and consensus. An interaction ban will NOT stop the underlying issue here: what would be more helpful would be for more admins to follow the edits of the technical edit warriors who breach consensus and guideline to install their personal preferences so that the extent of this problem will be revealed.

Too may good content editors have already left because of this problem ... and most of them were involved at the FA level. Little is to be gained by mentioning departed editors by name, but this issue is most certainly a factor in my decreased editing: I have little inclination to constantly deal with bands of editors who show up on articles to install their personal preferences when those preferences negatively impact content. This is not only about infoboxes-- it is about tagteaming and content editors being chased off. Arbcom is not needed: more admin eyes following the problem should solve it.

Trouts to all of the editors who used inflammatory sub-headings above: do not the instructions here call for neutral sub-headings ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

From reading the above (and not being familiar at all with the gritty details of the warring at the WP:CM articles), though, it sounds like this particular issue - infoboxes within Classical Music articles - is a known and unsettled matter and that there are large numbers of legitimate content editors on both sides who view this trivial issue as worth crusading over. I'm not sure it makes any sense to dismiss the editors on one side of the disagreement as ne'er-do-well "technical editors" and to declare the others to be good "content editors". The facts don't seem to bear out this conclusion. It sounds like a large-scale discussion of the underlying issue (outside of AN/I) is what is required in order to pinpoint consensus which can then be applied to the relevant articles. Regarding the tensions between editors based on behavior, ArbCom does sound like the only solution since AN/I doesn't have the time resources to deal with it. The best way AN/I can help in my view is to contain the battle (reverting, stalking, POV-pushing talk page disruption) by imposing the above suggested 2-way interaction ban (at least temporarily until Arbitration has occurred). With a history stretching back several years, it doesn't sound like this problem is simply going to go away on its own. And I think that the increase of administrative stalking/attention on one side rather than the other is only a means to drive away those editors deemed to be on the "wrong side" of the argument. A narrowly-construed 2-way interaction ban applied only between Andy and Nikki is unlikely in my view to drive away content editors or to have a chilling effect on content edits. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Still and again ... the infobox matter has been settled several times, in several places, so some groups turn instead to making individual articles into battlegrounds to advance personal preferences, while content editors who are respecting consensus and guideline are overwhelmed by folks who tagteam and have no involvement with those articles, wanting to install their own preferences. And it is not only infoboxes ... it is that today, classical music today, but something else each time the same editors bring their personal preferences to bear on articles. Preventing admins from doing something about this is not the way to go; admins, please start adminning the issue by becoming aware of the same editors who frequently override consensus to install personal stylistic preferences on articles they don't even regularly edit. It's been going on long enough. There is no need to characterize a "wrong side" or "right side"; previous RFCs and guidelines are clear enough. I don't buy the argument that admins don't have the "time or resources" to deal with it-- awareness is enough to begin dealing with it. Why do certain editors appear en masse on articles they have never edited to install personal preferences ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What I find particularly galling about this is that a few years ago Giano came up with a perfectly good compromise in Montacute House, a partially collapsed infobox that allows for larger images, but even that was unacceptable to PoTW. Nevertheless I used it successfully in a recent FAC, Sunbeam Tiger. Eric Corbett 17:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone disagrees with the notion that this discussion has more than one level. One level is whether our policy is sufficiently clear on usage of infoboxes, but as SandyGeorgia points out, that summarization is too coarse, and masks other issues. However, one other level is the behavior issue, which is the original claim, that of stalking. I'm not convinced that the content issues have yet been fully resolved, but this is not the place for content resolution. Nor is Arbcom, so I'm not following the claim that this will have to go to Arbcom. They don't deal with content issues.

ANI is for behavior issues. The alleged behavior is stalking, with a list of 22 reverts as evidence. Yet, as SandyGeorgia points out, it is not prohibited to follow the edits of someone who is believed to be violating policies and guidelines. Andy presumably believes it is stalking, because he thinks he is editing within policy. Nikkimaria presumably continues to reverts because she believes policy supports her position. That's why I think the behavior claims should be closed, as two good faith editor both believe they are editing according to policy. Separately, and elsewhere, we ought to revisit the policy questions, but that's for another venue. This is ANI, where we attempt to determine whether behavior requires admonishment or more. I think both parties should be urged to cite policy when adding or reverting, and go to the talk page more, but I don't see any justification for blocks of either party. Let's close this so we can address real issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI is indeed for behaviour issues. This was an opportunity to get three high octane editors to moderate their behaviour. If that doesn’t happen — and it could be done by imposing a simple one revert rule — then we will all have been wasting our time. What is the message? It’s fine to be an aggressive edit warrior – so long as you do it skilfully, Mabbett-Nikki-Gerda style. --Kleinzach 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR is ineffective when tag-teaming is involved; it only gives an advantage to those who call in their buddies to continue reverting (I've never seen Nikkimaria travel with a pack). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If Nikkimaria was the sole champion of her side of the argument then this would be a non-issue. She could get slapped on the wrist for disruption and we could move on. But if tag-team reversion is going on then it sounds like it's occurring on both sides of the turf war. Given the level of experience and the large numbers of edits these high-profile editors make, a targeted 1RR would certainly seem to put a damper on the problem. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the impression that tag-team reversion is "occurring on both sides". I've not seen it, and I do believe a targeted 1RR would benefit only those who want to overrule already established consensus to install personal technical preferences, and that this will be to the detriment of article quality. IIRC, Arbcom has already ruled on the behavioral issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag-team reversion has hardly ever been a factor in this. It certainly hasn't been recently. Editors who revert three times in 24 hours don't need teams. 1RR would curb some of the aggression which is a feature of the argument. That's why I am recommending it as a moderate, minimal approach to the situation. --Kleinzach 03:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is for behavioral issues if indeed the noticeboard's participants have the time to properly address them. Unless I'm getting the wrong impression, though, the behavioral issues here sound like they extend back a few years. Add to that the fact that the parties involved are impressively prolific editors and it strikes me that this may require the kind of in-depth examination that ArbCom is better at. But I'm not completely discounting AN/I by any means. I just think there may be a need to go further at a future date. In the meanwhile I strongly feel that the whole nasty situation calls out for intervention and this AN/I thread offers a very convenient starting point. A 2-way interaction ban still seems like a sensible move to me, but mandatory 1RR as Kleinzach suggests would probably be a good alternative to that. I think most people agree that blocking or banning without much deeper examination that we've given it in this thread goes too far, but something like a narrow interaction ban or a 1RR restriction seems like it would fit the bill nicely. Doing nothing at all or (even worse) taking sides on this content dispute seems like a wasted opportunity to take some of the wind out of this issue. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding interaction bans we'd need several, not just one, if we opted for that approach. Andy Mabbett Vs. Nikkimaria is only one of the antagonistic relationships involved, and it's certainly not the major one. If you scan the debates (that I listed above) you'll see this clearly enough. --Kleinzach 04:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the same would be true for the 1RR remedy. Anyway I'm not wedded to the idea that it must be an interaction ban, but it seems like something needs to be done and I think this AN/I thread provides a good place to start. The alternative of doing nothing and hoping it will go away on its own seems naive and/or apathetic - neither one a good administrative quality. -Thibbs (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'm basically in agreement, even if we come to this from different angles. The worst option would be to do nothing. The new section started below by Andy Mabbett illustrates the on-going problem. Kleinzach 22:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What is so hard about expecting that editors won't show up on articles they have never edited before, expecting to impose their personal technical preferences against already established consensus (particularly when the targeted articles are frequently Featured Articles)? Of course, I understand that it's easier to make everyone culpable rather than look at how content is actually being impacted and sort out the real issues ... again, if more admins followed those previously identified in dispute resolution, the problem would likely disappear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about something that is wider than the issue at hand. There are already rules against disruption and tendentious editing. Turning the Classical Music articles into a police state to catch up those less experienced at skirting the rules doesn't seem as useful as providing smaller remedies (interaction ban, 1RR, or whatever) that would coax major participants on both sides of the turf war to the negotiating table. -Thibbs (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Response after absence

Firstly, thank you to those who have shown patience, or expressed concern, during my enforced absence following a medical emergency. For those curious, I have just posted an update on my talk page. Please be aware that I am not yet fully recovered, so may need to take further breaks from editing.

I came here to ask for assistance in ending the persistent stalking of my edits by Nikkimaria, about which she had already been cautioned, in vain, by numerous others. It is not for Nikki, who seems to believe that her stalking is both justified and permissible, to lay down conditions under which she will cease, as she has done here and elsewhere. As I pointed out, Arbcom have already ruled that such stalking is not permitted. Colleagues will note that I did not ask for any sanction to be taken against her, merely that she be warned of likely sanction if her unacceptable behaviour continues. I do not seek to stifle disagreement on talk pages for projects, nor articles where she has an interest not derived from stalking me.

It is predictable, but not surprising, that some have hijacked this discussion, particularly editors from the classical music project which was canvassed by Kleinzach. As others have noted, this is typical of attempts by members of that project to silence dissenters; but that matter is for another time. His attempts to insinuate that I have been stalking him, when each of the examples he gives is for a page where I had previously edited, is facile. Further, the vast majority of the many examples I gave in my initial post, above, of Nikki's stalking have nothing to do with classical music. They include an archaeological find, churches, a stately home, artists, sculptors, a photographer, a dancing sports fan, an academic, a judge, a theatre company, a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and a Nazi propagandist. In some cases, I had just started the article. In the sole example where the subject was related to classical music, I challenged her reversion on the associated talk page, as required by Wikipedia policy and the outcome of the RfC initiated by members of the classical music projects. (Colleagues will understand my withdrawal from that discussion; when they judge for themselves the quality of her solution on that article. If they can find the latter.)

Nor are the edits subject to Nikkimaria's stalking widely regarded as "problematic" - similar edits are not typically reverted by other editors, nor reverted by when made by other editors.

I am somewhat surprised that after nearly three weeks, no admin has yet told Nikkimaria that her stalking of me must cease. I again invite an uninvolved admin to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course attack is thought by some to be the best means of defense, and I note that his ongoing indisposition (from which of course I am glad that he has largely recovered) does not prevent Mr. Mabbett going out of his way, in his response, to accuse User:Kleinzach of 'canvassing'. WP:CANVASS is perfectly clear: 'canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate is considered inappropriate', whilst under 'appropriate notification' we read 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion [etc. etc.]'. A notification on a Project Talk Page, which does not encourage response one way or the other, is therefore not canvassing, (unless we accept the opinion of some editors that the rabid inhabitants of the Classical Music Project are ripe for any opportunity of mayhem). Chucking such imputations around does not serve Mr. Mabbett's case. Indeed it would seem to support those above who impute the onus of this controversy to him.--Smerus (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not at all clear who you think you're kidding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for confusing you.--Smerus (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The above claims show that Andy will continue as he has done over the last several years—belligerent pushing of infoboxes, with the interim stepping stone of disqualifying an opponent as a "stalker". Infoboxes are not mandatory, but collaboration is. It is disruptive to push any agenda, whether it be politics, the length of dashes, or infoboxes. It causes distress to good editors who like things differently from the pusher. The proper way to resolve this battle, which has raged for years, is to hold an RfC to establish whether infoboxes are mandatory, and if not, whether persistently pushing non-mandatory infoboxes is disruptive and should be subject to sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, first - I thought about commenting about the Thumperward Smerus exchange - but meh ... you two want to take snide shots at each other .. whatever. Now .. Johnuniq. As much as I admire a lot of what you do on wiki, I must take exception to your above comment. I call bullshit. Why? "Andy will continue as he has done over the last several years—belligerent pushing of infoboxes," Well lets talk about all those who "belligerently push no infoboxes, k? WP:OWN doesn't simply apply to individual editors .. but to all aspects of Wikipedia. It's a concept. As much value as there is in "projects" - they can not, and should not "OWN" anything either. Hence WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RfC on infoboxes? Hell, there's been so damned many of 'em why not? What's one more added to the mix? (which is one reason I abandoned my RfC draft - I learned just how divisive the topic was.) Quite frankly? YEP!! This topic is well beyond ripe for an Arbcom case. Tell ya what though - if someone does it? Gonna be a TON of folks get smacked .. and smacked hard. IDGAF. The thread started with Andy's being "stalked" issue. Nikki promised to stop stalking Andy. Nikki had a problem with avoiding Gerda's edits because they both edit in the same topic area. Gerda wants to continue talking and working with Nikki in a peaceful fashion. So what the hell is there left to do in this thread exactly? — Ched :  ?  05:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched: I posted a list of music-related box infobox discussions above (in the pale yellow box). Can you at least scan some of the discussions? I posted it particularly for people like you, so the content of this debate could be more accessible. --Kleinzach 09:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone going to an article that has an infobox, then removing it because "articles should not have infoboxes". The addition of infoboxes has been reverted, but that is resisting the push of infoboxes—it is not pushing no infoboxes. Infoboxes are not currently mandatory, so condoning the civil pushing of them is condoning unnecessary disruption. If it were one or two articles, the "stop violating WP:OWN" argument might be persuasive, but it's lots of articles which are being picked off one by one by a small number of editors. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched says "Nikki promised to stop stalking Andy". Did she? Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched, per Johnuniq and Kleinzach, could you please try to understand disputes before weighing in on them? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nikki promised above to abide by 1RR if you agreed to the same, Andy. I agree with you that that is far from a promise to stop stalking. If anything it would seem to encourage it if Nikki was of the mind to crusade her perspective on this issue. I suggested a 2-way interaction ban above as a means to stop the stalking/following behavior. There's been disagreement with that suggestion of course, but would I think it might be fairer than imposing 1RR. A 2-way interaction ban isn't ideal, but it would convert any stalking of Nikki's into visual stalking rather than editorial stalking and it would prevent you from per the allegations throughout this thread in which Nikkimaria is taking part. I'm curious if that work as a solution to this in your view, Andy. -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that I have not and have never been "disrupting discussions in which Nikkimaria is taking part", that would be improper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What about Hans-Joachim Hessler [42]? Kleinzach 13:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What about it? Nikkimaria only edited the article after I had made a dozen edits to it; and then only to revert me (I was the article's second editor and publisher); and to remove the infobox which was in the article when it was published. Another example of her stalking me? I was the first person to post on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You added an infobox [43] — which was removed — and then reverted it no less than nine times! That must be record even for you! --Kleinzach 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Impropriety is all theoretical, though. I'm speaking about pragmatic solutions here. Forgetting propriety, a 2-way interaction ban would put an end to what you've described as Nikki's stalking behavior. I'm asking if you could live with the result, not whether it's a perfect solution. I won't flog this if it's a dead horse, but are you saying that the propriety issue is too much of a hurdle for you to accept? -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ Sandy. I have no desire to engage you in childish rhetoric and snide comments. Best. — Ched :  ?  14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Then stop doing it. Now, let's look at the very good example provided above at Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler. PotW, then and now, continues to insist the infobox was in the article when it was published, but the history shows it was not and that he installed it. (Does anyone else find it curious that a redlink created that article and never edited again? PotW says he was the publisher .. is that redlink his sock? If so, how was Nikkimaria to know that?) As a person who does a ton of patrolling, it is not unusual for Nikkimaria to remove the infobox after PotW installed it, against COMPOSER WP guidelines. And then the usual ensues ... PotW misrepresents, breaches BRD, re-installs ... and here come Ched, RexxS, Gerda and others who support infoboxes. Ched, INVOLVED ? Please leave the adminning here to those who are strictly uninvolved and don't frequently show up on those talk page discussions to support those who want to install personal preferences against guideline. The example above illustrates all that is going on here quite well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the fact that I didn't even have this composer watchlisted? Yes, I made two edits, link to another composer whose article I created. Check your premises, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Gerda ... you are correct in this case and I was wrong. I have struck your name above. (I also apologize for being so late to strike, as I was out most of the day.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ya know Sandy, if you're going to imply that I've taken some administrative actions contrary to WP:INVOLVED, I'd really like to see the diffs for that please. Me saying that I support and like infoboxes I don't think violates any of our policies. And if my comments on one discussion constitute "frequently" to you, then I'm sorry, I just don't speak the same language. But I'm sure YMMV. — Ched :  ?  15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have evidence of me socking; please raise it in the appropriate place and have me blocked. Otherwise you should retract that baseless slur. Your claim that the infobox was not in the article when it was published is false. "COMPOSER WP guidelines" have the status of an essay, no more, and do not excuse Nikkimaria stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor who created the article first created the article on the same subject in the German wikipedia and also uploaded a photo, apparently taken in the subjects house or some personal workspace to commons. Andy is active in both areas (although I suspect he was not in Germany on the 6th December when the photo was probably taken) so I guess it's possible he did all this just to add an infobox which he didn't add under that account (I don't know if the German wikipedia uses infoboxes but the German article still has none). More likely someone with a COI did all this hence the lack of edits and red links. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed ban

I'd like to propose a ban on infobox editing in all areas by the pair. It would greatly reduce tensions all round if such infobox warrioring was not an area where either could either add or delete. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorsed I've been suggesting merely asking the editors involved to observe a WP:1RR rule but that's not going to work now. A clear-cut ban would be more effective. Kleinzach 23:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Tentative endorsement of an infobox ban for Andy and Nikki. This is a similar remedy to the narrow interaction ban I'd proposed, and I don't think it addresses Andy's stalking concern at all, but it does sound appropriate given the extensive evidence above of an intractable situation. -Thibbs (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Per Chris Cunningham's comments below, my endorsement is predicated on a limitation of the ban to the Classical Music arena, and the ban's coverage of infobox removal as well as addition and other modification. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• "In all areas"? Overreach which would hurt the encyclopedia. Any sanctions have to be localised to identified flashpoints. It's also not an even sanction, as editors who dislike infoboxes are not going to edit them much anyway (save removing them) while a non-trivial portion of Andy's time is spent in all areas of infobox work (including being one of the most active TfD nominators of them; ironically, Andy has almost certainly deleted more infoboxes than the classical project's members combined). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Slightly flawed logic there: it pre-supposes rampant gangs removing all infoboxes, and assumes no rampant gangs reverting them or adding infoboxes. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, with individuals doing what they think is right, although the 'adders' do seem to be more active, given the aims of the infobox project. As to the "localised flashpoints", that seems to be the subject of infoboxes, rather than focused on individual topics. Just by way of openness, I am one of those who see the full use and benefit of the boxes in the majority of articles, but appreciate that they are often not needed: one size does not fit all! - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is that the editors running around adding infoboxes everywhere are welcomed and encouraged in nearly every other part of the project. Which is why a ban outwith the domain of classical music (still a bad idea for the reasons given below, but at least a rational one) would do so much harm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's probably appropriate to drop in a reminder about the Mos, that infoboxes are not required. That reflects the consensus of the project more than the wishes of any smaller project to include or exclude. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Chris Cunningham here. The infobox-editing ban should be localized to the Classical Music arena if it's implemented. And of course it should include removing infoboxes as well as adding them. This absolutely doesn't mean that the infobox wars should continue on articles related to churches, photographers, and Nazis. This proposed ban doesn't touch on Andy's charge of Nikki's stalking. It seems to me a good step to address the underlying problem, though. -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria and I found an agreement, how about the others involved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something here because I find it incredible that an administrator would propose and that an experienced editor would agree to replace a nasty turf war with longterm ownership of the articles instead. Ending the turf war should ideally return the Classical Music articles to the rest of the largely peaceable Wikiverse, but the compromise you two are hoping for sounds like the enshrinement of an anti-policy Classical Music fiefdom where the turf borders are forever respected. I'm honestly pleased to see evidence of the spirit of compromise between you two but please consider what this looks like to an outside observer who is not familiar with the culture of Wikipedia's Classical Music enclave. To use Andy's phraseology the proposed remedy looks quite exceptionally improper. -Thibbs (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's good that Nikkimaria and Gerda are trying to work out their differences, but this would be a personal arrangement. As Thibbs points out this kind of agreement might be misunderstood by other editors. Kleinzach 11:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I'd be happy with an equitable solution: Nikkimaria ceases stalking my edits; and I continue not to stalk hers. Anything else can be the subject of the RfC I've repeatedly invited those opposed to infoboxes, in whatever subset of Wikipedia, to start, in order to demonstrate the consensus they allege supports restriction on their use. I will of course abide by the outcome of such an RfC, as I do with the last one on infoboxes related to classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing the composers project's self-imposed local consensus here does not restore peace in the long run. It simply fractures the community. The inevitable result of such a ban is, as already demonstrated several times, that the anti-infobox editors attempt to expand their borders from classical music to other genres. A cold war, in other words. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence that anti-infobox editors are expanding their borders (other than skirmishes with opponents in the current battle)? What do you think of User talk:Johnuniq#On collaboration where I express my opinion that issues like dashes and infoboxes are not fundamental to the encyclopedia, and the best resolution for such a conflict would be for the two sides to drop the matter for a year? Editors are human, and forcing a resolution that one side does not like will create long-term bitterness to the detriment of the encyclopedia. However, forcing a truce like "you don't touch mine, and I won't touch yours" is as close to perfection as is achievable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"other than skirmishes with opponents in the current battle" is a rather odd exclusion, given that my purpose in coming here is to seek a remedy to Nikkimaria's stalking of my edits. That stalking is exactly a case of "anti-infobox editors expanding their borders"; and stalking of that type has been ruled against by Arbcom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposed ban is "a resolution that one side does not like". While it's attractive to say "no pointless drama is better than pointless drama", cutting it out by putting our fingers in our ears simply leaves the problem to fester out of sight. (as for expanding borders, as the author of WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP I can hardly refuse to provide diffs if requested, but I'd hope to avoid that for the sake of not inflaming things: suffice to say that border skirmishes, as you've put it, are not unheard of.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. Despite all appearances, this thread is only peripherally about infoboxes. What it's really about is two editors who think this exchange is acceptable. The rhetorical and visual merits of infoboxes can and will be debated ad nauseum, but this dispute will not be solved by handshake agreements and requests that 1RR or BRD be followed. If the involved editors were willing to honor reasonable standards of interaction, we wouldn't be here now. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I should not have reverted so many times (though there was no 3RR breach). I did so in frustration at being stalked and at the various bogus reasons given by Nikkimaria when she, an admin, repeatedly reverted me. Nonetheless, that was six months ago, and I broke that chain (the article still has no infobox) and have not edited in that matter there or elsewhere since. There is no ongoing edit war there. I urge editors to read the edit history in conjunction with the talk page, where I started a dialogue and where there has still been no response to my offer of a compromise and my request that Nikki stop stalking me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett was not being stalked. SPhilbrick carefully examined the evidence and rejected the claim [44]. For the full discussion see here and here. Kleinzach 15:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. He's done no such thing, and - as noted above - multiple editors asked her to desist from doing so (not least on the Hans-Joachim Hessler talk page. She's even attempted to justify her stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And I support the claim, because there is utterly no justification you, Nikkimaria or anyone else can provide for edits such as this. Will you be honest and admit that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: if Nikkimaria and I can work out something, I am sure that she and Andy, both admired editors, can find a solution as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment and partial support: I think this is quite badly written. I've only become aware of this thread today having visited this page because of another thread below being mentioned on Wikipediocracy. At a guess "the pair" refers to Andy Mabbett who has a years-long history of being disruptive around Infoboxes including two long project bans, a current Arb and com judgment and a current topic ban from scheduled TFAs. Mabbett has a habit of turning up at articles in which he has no interest just to try to force in one of his pet infoboxes. He then tends to scream "WP:OWN" when the regular editors object. He skirted around his topic ban when the Wagner article was scheduled for TFA by confining his activities to the talk page, which was still disruptive. I fully support an infobox topic ban on him but it needs to extended to all spaces and not just the talk page. However, if it is an article he has created himself, there should be no problem with his adding an infobox and, if we can come up with a non-gameable definition of "major author" or "principle author", there should be no problems with his adding boxes to articles in which he has shown sufficient interest to become a major or the principle author. In general WP:IAR should apply as far as infoboxes and article ownership is concerned. If those who write and maintain articles in a particular content area can't stand infoboxes, then they are quite likely to miss vandalism against the boxes and for this and other reasons, the boxes are likely to drift away from what the rest of the article says. Enforcing an anti-ownership line therefore damages the encyclopedic value of the articles. I don't have a strong impression of Nikkimaria, if that is the other target of this proposed ban, and so would abstain in respect to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see why Andy screams "WP:OWN", though. That's precisely the policy I'd raise myself if I was reverted on the basis that I'm not the "principal author" and that the "principal author" doesn't approve of my contributions. I'm a complete newcomer to this arena where WP:IAR is the guiding principle behind direct policy violation, so you'll have to excuse my gob smacked reaction, but to me this seems very little different from the hypothetical case where Wikiproject Professional Wrestling decided that AGF no longer applies within the talk pages of the articles in their purview. Speaking as a contributor from those parts of Wikipedia that adhere to WP:OWN, all I can say is that this sounds like a toxic environment for newcomers. -Thibbs (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz

Hi everyone. I want to report User:AfricaTanz because his behavior seems very problematic to me. Beside telling other users they are "not welcome" to post on his talk page and accusing them of "long-term harassment", he unilaterally move pages about Tanzania (contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and especially to the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles of people), and now it seems he plan to start an edit war on List of Prime Ministers of Tanzania and President of Zanzibar. I have no desire to get blocked in some stupid edit war with him (especially when I saw that he was blocked for 48h only 15 days ago because of edit-warring), so I decided to report behavior of AfricaTanz here. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have notified AfricaTanz. I have to agree with Sundostund's assessment: AfricaTanz has strong opinions on article names (that's not a crime, of course), and he pushes them even when the community has overwhelmingly disagreed with him before. See for example WT:WikiProject Tanzania#District and ward moves, Talk:Rombo (move discussion launched within minutes of Prodego's and Mareklug's comments at the WikiProject talk page) and Talk:Rau ward, Tanzania (the page was moved to its current title hours after the Rombo move request had failed to find any support). With the lone exception of the Rombo, AfricaTanz seems to avoid discussion at article talk pages, and he explicitly disagreed with my suggestion to use WP:RM to establish consensus before moving pages. Instead he prefers to tell others to stay off his talk page [45][46] or to tell them to stop their edits on the relevant articles: [47][48][49] Others' un-discussed edits get labeled as disruptive, he himself edits largely without attempting discussion (I should point out this positive example, though the article talk page would probably have been a better place).

Even when I agree with his points I find AfricaTanz' lack of communication irritating, and his attempts to enforce his personal opinions on page titles against community consensus will not end well. Huon (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My experience is he doesnt like talk pages, posted a discussion on my page that should have gone on a talk page and then chose not to engage in another discussion I opened on the talk page concerning his editing. Having said the which if directly challenged he hasnt, in my experience on LGBT in Jamaica, engaged in edit warring but instead has taken my comments to heart. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that other users noted AfricaTanz' problematic behavior as well. --Sundostund (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be a good thing to quote what a user said about the behavior of AfricaTanz in another ANI thread, 10 days ago. Here it comes:

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)

Sundostund (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't come across AfricaTanz after that dispute, but I heard about another user (other than Sundostund) who had problems with him due to his lack of communication and poor manners. I think it's time to let him know that he needs to change his behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted what happened at the previous ANI report quoted above: nothing [50], because the individual in question chose not to respond and the report got archived without any action. Taroaldo ✉ 02:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You are definitely right, Underlying lk. Taroaldo, that's exactly what should be avoided here - doing nothing because the individual in question chose not to respond. --Sundostund (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I can endorse (and if necessary, considerably elaborate on) the evidence presented by other users above, but can I ask what specific administrator action they expect to be taken over it? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, some kind of block should be considered. AfricaTanz was blocked for 48h, only 15 days ago, for edit-warring and it didn't changed his behavior at all. I think some block longer than 48h is a right thing to do in this case. --Sundostund (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Sundostund; I'd say AfricaTanz' behaviour has changed significantly for the better over the past few days, with him joining a discussion at Template talk:Tanzanian ministries‎ and launching one at Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Tanzania). Blocking him now would serve no purpose. Huon (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In the same time period, however, he has publically "banned" a number of users from his talk page, accusing them of harassment, dishonesty, incivility, etc., when all they had done was to inform him about apparent violations of policy or to open discussion on disputed matters of content [51] [52] [53]; there are more examples if you go further back. (It's rather onerous to provide a complete list as he tends to remove from his talk page all criticism and warnings, no matter how friendly and constructively worded.) In the past few days he's also thrice characterized others' edits as "hysteria" [54] [55] [56]. So yes, I agree that much of his recent behaviour has been good, but he's still engaging in the sort of disruptive behaviour which others have complained about upthread. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

AfricaTanz fails to understand some of the guidlines e.g. WP:Article titles and MOS:CAPS; whereby he insists on the use of small letters despite it being a formal title on the Salmin Amour, Joseph Warioba and Idris Abdul Wakil articles. I took the liberty in informing him/her about the guideline but the user wasn't interested and erased it. Since he/she was blocked some weeks ago due to edit warring on the Michael Omolewa article; he has found the warning template as a useful weapon and has since used it in threatening other users including myself for the Idris Abdul Wakil article. You may also find the discussion on the article's talkpage helpful. I do find his constant failure in engaging with other users on his/her talkpage appalling and some of his/her edits/page moves increases unnecessary work load on other editors. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for someone to please explain the importance of politeness and not biting newbies

I'm reluctantly bringing this to ANI, as I can see no progress in further interaction with this user. I first noticed User:Surtsicna when he reverted an obviously good faith edit with the summary "reverting vandalism".[57] Looking at his history, I saw that he calls things vandalism when they are obviously good faith edits, e.g. [58], [59], [60]. I thought I should better speak with him about this, and decided to have a look through his history. I was a bit shocked to see that he routinely leaves insulting edit summaries. (e.g. [61], [62], [63], [64], [65],[66], all from the last week, and I'm sure I missed some.) I'm not objecting to his reverts, I'm objecting to the way he reverts, as it drives off editors and worsens the problem of our deteriorating editor base.

I dropped him a message to express my concerns.[67] His reply essentially denies anything wrong, and implies that I am being ridiculous and am insulting him.[68] I admonished him to take my concerns to heart, and he removed it with the edit summary "I am astonished by your impertinence. Who are you to admonish anyone? Quit this bizarre stalking immediately and go away from my talk page."[69]

I think it would be helpful if an admin explains to him that good faith edits shouldn't be called vandalism, that two neutrally worded messages on his talk page is not stalking, and that he shouldn't leave insulting edit summaries. FurrySings (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• While the user does have a somewhat overly-broad definition of vandalism, there really isn't anything actionable here and the so-called "insulting" edit summaries are incredibly weak: "nonsense" or "unhelpful" would be unkind if directed at a person, but directed at a sentence or template it's not an insult. On the other hand, FurrySings, your talk message with its child-scolding tone seemed to be intended to provoke a negative response (" If you care about the long term outcome of this project..."). Do you seriously think most editors would react well to that? If you agree with the reverts themselves and they weren't even your edits reverted, you come off here as unnecessarily picking a fight over nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say how bizarre all of this is - so bizarre that a completely uninvolved user (with whom I only had a short discussion last year) could not help caling FurrySings' message an "intrusive inanity dumped on your talk page". FurrySings and I had not interacted in any way whatsoever before he or she started scolding me for allegedly rude edit summaries (such as: "Unhelpful. The portrait does not depict her."). The same user, while lecturing me about such supposedly inappropriate edit summaries, described me as "abrupt, surly or even rude" the very first time he or she contacted me. Such impudence is nothing but bizarre. I explained that I comment on edits rather than on editors and suggested that he or she should do the same, but to no avail. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to begin my comments by referring any neutral editor here. I think FurrySings and I are looking for neutral comment here, not for more decimeters of ridicule and sarcasm from Surtsicna. Additionally, any reader of English is likely to be astounded, flabbergasted in fact, at the amount of sarcasm and ridicule hurled at someone who only wants h to stop calling good faith edits "vandalism". Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of good work done on WP (which Surtsicna certainly does, as I have recognized repeatedly) cannot entitle anyone to endulge in that kind of mud-slinging as a regular behaviorism. When Andrew Lenahan commented, he surely must have been unaware of the exceedingly belligerent tone coming, to an overwhelming degree, from one side of these arguments. Sorry, but this is par for the course for Surtsicna, who, when objected to or crossed or (particularly) reverted, is one of the least civil editors I know of on English WP. If falsely accusing others of "bizarre stalking" and "gross personal insults" (and much much more such stuff including always threats of a backlash) is getting to be OK, then all of us who need a somewhat acceptable working environment here need to quit this. There is no good reason ever to be sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Some context: SergeWoodzing took the opportunity to attack because her or his another false report failed due to obvious reasons. She or he had been reinserting unsourced and extremely dubious info into a BLP-related article, claiming that his or her "common sense" trumped verifiability - something I strongly disagreed with. SergeWoodzing, who's monitoring my talk page, readily joined FurrySings' bizarre stalker attack. The fact that SergeWoodzing pretends that calling me "very unreasonable, and stubborn" is not a "grossly insulting personal attack" is very telling. The fact that FurrySings' out-of-the-blue message is "bizarre stalking" has been all but confirmed by Andrew Lenahan; Andrew's comment, however, is probably irrelevant because he has "rather loose standards about civility".

SergeWoodzing is perfectly aware that the edit summaries were evidently not directed at any user but instead at a sentence or a template (something also noted by Andrew), but ignoring that enables her or him to accuse me of being "sarcastic, condescending and full of ridicule about another editor or about h work" (in bold letters, of course). More than half of his or her contributions since 12 June are attempts to see me blocked for disagreeing that her or his common sense trumps verifiability. Who is falsely accusing whom of what is obviously transparent to neutral and uninvolved users (as some have already commented), and there is no need for me to say so explicitly. FurrySings (who is not above lying transparently) has presented all her or his evidence, and that "evidence" has been reviewed. I beg an administrator to end this witchhunt and to prevent these users from harassing me in the future. Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not contributing very much in other ways at this time, it may be because behavior such as that of Surtsicna makes me tire and lose interest, and also it may be that I am awaiting some neutral, reasonable outcome of this discussion, aimed at improving our working environment i general and the behavior of this particular editor (with whom I often must interact due to similar interests) in particular. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please. Might it be because you are pressed for time with other matters? (That has not prevented you, however, from going after me whenever you do have time for Wikipedia - at help desk, at AN, at ANI, at administrator talk pages, etc, for over a week after our dispute ended.) Anyway, the edit summaries show just how "impolite" my behaviour has been. Once again I ask an administrator to end this already. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Oh, please" (and every such sarcastic comment) speaks for itself. Always does, always will. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look for sarcasm, you will find it even in the word "please". In this instance, it stood for: "Oh, please [quit the histrionics]." Your attempt to pass it off as something worthy of reprehension sums up this entire petty thread. In all of your comments so far, you've avoided responding to the core of my comment. The intent of such tactics is easy to perceive. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is a valid and important point here. Misuse of the word "vandalism", understandable though it may be if one spends a lot of time removing foolishness, is a damaging assumption of bad faith and easily puts off editors who would otherwise have improved into useful members of the community. The policy page on vandalism sets out in detail what not to call vandalism. Biting newbies is indeed a particular concern. Also, while people have varying degrees of sensitivity to sarcasm, it's important to note that tone is hard to read in online communications, and mockery and dismissal of others' concerns can have a chilling effect. Also, Surtsicna, when removing "nonsense", please be a little more careful to look at the result: checking the diffs provided by FurrySings, I saw that this edit left the princess married to another princess. Which I could I suppose have described in my correction edit summary as also nonsense, but ... that would be unnecessarily rude. If you will take that point on board, Surtsicna, and particularly avoid the "v" word, then I think we can be done here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally a fresh pair of eyes! Thank you very much for commenting. I do, however, feel that you are missing a big point here that Andrew Lenahan noted: my edit summaries were not directed at anyone in particular. I did not refer to anyone's edit as nonsense. I did not mock or dismiss a single user. Had you described my failed correction of nonsense as nonsense, that might have been rude, because it would have been directed at me. Also, which newbie did I bite? This is all thin air. A user I had no contact with appears on my talk page, straightforwardly insults me and demands that I quit describing various sorts of detrimental edits not only as vandalism, but also as unhelpful - because even the latter word is apparently impolite. SergeWoodzing readily joins in, after her or his several recent attempts to see me blocked for disagreeing with him all failed. Look at just how excited that user is because of your comment. Was I as excited as that when Andrew Lenahan "took my side" (so to speak)? Of course not - I never even expected otherwise, given how absurd this all is. In the course of this discussion, people accusing me of impoliteness have described me as a "very unreasonable and stubborn", "abrupt, surly or even rude" person with "a stick up his ass" - yet I am the one being reprehended here for describing article content as "ridiculous" or what not. That is astounding. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK Yngvadottir, thank you! But just above your helpful comments, you'll find Surtsicna's instruction to me to "quit the histrionics". I commented here at all because one of the two points, as per heading, that FurrySings specifically has asked be addressed is "Request for someone to please explain the importance of politeness" - has that been accomplished when we ignore this type of repeated and habitual slurs, of which there are huge heaps of evidence? Surtsinca obviously feels h/s has unlimited license for such and is flawless, though nobody is flawless. Will somebody neutral please also address the issue of "politeness"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how much helpful can that be, but two of his edits presented in the first post as evidence were wrong and I reverted them.--The Theosophist (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One is debatable (whether a succession box is trivial or not, given that it's supported by no sources), while the other was certainly not wrong, as evidenced by sources (whether a portrait depicts the subject of the article). Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• What I see here is that FurrySings brought an issue of semi-legitimacy to Surtsicna's attention and was upset that Surtsicna didn't roll over but instead tried to engage in actual discussion. Such a crime. Surtsicna, aren't you aware that any random who haw who comes to your talk page and criticizes your work is automatically entirely in the right and above contradiction. Self-worth is a disgusting trait and standing up for yourself in your own defense is abhorrent. Next time, you need to bow down to your supreme random overlords. </sarcasm> Nothing remotely actionable, someone please close this.--v/r - TP 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding and Repeated Harrassment by User:AmericanDad86

I'm sorry this is coming up again.

Quite recently I opened an ANI case regarding User:AmericanDad86's conduct towards me.[70] AD86 was blocked in late March for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Despite this, User:Blackmane closed my ANI filing claiming that it stemmed from a content rather than conduct dispute. That said, when I asked Blackmane for clarification, they cited a lack of admin involvement and acknowledged that there had been incivility (User Talk:Blackmane#Cofused), though they also recommended that I pursue this as a content dispute and go to DRN. I did so, and the finding there was in my favor regarding the content matter, though AD86 neglected to participate and little was said regarding their conduct, which admittedly would have been off-topic.

Both before and after the DRN filing AD86 continued to make, IMO, incivil and inappropriate comments regarding their views of my conduct: [71], [72], [73], [74]. This despite being encouraged to desist by other editors: [75], [76].

I had nevertheless hoped that AD86 might move on once that dispute tapered off, but they have once again begun participating in a Talk page discussion and are showing an inability or unwillingness to focus on content rather than contributor.[77] Given the fact that they have never contributed to the underlying article, it is very difficult for me to believe that this is anything other than wikihounding by AD86.

It seems clear to me that despite AD86's claim of wanting nothing to do with me[78], they in fact are interested in actively harassing me. Please review this and take whatever actions you deem necessary to get this disruptive behavior to stop. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I only went through some of the diffs and saw nothing particularly shocking. What I DID see though was accusations of you forum and admin shopping. What say you? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was really hoping that I would not be pulled into this madness and that this had been concluded, so I'm still perplexed to have received an invitation to this incident. After all, I only provided my input on the American Dad! talk page once.

Anyways, on the subject matter, I would like to give my input. I would argue that Doniago may have reacted explosively to this dispute in the first place in a conflict that could have been avoided in a much less convoluted manner. However, I did look at AmericanDad86's latest contributions, which includes visits to Doniago's frequent collaborations and was shocked to see that AmericanDad86 has indeed been looking to discredit and salt Doniago's credibility, based solely on their past dispute. I will continue to be scarcely involved with this ongoing dispute, but I find this conduct unacceptable. DarthBotto _talk•cont 12:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem both parties are at fault then. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to acknowledge that I may have overreacted to the initial dispute, but I certainly have not made any effort to follow AD86's contribution history beyond the scope of their disagreements with me, nor have I ever accused them of "whining" or otherwise made any conscious attempt to miscast their editing patterns. DonIago (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was a DRN volunteer which helped with this when it was lodged as a DRN case, I would largely agree with DarthBotto's summary, the content matter is over and done with, AD86 should now WP:DROPTHESTICK / WP:LETGO and get back to editing. -- Nbound (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus reached? AD86 drops the stick and we all forget about it? Time to close this? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all I'm looking for, but thus far, as I noted in my initial post, they've seemed unwilling or unable to change their behavior even when asked by other editors to chill out. But again, as long as they stop targeting me (and ideally don't treat other editors in the same manner) I'm content. DonIago (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Close on the basis that this is a warning to ALL involved parties that this behaviour MUST stop or there WILL be sanctions. Can we agree on that? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, probably best with the addition of user warning templates (eg. Template:Uw-npa3 or Template:Uw-disruptive3, or as otherwise appropriate) -- Nbound (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Errrrr...we're closing a complaint as having consensus, even though one of the parties has not even participated? How exactly does that happen? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The dispute seems fairly minor, but your right it was an oversight on my part. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. RetroLord, I would suggest that you not declare threads closed on the basis that "if people don't stop, there will be sanctions" - you're not an administrator. While this does not reduce the value put behind your opinion, it does mean that you would have literally no way of enforcing that threat, or of guaranteeing that your statement is true. Please try to limit consensus decisions you reach to things you can enforce. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would be interested in hearing AmericanDad's reason for intervening here. The stats at the Sherlock Holmes article show that AmericanDad has never edited the article. If he's tracking Doniago through his contribution history then Doniago has a legitimate harrassment concern, and that needs to stop. I encounter Doniago quite often and his edits have always appeared sound to me, and since I have never encountered AmericanDad before it would be unfair of me to judge him either way; but if he has genuine concerns about Doniago's editing patterns—in fact any editor's editing behavior—then he should raise them at RfC/U rather than engaging them on articles that don't come under his editing concern. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Betty. I'm not going to claim that everything I've done in the course of this apparent dispute has been beyond reproach, but if in the end the consensus is that I'm to be Warned (or worse) for my own conduct, then I would ask for a clear explanation as to what I've done wrong and what I could have done better. My perspective as it stands right now is that I may have overreacted initially, but when things went to ANI the first time around I was directed to DRN, AD86 continued with their behavior after things at DRN had resolved, and I waited until they engaged me on a different matter before coming here again. If I was at fault in some manner, then by all means take whatever actions you feel my conduct merits, but please give me some guidance so that I can ensure this does not recur and take more productive actions in the future. Thus far the only editor who seems to have anything strongly negative to say about my conduct in this matter is the same editor who I felt obligated to report and can't consider credible with regards to this. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As said on WP:DRN, I am not going to take sides on this matter but I will say that this conflict is intense and extensive as all get out. It appears to be causing Doniago a lot of frustration, and AmericanDad86 does seem to be somewhat opinionated concerning his perceived accuracy of his editing style. I don't know whose more to blame, but I have offered my own perspective on this dispute.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I followed this back from Doniago's AN3 filing, having read it quite by chance. After doing a bit of homework, it's clear to me that Doniago has a legitimate complaint regarding AD68's actions; one needs only read AD68's comments on the 3RR filing by Doniago, which attempt to make the issue all about Doniago, to see there is some effort to act on what appears to be a grudge to my outsider's eyes. To write this off as a content dispute would do Doniago a great disservice, and will only give AD68 license to escalate his harassment. I might also add I'm a bit uncomfortable with Retrolord's efforts to interpret events for everyone, then rush this to closure, particularly given he is not an admin, and seems to have some recent issues of his own. It's not helping the situation, and I appreciate DWatkins' reminder that there are procedures we adhere to. --Drmargi (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me say right up front that I have been contacted by DonIago about this. To this point I have chosen not to comment but the wall of text below more or less proves DonIago's point. When an editor is being attacked the way DonIago has been I can well understand the need to ask for input from others that know how they have edited in the past. While there is clear evidence of stalking there are only two items germane to this page. First, the constant violations of "Comment on content and not the contributor" need to stop. Second, if AD86 thinks they have a legitimate concern they need to open a RCF/U. To this point I can't see blocks being handed out as they are "preventative not punitive." I would suggest an interaction ban between these two editors may be needed. Also I would also ask that some admins add there input so that this thread does not continue to spin on and on. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprising Doniago contacted you to defend him before you said that. As I have evidenced in detail down below, the user's tactic is going from editor to editor and admin to admin INCESSANTLY to get them to defend them and if they don't he bickers with them, which I have presented down below. Marnette, you are not the first user I have had to contend with because Doniago has sent them after me and you likely won't be the last. As stated down below, he's bounces around Wikipedia trying to get numerous users to defend him and if they don't, he bickers with them until they do or leaves in a huff. A quintessential example is when he told user:Blackmane to explain what happened on an Administrative Noticeboard dispute to me on an article's talk page of all places so that he wouldn't look as bad, as shown here [79] where he asks this of user:Blackmane: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that." This was following a long debate Doniago had with this editor to get him to defend him. It results in Blackmane coming to the article's talkpage stating "Doniago sent him" with this: [80]. If users refuse to come and defend him, it turns into a bickering argument also as evidenced down below. AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My piece

Quite frankly, I'm thoroughly ticked off that user:Doniago hasn't been blocked for what he pulled in our recent content dispute that he even finally admits he overreacted to in this very discussion as shown here [81]. Every few months, Doniago instigates trivial edit wars with me. It started with a heated verbal war he started over the placing of a period, as shown here [82], here [83]; after I dropped the heated matter over the placing of a period and let the edit go his way despite other editors encouraging me to fight it out and not let it go (as shown here [84]), the user persisted in trying to start petty edit wars with me which I had been brushing off for several months, as shown here [85] and here [86]; here where he tries to initiate another verbal war with me over petty grammar concerns before realizing his antics resulted in an unconstructive revert, as shown here [87] and here [88]; and most recently here where he starts yet another trivial edit war with me on stable edit that had existed for over a year on the article in question of which I didn't even incorporate, as shown here where user:TBrandley makes an edit that the show always starts with parental rating in early 2012 [89], Indiasummer removes that edit a couple weeks ago here [90], I restore it here with a source and Doniago immediately removes it with the edit summary to me of "WP:Trivia! Don't include ratings unless they're significant." [91], and an admin comes and restores it here [92] and also informs Doniago that he is wrong for trying to remove a stable edit that I never made in the first place [93].

I'm the one to follow policy and initiate a debate on the matter on the article's talk page rather than engaging in a revert war with the user, as shown here [94] but user:Doniago doesn't even debate the matter, but makes repeated threats that he's going to report me on the Administrative Noticeboards, as shown here [95] and here [96].

With that, he proceeded onto the Administrative Noticeboards where he was bickering with the administrators, criticizing them, and expressing impatience with them that they "take too long" to make decisions. His case was closed and he was told to treat the matter as a content dispute: [97], [98], here [99] and here [100].

When that didn't work, Doniago began going to the talk pages of numerous editors to try to assist him in his aims to get me blocked, as shown here [101], here [102], here [103], here [104], etc., etc., etc.

He was repeatedly told to treat the matter as a content dispute. When that didn't work, he started complaining on help pages. This led to a discussion between him and someone from the help page in which he was whining that there's something wrong with Wikipedia administrators and the way they do business and the system of Wikipedia altogether, as shown here [105], here [106], here [107], etc. An individual from the help page, user:I dream of Horses, told him the same thing as the admins which was to treat the matter as a content dispute and that his protest didn't belong on the Help page: [108] and here [109],[110], here [111], etc., etc., etc. etc. Several times, Doniago is told to treat the matter as an content dispute and stop making attempts to get me blocked, as shown such as here [112], here [113], etc., and when he isn't told things such as this or anything that isn't scolding remarks to yours truly, he bickers with the person, as shown here [114].

And Doniago didn't just admit to "overreacting" above in this very discussion. In his attempts to get me blocked, Doniago admitted on Blackmane's talkpage (of whom he was criticizing for telling him to treat our matter as a content dispute) that he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at the user's talkpage: "I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred (as shown here [115]).

Meanwhile, I was busy ignoring these shenanigans and debating out the dispute in the multiple forums Doniago had opened up (such as shown here [116] and here in a debate Doniago opens up but is not involved with because he's too busy bouncing around from editor to editor and admin to admin trying to get me blocked: here). Finally, the user obeys the commands of other editors and opens the matter up in the dispute resolution process noticeboard, which really isn't needed because he had already opened up the debate in multiple other forums. Honestly, I didn't even know where to debate out the matter with this user as he had opened the matter up in several forums I'd been debating in by the time he had opened it up at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

At the dispute resolution noticeboard, the rules of discussion were not to bring in any other matters outside of the content dispute but to focus centrally on the content dispute, as shown here [117]. But Doniago blatantly disobeys these orders and yet again with no provocations began complaining about his failure to get me blocked on the Administrative Noticeboards and everyone's failure to see things his way (as shown here [118] and here [119]).

As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit. To do this, I finally refrained from getting involved in his dispute resolution process (the umpteenth place he opened up the matter) and let him have his way on the edit in question, as shown here [120] and here [121]). Again, that matter involving his outrageous behavior was resolved because I had to be the bigger man again and let this user have his way on the edit. The edit was rather trivial one that I didn't originally incorporate at that and I had tired of user:Doniago's bouncing around from editor to editor, admin to admin, venue to venue, telling them to assist him in getting me blocked without him being blocked for violating numerous policies, from clear violations of WP:FORUMSHOP and telling other editors to use article talk pages as a venue to essentially make him look good and scold me, as shown here [122] where he asks this of user:Blackmane: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that."

Moreover, Doniago was also subtly antagonizing me at my talk page during all this harassment. Following compliments I had received from User:Willondon (as shown here [123]), Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here [124] where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: "Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"

Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others, I become concerned that he's doing it to other editors when I see this [125], this [126], this [127] following what appears to be edit warring behavior, as shown here [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], etc.

Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere. Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him, he seems to have gone to her talk page to ask her defend him [133]. As said before, Doniago instigates trivial editing disputes every few months in which he tries to get me blocked but ends up bickering and whining to admins because he is unsuccessful. As always, the matter ends up with me having to swallow my pride and let him have his little way with the edit as I know he could care less about the edit in question and is simply intending to get me blocked. I move forward, he leaves in a tizzy because he was unable to get me blocked and then it starts all over again in a month or so unless of course I brush it off. This is all detailed above. Because he clearly gets a kick out of this, I became very suspicious that he was doing it with other editors when I saw him engaged in an edit war literally 2 days later. I have every right to express my concerns when he goes to the edit war noticeboard, as shown here [134] and tries to get other editors blocked despite the fact that he too is engaged in edit warring with them within the same dispute as I document here [135]. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - You need to trim that down to 500 words at the most if you expect anyone to actually read it.--v/r - TP 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Doniago's misconduct is a long story and to correctly understand why user:Doniago is out of line, the issue needs to be presented from start to finish. I've provided all the diffs right in front of your faces as evidence. I can't do much more beyond providing the full story combined with all the evidence. How this user has managed to stay active despite the behavior which is detailed in full above is beyond me. My stepping in another matter in which I thought he was engaging in his same behaviors he did with me doesn't qualify him to scurry on to the Administrative Noticeboards again. Basically, he was engaging in edit warring with another editor as shown by a slew of reversions yet reports the other editor for edit warring and I present the diffs that revealed his edit warring in the matter he reported his antagonist over. Again, here are his examples of edit warring and I have every right to report it: [136], [137], [138], [139], [140]. He proceeded to report me for reporting his edit warring behavior of which he left out when reporting his antagonist at the Sherlock Holmes article. He seems to use this venue as a means to try to get his way which needs to be nipped in the bud. When he's unsuccessful, he harasses everyone to get involved and get me blocked to no end. He has now admitted to his behavior being an overreaction. Is his own admission not enough? He states to being critical of Wikipedia's administrators and administrative noticeboards because he had other issues with users outside of myself here at the ANI noticeboards also as documented above (again, as shown here [141]). Is that admission too not enough that there's a problem with this editor? AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't just explain the story. You inserted a bunch of fluff that isn't necessary. Examples are:

• "Moreover, user Betty doesn't just come out of nowhere."
• "Much like Doniago did in his first attempts at getting me blocked in what was a content dispute turned sabotage attempt by him"
• "Naturally when I have been plagued by this user's antics and his own admissions that he's embarked on this behavior with others"
• "As is always the case in order to get these trivial matters that are blown out of proportion by Doniago resolved, I had to swallow my pride and let the editor have his way on the edit."

It adds nothing of context to the narrative. Cut the fluff and present strictly the facts. What happened? "This happened [1], then this [2], then that [3] which violated WP:THISPOLICY". If you don't, no one is going to pay attention to you. Your first paragraph does this well, and then you lose it.--v/r - TP 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, actually I've taken the time out of my busy schedule to present Doniago's misconduct in full. If you want only half the story and are too lazy to investigate the matter in its entirety, dismiss yourself from the discussion, and stop being a nuisance. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Im going to agree with v/r here, on any forum on WP, if you want action. You need to explain just the facts, adding your take on the situation rarely helps, leave that up to a fresh set of eyes. Failing to do so will either; not get your point across, or backfire. -- Nbound (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

v/r is shorthand for "very respectfully." @AmericanDad86: We all have busy schedules and no one is going to take time out of theirs to read your novel. I, for instance, just spent 8 hours building houses for Habitat for Humanity. So reading ten paragraphs is bottom on my list of things to do tonight. And folks like me are what you're going to get. It's about etiquette. If you're too lazy to revise your statement to conform to internet etiquette, then good luck to you. Don't be surprised if things don't go your way.--v/r - TP 01:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

TP, I don't think you're going to get anything respectful out of AD86. I never have. I blocked him back in March of this year for edit warring. I warned him in April based on a report at ANEW. Then, I made a mistake and in late May forgot about the previous history and engaged in a content dispute with him on Judge Judy, an article he edits a lot (and badly). He reverted me, highlighting some apparent typos (I assume I made them but I'd have to research it more deeply to be sure) with this charming edit summary. Just to make sure I got his point, he left this message on my talk page. Because of the content dispute, I am, of course, involved and can no longer take any administrative action against him, much as he might deserve it. As for this particular dispute between him and Doniago, I have not evaluated the merits of it, so I can offer no assistance there. But if you're looking for a civil, collaborative editor, AD86 wouldn't be my first choice.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb, that edit summary is one of the dumbest I've seen. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ars longa, vita brevis. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Too long, didn't read it" is respectful?! Anyways, guys I don't have the time to get in different debates as a result of Doniago. I have a job to get to. I also don't have the time to figure out how to distort these long-drawn out matters in which Doniago has embarked on a long course of harassment against my self into a few paragraphs. If you rather focus on the diffs as opposed to anything else, simply focus on the diffs and ignore everything else. Administrative Noticeboard policies don't say anything about solely presenting diffs. I explained my side of the dispute just as Doniago explained his side of the dispute while admitting to his overreactions in this very discussion. Anyways, I've put the user's misconduct out there for everyone to see from A to Z. I encourage admins who want the full story to review it and no one else. This will be my last comment here. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Remedy

I've now looked at a lot of the complaints by Doniago (his diffs) and a lot of the complaints by AD86 (which are subsumed in Doniago's diffs and also a few of the beginning diffs by AD86 here). I'll jump to my conclusion and then try to explain it. Doniago is sincerely trying to work out content disputes. AD86 is uninterested and manipulative. Doniago's biggest "fault" is he's not as adroit at presentation as he could be, which is why his original ANI complaint didn't go very far (even I reluctantly criticized Doniago for not presenting sufficient evidence). In addition, through sheer frustration, Donaiago does indeed try to get other editors to help him, although AD86's implicit accusation of canvassing is a bit much as sometimes Doniago is just trying to understand what other editors mean.

AD86 has an unconstructive approach to content dispute resolution. He freely admits that he tries to ignore Doniago, hoping I suppose that Doniago will just go away if he has no one to argue with. That may be acceptable in some circumstances where an editor is being belligerent or circular, but I don't think Doniago is being either. AD86's alternative approach is to bombard the discussion with complaints about Doniago (as he's done here). It's a scattershot approach where some of the complaints may be valid, some may be partly valid, and many are simply wrong. However, given the avalanche, much of it is likely to stick.

What troubles me the most is the avoidance of real content resolution and resorting to defeating Doniago's arguments by character assassination. For example, AD86 simply didn't participate in the discussion at WP:DRN. Another example is highlighted here by AD86 itself and has to do with WP:LQ. As any of us who have been at Wikipedia for any length of time knows, Wikipedia uses what it calls logical punctuation, so if we refer to an television episode, we say "TV Episode". We don't say "TV Episode." Even though at least in most American English the latter is more common. Doniago rightly changed a few instances of that to put the period outside the punctuation. He met with resistance from AD86, and AD86 decided to let it go (big of him) but at the same time said other editors felt he should fight it, and the diff he uses to support that is this one by an editor who essentially argues that WP:LQ should be eliminated because the editor is a "trained writer" and he knows better. That kind of garbage at Wikipedia goes nowhere. If someone wants to challenge a policy or guideline, they should do so in the appropriate venue; otherwise, they're pretty much stuck with it.

Now comes the hard part. What's the appropriate remedy for AD86's behavior? My sense, given my past interaction with AD86, is that this goes beyond AD86's interaction with Doniago and involves an aggressive, non-collaborative style (unless, of course, you agree with him). He called me a vandal. He called TP a "nuisance". Even when he doesn't call another editor an asshole expressly, he's clearly doing so by his rhetoric. He's dismissive. One of his favorite ploys, as seen here, is something like "I've done my part and have nothing more to say." This followed by "Goodbye!" It's an arrogant, I-know-best tactic and is not conducive to editing here. I don't see a topic ban being effective here as I don't know what it would cover. An interaction ban would not be particularly useful as it's not just a problem with Doniago. Civility bans are very difficult to implement and enforce, but of all the bans would probably be the most applicable. That leaves us with blocks for personal attacks and failure to collaborate. Unless, of course, we can get an acknowledgment from AD86 that his behavior is unconstructive and that he will improve. This is all assuming that AD86's conduct is sanctionable at this juncture. I think it is, but as I said earlier, I'm can't be the admin who blocks, and, of course, a ban would require community consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize it's not applicable to this forum, but I endorse your comment and thank you very much for the time and effort it must have taken for you to put it together Bbb. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bb23, my stating goodbye because I've presented the entirety of my case on the matter and am leaving it up to administrators to make a determination is an "arrogant I-know best tactic" to you?!!!! You also flat out label a user's comments that supported me as "garbage" and I'm somehow the aggressive editor. All righty then! By the way everybody, administrator bb23 was among one of the admins who harshly criticized Doniago for coming to the admin noticeboards the last time over Doniago claiming he was personally attacked on basis of my complaining about his removal of stable edits without first discussing and other baseless, petty reverts of my material over the past several months, one edit in which he had to make a self revert on. He claimed my reference to him as "belligerent" for this repeated behavior was a personal attack and came running here whining about it. All the admins and Bb23 included found his case had no merit. Suspiciously, when admin bb23 saw I was involved, he just so happened to change his entire position on the matter. This administrator has just admitted to a previous editing dispute he and I had in which he repeatedly inserted typos and other misinformation so his actions and commentary in this matter are nothing more than vindictive. On his own, he has admitted to the typos in question but conveniently didn't do much to point them out. Included with the typos, Bb23 made a drastic revert without discussing anything on the articles talk page. The fact that he is commenting so heavily on this issue and has changed his position so drastically is nothing more than vindictive.

Also, how exactly am I the manipulative one when Doniago is going around making deals and bargains with other editors to defend him, such as shown on Marnette's user talk page here [142], this leading to her subsequent comments in this very discussion. Doniago has been incessantly using these tactics of bargaining, begging, and/or harassing editor after editor to come and defend him and make him look good and make me look bad in all of our dealings with each other. He did this with a whole host of editors after his failure here at the admin noticeboards and then by the way criticized everyone here at the admin noticeboards and the entire system. Meanwhile I complain about all these underhanded ploys and focus on content disputes and bb23 labels me as the manipulative one. For the most part, this matter has been commented on by users Doniago has begged, bargained with, or whined incessantly to and a two vindictive admins. This is exactly why a lot of people complain about the site and stop using it. People badmouthed it all over the Web for exactly this reason. Seems Doniago's ploys and politicking around from editor to editor has worked. I'm really not in the business of politicking around from editor to editor begging and making bargains with other editors to make me look good and make other editors look bad. I simply call it as I see it. Perhaps I'm using the wrong web site if success here requires Doniago's ploys and politics. AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AD86, your distortions of everything only make your defense of yourself and your accusations against Doniago (and others) that much weaker.

• I didn't "harshly" criticize Doniago in the last ANI report. I criticized him and said so in my post here. Nor did I criticize him in the rather inflamed way you described. I just said he hadn't presented sufficient evidence to support his complaint.
• No one found the previous report to be without merit. We never got to the merits.
• I was well aware of who you were when I posted at the last ANI report. I think my comments there show fairness, hardly vindictiveness.
• I haven't changed my position on anything. I thought your editing at Judge Judy was awful, which is in part why I reverted. However, I didn't continue to revert because I felt that to do so I would have to engage in a protracted content dispute with you, and I don't do that as much as I used to since I've become an admin. At the same time, if I wasn't willing to do so, I couldn't insist on removing your edits, so I stopped editing the article.
• The rest of your comments are just a continuing, repetitive rant of what you've already said in so many places. It doesn't warrant any further response.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bb23, you have just called another editor's comments outside of my own as "garbage" because they agreed with me; you call me every name in the book from "arrogant" and "manipulative" to "i think I'm better than everyone" on basis of saying "goodbye" because i completed my say on my side of the dispute. You've also said things like all my edits are horrible. In the same breath, this admin has said im incivil. Bb23 you are a nothing more than a vindictive hypocrite engaging in a behavior you're trying to make criticisms about. Bb23 needs to be stripped of his admin tools. He is a quintessential example of why people leave this web site, never come back, and complain about it all about the Internet. He is an incendiary user. Again, I had planned on having my say on the matter and being done with it but this admin blatantly taunts me for my desire to have my say on the matter and be done with it and lures me into an altercation by labeling me as arrogant and that I think I'm better than everyone for this reason. I have only been blocked once at Wikipedia and it was by this very admin. His behavior was why i was getting ready to retire from Wikipedia once before. His behaviors in this very discussion should example primely what I had to deal with the first time around. This admin is looking for petty revenge through an altercation so for now I'm not going to read any more of his commentary. Doniago has a habit of harassing and bargaining until he gets his way as evidenced above. The sore bb23 seems to be here to give him credibility because he feels a second opinion will strengthen doniagos. Anyways I'm not going to continue arguing back and forth nor read the antagonism from the biased and personally attacking admin. I will simply await the result. I've told it straight up, called it as I saw it, didn't politic or forum shop, so now what happens happens. If I haven't made clear the in appropriateness I've dealt with from the two individuals in question beyond verbal accounts and diffs, then there's nothing I can do. I was told by a random editor just last week how valuable my contributions are and how he hopes i dont retire after he viewed one of my edits. however, it is hard not to when dealing with editors like the two in question and they are not penalized or brought to order... Well, Doniago was but disobeyed and now seems to be getting his way because of it. But at this point with these two editors engaging in outrageous behavior and not yet receiving blocks makes me shocked. Again, numerous people do not return to this site and make complaints about it because of behaviors like the ones of bb23 and Doniago. If these two users are to get their way in despite all their behavior, very well. Ill simply vouch for all the complaints made against the web site for the very behaviors they engage in and add my own. No arguing, altercations about it. Simple as that. Bb23 further comments by you won't be read because of your crudeness and vindictiveness over me reverting your typos. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have just warned AD86 for the personal attacks in the diatribe above. One more such outburst, one more time such unacceptable accusations, and it's a block. Bbb, have you, in the meantime, come up with a solution of sorts? The only thing I foresee is escalating blocks. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, would this by any chance have to do with my concerns of anti-black racism made against you just early last month?! Just curious! After I presented to the noticeboards an example of where another editor crudely used the term "nigger," you almost immediately closed the Administrative Noticeboard discussion on me. Directly after you did that, I sternly questioned you on your user talk page here [143] as to why you seemingly condoned the crude use of the term "nigger" as exampled in your premature close of the discussion and with no consequences to the editor in question after my revealing this. Unsurprisingly, as shown in the following diff, another editor even came forward and flat-out accused you of racism and others expressed concerns with the crude use of "nigger", all as shown here in the discussion I opened up on your talk page where I questioned you on your concerning close [144] and here [145]. After several editors expressed their concerns and one of which accused this admin of racism, the admin was finally forced to admit such behavior was inappropriate as shown here [146], never fully apologizing for closing the board nor penalizing the editor in question.

Anyways, Wikipedia ought to instate a policy in which admins that editors have been heavily involved with with regards to past grievances cannot make efforts to play such integral roles in later disputes of those editors. It's a nasty abuse of the position of administrator. It's bad enough I'm dealing with different users Doniago cozied up to, bargained with, begged, and politicked to defend him and make me look bad, such as shown here [147], but I also have the two admins that I had grievances against for condoning "nigger" and continually reverting in a typo popping up out of nowhere. Isn't there a policy these two admins have to follow on not popping up out of the blue for petty revenge? Yea, believe it or not Drmies, I found it suspicious that you closed a Noticeboard discussion immediately after reading that the term "nigger" had been used and gave no consequences. So I sternly questioned you and had every right to. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else who wants to see the close by Drmies, it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Abuse and disruption. It is no surprise to find that the closing statement was highly appropriate. The complaint regarding "anti-black racism" appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding cultural differences. I wouldn't use an edit summary like the one in question diff, but it did not express racism, and it certainly is not sanctionable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd been debating whether to make a comment seeing as I had previously engaged both Doniago and AD86 (if I may abbreviate it so) to sort out their content differences after boldly NAC'ing the last ANI. I've struggled through AD86's incredibly long posts and went through many of the diffs. On the whole, IMO, I find that AD86 has a habit of histrionically misrepresenting Doniago's statements. In good faith, I had previously presumed this to be a misunderstanding due to text based communication but have since taken the stance that AD86 is simply lacking in good faith with regards to Doniago's (and from what I see above anyone else who criticises him in any way) efforts to be collegial. I'm sure that AD86 will take this as a sign that I've been canvassed and that Doniago has begged/bargained/politicked me onto their side. My interaction with Doniago and AD86 has been limited to the brief discussion on my talk page, which has yet to be archived, and a brief comment on the article talk page where their dispute occured. I've found Doniago to be receptive to other opinions, for instance they agreed to my suggestion to take the content issue to DRN despite their misgivings and accepted the opinions of the volunteers there. They even had the good grace to invite me to the DRN despite my lack of contribution to the article. In direct contrast, AD86 instantly goes for the bad faith assumption and everything goes downhill from there.

@AD86, I suggest you read WP:INVOLVED, which is what you are getting at. However, the salient point will be that admins who have previously had admin related dealings with an editor are not required to recuse themselves from dealing with the same editor in the future as long as previous interactions are solely limited to their administrative function. You will note that Bbb23 stated this very clearly above where he has refrained from using any of his admin privileges. Drmies, OTOH, has only ever dealt with you in their admin capacity, as such they're not constrained by WP:INVOLVED. Blackmane (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

TY Blackmane and Johnuniq. I have a vague recollection of AmericanDad's "stern" words, and I certainly won't block them for continuing the bad faith and poor assumptions they display towards me (so their attitude is more general, not just reserved for Bbb23--"petty revenge"? pfff, so much hot air). I'll leave this matter for the next admin, and/or for the next time they prove themselves unable to work collaboratively. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a followup, my talk page archived and there's somem wacky behaviour in my archive listing so here is a link to the discussion that may be relevant here. Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

My gosh, the things that happen when you're not on-wiki. Late last night I read Drmies's question to me above about a solution. I didn't respond because I wasn't logged in and I don't edit unless I am. Now that I have slept and returned from my work day, I see that AD86 has given folk even more ammunition to sanction him. The comments about Drmies are even more over the top than AD86's comments about others. I disagree with Drmies that he's involved, but that, of course, is his decision to make, although he's free to reconsider. I'm of the firm opinion that an admin is not involved just because an editor says nasty things about them, unless the admin is blocking only for those nasty things. Otherwise, any editor who doesn't want to be sanctioned by an admin could game the system simply by saying nasty things about an admin to avoid sanctions. My involvement is traditional as I've had content disputes with AD86. Drmies is simply not involved.

All that said, I'd like to respond to Drmies's original question, both for his benefit and for any other admin who is evaluating this topic. One solution, as Drmies noted, is escalating blocks. For AD86's previous behavior and for his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, a preventive block of some duration is warranted. The precise duration would be up to the blocking admin. As I stated earlier, I see no obvious content topic ban because AD86's edits and refusal to collaborate cross topic boundaries. Civility restrictions are probably the best option, but I don't know how difficult it would be to gain a consensus for it. However, this ban might be a good model for it. Another possibility, although I don't think it goes to the heart of the problem, would be a variant on an arbitration sanction, but imposed by the community, obviously. That is, AD86 would be prohibited from reverting on any article without first going to the talk page, explaining why he wants to revert, and obtaining a consensus for the reversion. The reversion would still have to be implemented by another editor, not by AD86. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not going to formally propose anything right now to permit the alternatives to be discussed generally first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, of course, but I have to confess that after somewhere close to 24 hours, I still find myself deeply disturbed by AD86's final post, in particular, the inflammatory use of the so-called "n-word" and similar language throughout his post. Used once, gets the point across, used five times with links to several more uses is excessive, designed to insight and potentially hate-speech. African-American or no, this is a disturbing display of inflammatory language, and should elicit ome response from an admin. I find myself very troubled that it has merited no reaction from the community. --Drmargi (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Back when I opened my original ANI case I remember believing, or maybe just hoping, that if someone, not even necessarily an admin, would just talk to AD86 about why their behavior was non-productive that they might reconsider how they were approaching disputes here. Then they began speaking here and, I have to admit, I started to feel like I really didn't need to say anything more with regards to their conduct because, based on the comments I was seeing from other editors, the problems had become self-evident. I'd still like to think that they'll acknowledge some degree of culpability or change their behavior voluntarily, but as I feared at the time, to date it seems that they've taken a lack of repercussions for their behavior as carte blanche to persist in it. Given that they've done it before, I'm forced to believe that if this ANI case doesn't result in some degree of sanction that they'll simply end up pointing to it later claiming that their behavior was faultless as evidenced by the lack of consequences. DonIago (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope this doesn't sound like I'm badgering, but should I take the silence as an implicit consensus that nothing is to be done at this time? As long as there's no further disruption I don't necessarily mind that per se, but I am mildly concerned given that the last time nothing was done I ended up back here less than a week later. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember that blocks are designed to PREVENT future disruption to the encyclopedia; not to PUNISH disruption that has already happened. If they continue with the incivility then it will be easy to justify that the block is PREVENTING future disruption however at the moment they seem to have stopped. PantherLeapord (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That may sound right on its face, but it misses the point. If a user personally attacks another editor, they may be blocked. More likely if they persistently attack other editors, they will be blocked. Just because they haven't done it in the last 5 minutes, or whatever time period you choose, doesn't mean the block isn't warranted. Now, if the user acknowledges their policy violation and promises to behave and if that is believed, they may avoid a block. Or if they are already blocked and request an unblock with a credible explanation and promise, they may be unblocked. None of those things is true here. Indeed, quite the opposite, as AD86 has continued his misbehavior here on this board. To the extent that this topic doesn't appear to be attracting the attention of another admin who is willing to block AD86, it's generally useless to speculate as to why that might be. Thus far, this topic has been commented on by three admins. I have clearly stated I am involved. Drmies apparently now feels he is involved. TP is the only other admin who's commented, but for reasons best known to him, he has not rejoined the topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've never dealt with a situation like this before, would it be appropriate to ask for additional admin feedback at WP:AN, or would that be considered a no-no at this juncture? DonIago (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware; but I'm also aware that everything I've seen to this point has shown no indication that they have any intention of discontinuing their disruptive behavior, or even acknowledging that their behavior to this point might have been in any way disruptive. I'd prefer that no other editor go through anything like what I did, but if the prevailing feeling is that a "wait and see" attitude is best at this point, then I'll defer to that. DonIago (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the crux of the problem. Civility, or lack there of, based sanctions are notoriously difficult to agree upon. At this point, this is following the usual pattern of dispute -> DRN/3O/Mediation -> dispute some more -> ANI (with resultant action or inaction) -> RFC/U -> ANI/AN (with resultant sanctions or not). There's probably enough material that an RFC/U could be considered if a second editor would be willing to certify it, bearing in mind that an RFC/U cannot bring sanctions against an editor but does allow for wider comment possibly leading to sanctions that would be discussed back here. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine this has been commented on before, but that process seems rather redundant to me, especially in cases where very few, if any, editors contributing to the discussion believe that the subject's conduct has been appropriate and the subject doesn't present any indication that they intend to change their conduct... Just saying. I'm really not looking to get into a debate about that, especially not here and now. DonIago (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably, unfortunately. But that's what happens on ANI. Apart from that, the only other option would be for another admin to step in and drop the heavy end of the hammer Blackmane (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:LordZebedee ignoring consensus

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

---

User:LordZebedee has been repeatedly adding trivial/pop culture mentions at Welrod despite consensus that they should be removed and refuses to discuss the issue. He has, in one form or another, added this material 1234567 times over the past 2 weeks. The section is discouraged by WikiProject Firearms pop culture guidelines as well as WP:POPCULTURE as the source is an open wiki, not anything we would consider reliable. I have explained why he's being reverted, invited him to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture section at Welrod (where further consensus is to remove the material), and issued a warning, none of which have helped. An IP editor created a section at Talk:Welrod#Layer Cake Reference explaining why the mention isn't appropriate and User:Trekphiler has assisted with reverts as well, so it's not simply me vs. him. I'm wondering what more can be done. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• One more time and it's a block for edit warring/disruptive editing (editing against consensus): the next admin can take their pick. I've issued them a templated edit warring message for good measure, and will leave a note as well. Thanks, and keep us posted. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Woodroar on this one 100%. This is so trivial an add, it beggars belief, & the refusal is so pointedly willful, I'd have smacked him before now.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And he's done it again... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've undone his fifth revert in as many days. Although I admittedly am unfamiliar with the subject of the article, it does strike me as trivial information he's attempting to add and the source appears to be unreliable. user:j (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours - maybe that will get some attention -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (no relation)

Ironic. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Nope; did not get attention! They are still edit warring! PantherLeapord (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours by Edgar181, and a clear warning about an indef to follow has been issued by BWilkins. De728631 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

194.89.228.106

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

---

194.89.228.106 (talk · contribs)

This IP address is constantly writing in languages other than English on talk pages. I believe that a 24 hour block should be in place, and if that doesn't work, then a permanent block. buffbills7701

Blocked for 48 hours. I think the language is Finnish, and that in itself wouldn't be a real problem if they were asking for help, but the posts appear to be disruptive so I have blocked for that primarily. GiantSnowman 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The posts are signed "Risto Pöllänen Koneteknikko-ohjelmoija Lappeenranta"[148] (Risto Pöllänen Machine Technician Programmer Lappeenranta) or "Risto Pöllänen koneteknikko - ohjelmoija"[149] (Risto Pöllänen a mechanical engineer - programmer). Some sort of ranting.--Auric talk 12:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is either a professional spammer or someone obsessed with Risto Pöllänen. I have revdel'ed most of this IP's contributions as far back 2012 as purely disruptive material and copyvios of previously published text by Pöllänen: [150], [151]. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There was another IP or named account recently with a similar obsession with the same name, fyi. — The Potato Hose 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried a search for the name but didn't find it. Do you have any diffs? De728631 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Bmotbmot

Bmotbmot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding making a lot of inappropriate edits (some in Chinese) and is creating new non-notable articles, some of which are complete gibberish (see Feng (family name)). User is refusing to open dialogue with anyone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits appear to be intended to be helpful; but the issue is a clear lack of English understanding and I doubt the editor is aware of anything. It looks like this has been run through a translator... the intention may be good, but the result is bad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support block until uses Talk page to communicate - it's unfortunate, but he's been left repeated messages in English and Chinese and must be aware of the orange bar appearing each time. The disruption to existing articles generates significant hassle in fixing, and addition of non-notable surname stubs (no Baidu article, let alone zh.wp article, not even in the appendices to the 504-name list of "Hundred Names") are just heading to AfD anyway. If he/she would communicate, in any language, then unblock. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per @In ictu oculi: He ought to have gotten at least 15 notifications, and refuses to even acknowledge other editors' existence.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually they did contact other editors [152], but the communication problem remains in form of very poor or virtually non-existent skills in the English language. WP:COMPETENCE comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@De728631: Actually, they hadn't as of when I wrote that. Still, yes; WP:COMPETENCE. "your new page is nothing, just blank if your merge page and other page, must creative story in page, [...] i can see a sub page in page" isn't helping anything.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be lack of English, agree with WP:COMPETENCE, surprised this disruptive editing has not been blocked yet. Widefox; talk 15:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the above reasoning. The block should stop the disruption (hence preventative) and force discussion. Dusti^*poke* 18:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Matheson

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

---

Needs to be semiprotected two hours ago. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you post a request at WP:RFP? Dusti^*poke* 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. My experience is that any admins online pay more attention to this page, though. Reports at multiple noticeboards never hurt anybody. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's sourced now; never mind. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible 3RR vio by Djapa84

User:Djapa84 seems to have violated WP:3RR at [153]. Could an admin please either admonish Djapa84 and/or issue a block if required? Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe my reinsertion of a POV tag was reasonable as three other editors had joined me in questioning the bias of the file in question and a discussion of the issue was developing. The two editors arguing against the four of us kept removing the tag which I think is in itself disruptive editing. If in this argument about whether open discussion of the issue is acceptable I have inadvertently violated WP:3RR then I apologise for that and will avoid doing so in the future. As a result of the disruptive editing I have called for an RFC on the issue and in future I will do that earlier rather than falling for the trap of revert warring against a tag team. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK - Removing a POV tag shouldn't be done by anyone involved with the article. It seems you've both got a COI on the issue and need to take it to 3rd Opinion. Surturz - you do realize that you also engaged in the edit war taking it as far as you have. You're both guilty here. I'm not so sure a block would be any more helpful than full protecting the article at the last stable version and forcing a discussion on the talk page would be more beneficial. Dusti^*poke* 00:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I note the reinsertion of the tag by an account with only three previous edits. In as many minutes. How odd! -Pete (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mind the Boomerang Pete. Hard Men are Good to Find (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of sock puppetry then do it directly Pete. Don't make snide allegations without justification - that is defamation. Launch an investigation. It will not bring anything up. You are the first to complain when someone else does not follow policy and there is a policy on sock puppet investigations. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do it directly. You've got form in this area and there's a whole bunch of similar accounts that all talk like you do and share your political views. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this may have been solved pretty quickly... o_O Dusti^*poke* 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point Dusti. I do not deny that the edits of "Hard Men" are dubious, that is as given. However there are procedures and IP checks which can be done to investigate such things and it is not acceptable to ignore those procedures and throw wild accusations around, especialy making things up like "you have got form". That is nonsense and while investigating the issue is warranted, defamation is not. I have invited Pete to do things properly because I have nothing to fear ducks or no ducks. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've filed a second sockpuppet investigation, in line with procedures, as per your request. IPs are easy enough to get around, but behaviour stands out. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for all errors on my part, I shall re-educate myself on POV-tagging policy. I think the file page now needs to be briefly locked as the edit war is continuing. --Surturz (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pete I have asked you to put up or shut up. Do not make baseless allegations like "You've got form in this area". That is a lie. My editing history is not perfect, but I have never been accused of sock puppetry. Any more defamation from you without showing evidence and I will lodge a complaint. Enough now. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous sockpuppet report here. The WP:OUTING behaviour is also repeated. Quit it, please. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that unless the editor says it's okay - you just outed an editor - and personal attacks will not be tolerated Djapa - regardless of accusations. And creating new accounts to continue an edit war is sock puppetry and I'm pretty sure you'll be blocked soon enough. Dusti^*poke* 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not follow. Who am I supposed to have outed and how? Djapa Owen (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I had forgotten that you had accused me before. I was not guilty then and I am not guilty now. I have had one account since I first joined in early 2011 and have never created another. Not everyone who disagrees with conservative rhetoric is a sock-puppet. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Djapa, I'm going to assume you forgot about this policy, so I'm not even going to mention your above comment. I'm going to walk you through how experienced editors and even Checkusrs spot a sockpuppet. First, we notice a new editor who makes a Bee line towards a page (where an obvious newbie wouldn't). We then watch and wait for the account to do the usual sockpuppet stuff. Familiarize yourself with this page, and if you have questions about how to be civil and not edit war, come back to us.

OK Dusti, first I am aware of the policy WP:ATTACK but fail to see how I can be accused of maintaining an attack page? I have asked Pete to justify his accusation by going through the proper procedures with checkuser etc. as I have done nothing wrong, but he continues to accuse me of having 'form'. I was accused back in November 2011 and was not found guilty then. This means I do not have 'form' as that would require guilt last time. Anyone can accuse anyone they want, but that does not imply guilt without conviction. Secondly you have accused me of outing someone. I have said nothing about any editor's private life because I know nothing about any other editor's private life so how can I be guilty of outing anyone? If you are talking about using Pete's name instead of his username, it is in his tagline so he has outed himself. You still have not pointed out how you consider me to have outed anyone, and since I have stated twice now that I do not understand your accusation it would be civil to explain. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It actually looks like I may have made a mistake. In looking at your edit, I saw that you used his (what I'm presuming to be) real name - which would have been an "outing" - however, he's done so himself. I'll strike that bit. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "attack page" - however, I do know that using terms such as "put up or shut up", "conservative rhetoric", etc etc etc. is attacking someone and being childish. Both of you go your separate ways and stop looking for a babysitter. Dusti^*poke* 02:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's all it was - using my name "Pete", that's fine. However this user has previously - and no, I'm not going to provide links here - made carefully-worded allegations linking me to all sorts of identifiable personal details. The intent to go against the spirit if not the letter of the wikilaw was obvious, and I'm seeing the same behaviour here with a request for IP checks. Anyone can find a proxy service. --Pete (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Pete for going through the proper process with your allegation so that I could clear it from my name. I would really like to know what details you feel I have alleged you of before as I do not actually know who you are outside of Wikipedia, but I understand you would not want to re-post things you are not comfortable here as that would only make the situation worse. If you would like to email me directly that would be really good because I would honestly like to know what I have done which makes you feel this way. I assure you I will not share anything you tell me.

I know you are right about proxies and IP masking, but I have never felt the need to look into such things. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Attempted outing of Edward Snowden

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

---

Despite warnings that the discussion may be problematic wrt WP:OUTING, a high profile admin is trying to find which Wikipedia users may have been accounts of Edward Snowden here. Connecting the real life identity of a person to account names used on Wikipedia is not allowed (unless the person has made the connection on Wikipedia): "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name,[...]" is the start of WP:OUTING. The editor started with " It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?" and continued with posting usernames used by Snowden on other, unrelated forums. The information is not needed for any admin- or office-reasons, the attempted outing is done because "I'm just curious".

Any action I would take against this section on his user talk page would be instantly reverted as trolling anyway, so perhaps someone else can take a look and remove the offending section? Speculation on which accounts may be used by named (notable) persons, for the sake of curiosity, have no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm criticising you, but I'm wondering why you neglected to mention that the "high profile admin" was in fact Jimbo? — Richard BB 10:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An open discussion of matters widely discussed in reliable sources with respect to how it may impact Wikipedia is in no way shape or form "outing". It should be emphasized that Fram has been asked to stay off my user talk page in the past, and that I consider his repeated appearances there with manufactured and implausible complaints like this to be harassment. I am not currently seeking that any sanctions be applied to him for this behavior. The reason that I'm curious is precisely because there is intense press interest in his online activities, and we may rest assured that reporters are already looking for any connections. It would be wise for us to understand the facts completely before hyped up news stories begin to circulate.

There is little doubt that Fram is more interested in causing trouble for me, than in Mr. Snowden's privacy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on her behavior now and in the past, I'm surprised no one has blocked her yet, or at least taken away her powers as an administrator. Dream Focus 10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea nor interest in what's going between Jimbo and Fram, but the complaint has some merit. In the case Snowden is an editor, and could continue to edit, outing him seems a bad thing to do, just like for any other editor. --Cyclopia^talk 10:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Fram's concern has foundation, and I am concerned with Jimbo's removal of her talk page posts, as well as his dismissal of them as "trolling." GiantSnowman 10:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there's a lack of good faith going around here. I can fully understand why Fram was concerned about outing issues, especially there were no initial mentions about how the editor could affect Wikipedia (especially given the "I'm just curious" remark), and so I cannot say that Fram is doing this just to harass or troll. Although I disagree with Jimbo when he says that this isn't a case of "outing", I do have to agree with him about concern regarding how the media might connect him to us. Perhaps if there is going to be a search for any accounts that Snowden might maintain on Wikipedia, it should not take place in a public forum such as Jimbo's talk page. — Richard BB 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that the usernames are openly discussed in the mass media, there can be no concerns about 'outing'. This is all in the public in a very major way already.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the concern lies in attempting to connect the username to a real person's real life identity. Unless Mr. Snowden has made the connection himself, it seems as though administrative efforts to publicly connect the real person and his Wikipedia username would constitute outing. I'd support a high-level behind-the-scenes examination of these edits as a form of preemptive damage control, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully support Fram's concern here. Journalists are entititled to investigate whether Snowden had an account on Wikipedia (and if so; which account/s; Wikipedians are not entitled to speculate on Wikipedia about real-life identities. If journalists are able to reveal Snowden's account on Wikipedia and make a notable point of it in their writings; that may be notable in Snowden's article, but we are not there yet, as I understand. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Giant Snowman. I've no interest/knowledge in Fram v. Jimbo, and fully agree that Jimbo's posts are very concerning. DeCausa (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to relay your concerns to me directly at my talk page. All but Fram are welcome to discuss it further. I am not asking anyone to reveal or hunt for private information - I was just asking a very simple question: has there been discussion already in Wikipedia of various accounts that might be identified as his in the press. This is not about outing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As an aside Jimbo, I find your comment that "All but Fram are welcome to discuss it further" concerning and at odds with Wikipedia's slogan of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." GiantSnowman 11:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone has a long history of arguing with you on your talk page, you have the right to ask them not to post there. I remember seeing the Will.i.am arguments there, so I can understand not wanting her on his talk page. Dream Focus 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, as long as you're asking purely about stuff in prominent reliable sources, that's one thing, but it sounded like you were asking for gossip and speculation ("original research" in WP parlance), which is inappropriate on BLP grounds (I'm sure you can imagine the type of impact it could have on the subject) besides being outing. I'd say the privacy issues are amplified considerably because if Snowden is identified with an editor here, then if the PRISM stories are true, the folks looking for him will know not only what he's been writing, but what he's been reading. I can't post on your talk page because it's protected. GiantSnowman: re Fram, I think Jimbo just meant that due to past conflict, Fram is not welcome on Jimbo's talk page. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, I don't think you were trying to out him directly, but your comments are what some might call a "red flag" comment, an indication that a user is trying to connect dots. If you weren't "Jimbo" and were instead a <5k editor, I would have given a polite notification and a pointer to WP:OUTTING. The comments as they are might be seen as you encouraging or condoning others outting him, even if that isn't your intention. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I, too, am curious why the OP neglected to mention the name of the "high profile admin" but choose to name the supposed victim's name (in the title of this thread, no less) whose identity they're supposed to be protecting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw "high profile admin" as an attempt to depersonalize the incident and keep it about protecting Snowden's privacy, rather than drama it up with the ongoing conflict between Fram and Jimbo (I don't know or care what that conflict is about). I think it sort of worked, though obviously not perfectly. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't find Jimbo's comments about Fram concerning at all. Fram has time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talkpage. Fram has been aggresive, domineering, and flat out rude. Jimbo more than once has instructed that Fram may not post on their talkpage - something every editor is permitted to request. Posting on Jimbo's page (or any other editor's talkpage) is not a right. Yes, we all know that Jimbo's talkpage is ANIv3 ... but we also know that Jimbo is typically pretty patient about what goes on there (he even allows Forum Shopping!). If you've pissed off Jimbo so much that he doesn't want you posting on his talkpage, that shows just how far past a line you went - not once, but multiple times. The only reason Jimbo hasn't blocked Fram for posting there is probably some warped version of WP:INVOLVED, but seriously - Fram SHOULD BE BLOCKED if they ever post on Jimbo's page - period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history between the two, thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 11:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Please provide evidence for "time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talk page". Fram (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the history between Jimbo and Fram but editors are allowed a great deal of latitude in controlling their own talk page. If Jimbo has indeed banned Fram from his talk page, then Fram has violated this at least 4 times in the last 24 hours.[154][155][156][157] This is harassment and possibly a 3RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy has already said he isn't seeking sanctions. We don't need to beat the drama drums here. If Jimmy wanted Fram blocked, Fram would be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)A quest for Knowledge, since none of these was a reversion, it can hardly be a 3RR violation. The first three were normal replies to remarks, the fourth was a NPA warning. This has absolutely nothing to do with 3RR... 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

If any other editor was speculating about someone's real life ID on Wiki, they'd be told it constitutes outing. How about any discussion about Snowden's ID (if it exists at all ) on Wikipedia cease on Wikipedia. Off the 'pedia, we can speculate all we'd lik, just keep it off Wikipedia, otherwise , it's outing.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

(ec)I am uncertain as to what is, and is not, "outing" in this specific case. Clearly Wikipedia has rules against connecting a Wikiname to an outside name - the basic premise is that such would be done to discredit the person with the Wikiname. The problem here is quite the reverse - that an outside person (Snowden) has been suggested by reliable sources to have had multiple online accounts, and thus it is highly likely to be a case of "In-ing" rather than "Out-ing" and it is likely to be something pursued by parties outside Wikipedia. F'rinstance - suppose a US Attorney seeks this information - should Wikipedia co-operate or not? I suggest Wikipedia would, in fact, have no choice at all, and it would not surprise me if Jimbo were not cognizant of this (IMO - I think if I were investigating Snowden it is a query I would pose)) likelihood, and desirous of getting the information out before the legal process makes a hash of it. All of the rest of the above discussion is mot if this is the case. Cheers. (I am leaving this after an ec because I am far from sure the close is "correct" here, and quite certain that Jimbo did not violate Wikipolicy here). Collect (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: Just because Jimbo isn't seeking sanctions doesn't mean that we tolerate ban violations, harassment or 4RR violations. AQFK (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to keep the "Fram" issue and the "Snowden" issue separate please.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the best thing that an admin can do is stay out of a dispute between two established editors, such is the case with Fram and Jimmy. Just because we can "justify" a block or sanction doesn't mean that it is the best course of action. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AQFK, could you stop with the 4RR accusations? To have 4RR, you need to have at least 1 revert. I made none, nothing that comes even close. Fram (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, the outing and BLP issues were because it sounded like Jimbo was asking people to air their private theories about WP accounts Snowden might have used. Jimbo later clarified that he was only asking about stuff in published sources, which is ok. I thought Nick's closure was correct and well stated. Obviously if the WMF got some kind of official disclosure demand, it would consult its lawyers and figure out what to do. I think Fram's concern was about preserving the privacy of info that's not in the WMF's hands. And yes it's outing even if it's not to discredit. For example, if a show biz celebrity were editing incognito as a way to have a hobby outside of the public eye, we should not out them. Snowden is a celebrity of a different sort. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a trouting all round and then we re-close this debate, as it seems to be overflowing with drama-fuelled debates about 4RR and interpretations of Jimbo's statements. — Richard BB 12:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

112.213.197.18 Keeps Removing CSD Tag

112.213.197.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP keeps removing CSD tag on Hey Presto Magic Studio without providing any reason.(Diff1;Diff2;Diff3)I have left a message on thier talk page,but it doesn't work.I can't undo again because of 3RR.So,besides dealing with the IP,please also consider deleting the article in question if you think it meets any CSD criteria.Lsmll 12:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The likelihood of that being the same editor that created the article but logged out is very high. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, reverting his edits and warned User:Pidzz, as the timing of the edits makes it brutally clear they are the same person or acting as meatpuppets. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And I've deleted that page. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

50.98.36.108 evading block

I saw a non-suer undo a edit I made to his talk page because he was replacing all the content all that page with "blackhawks suck". I know he had been blocked for 23 hours and I went to his talk page and it still said he was blocked. I think he is avoiding blocking somehow. ~yougo1000

• Taken care of. Please see my note on your talk page regarding signatures. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New IP editor 74.65.170.32 unconstructive deletionist?

Since becoming active on 2013-06-07T23:25:32, 74.65.170.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has performed over 70 edits; every single one has been a deletion. Some have been summary removal of valid WP:REDLINKs, without apparent regard to policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beinecke_Rare_Book_and_Manuscript_Library&diff=prev&oldid=561476077). Other deletions have been of likely valid and relevant assertions, including an associated WP:Citation needed already calling for a reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radium_Girls&diff=prev&oldid=561303599). Although some of the edits are probably useful, it does not appear to me that the majority of them have improved the quality of Wikipedia; instead, the IP editor seems to be removing already flagged visible deficiencies, rather than correcting or flagging any of them.

I will place an ANI-notice on the IP editor's talkpage, but really don't know what else to say, or even if any action is warranted. I prefer to get back to editing, but felt that I shouldn't just ignore this IP editor's behavior, so I am calling attention to it here.

Apologies if my report here is not formally correct, or if this is not the correct forum to bring this up. This is my first encounter with this type of situation, in which I feel a need for the participation of more-experienced editors. I do not have extensive experience in analyzing an IP user's edits, and don't know what (if anything) should be done about them. I defer to the judgement of more-seasoned editors and admins. Reify-tech (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP address is pretty stable. It averages about 5 edits per day—50 in the last 10 days, so I don't see a big reason to panic. Have you even tried to talk to them before rushing to ANI? (Apparently not.) I have seen rapidly changing dynamic IPs engaging in much more problematic editing, e.g. mass controversial MOS changes. Most editors probably don't know how to check for IP range contributions, or else we'd see a lot more panicky reports.... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him/her deleting statements which have been WP:CHALLENGEd for more than a year. I don't have a strong opinion about those red links either way. Sunken courtyard? Some architecture expert better chime in. Anyway, this is something that should go through the normal WP:DR process. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also [158] is from the same ISP, so this is probably someone on a dynamic IP on an ISP with several huge IP blocks. You're just unlucky to see only deletions from that IP, but the same editor likely made additions too. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warrior

User:Darkness Shines is starting edit-war on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). I did a few constructive edits to that article by restructuring, correcting links, removing/replacing images with relevant ones, and removed some off topic content, and then she comes and began reverting my edits completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to rethink this report. By the technical definition of WP:3RR, you're the only one who has reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hours period.--v/r - TP 19:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has over a dozen blocks for similar behaviour [159]. I'll try not to do this again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a dozen blocks gives you more leeway to edit war with him. Curious, do you have a previous account? In 88 edits, you've managed to jump into a contentious topic, target a user, and bait him into an edit war, then rush here to get him blocked despite your own behavior. Is this a throwaway account that you intended to use to get DS blocked?--v/r - TP 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What's even more interesting is you have exactly 11 edits before you went directly to the page in question. Almost like you intentionally were trying to get to that very important confirmed status so you could edit the semi-protected page. User:Mujhideen101 perhaps?--v/r - TP 20:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not going to bother with this but I only have 2 reverts on the article. And I am pretty sure this is another account for Pestcamel I am looking into it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, DS, you need to learn to stop warring and discuss/report stuff sooner.--v/r - TP 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What, you mean like starting a section on the talk page immediately following the second revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean like realizing that you can let a bad edit sit while an administrator sorts out behavioral issues instead of reverting. Discussing while reverting isnt the idea behind WP:BRD.--v/r - TP 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the B part of BRD was when someone removed a shedload of content from an article? My bad. Have filed an SPI BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You assume, incorrectly, that the cycle is BRD-BR-BR-BR and that's why you keep getting blocked. The cycle is BRD. If the other party reverts again, it's not another "bold" edit of theirs. It's a revert. The only bold edit was the first edit. Everything after that is a revert and reverting reverts is edit warring. Stop at the "D" and you won't get blocked in the future.--v/r - TP 21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not overly fond of essays being used as a reason to block people to be honest tom. I will apologize for my snark, had a crappy day. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for administrator at WP:COIN

This isn't a new dispute but instead a request for administrator assistance in an existing dispute at WP:COIN#Fairleigh Dickinson University. I began the discussion on June 13 concerning the behavior of Mfuzia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since then there's been little movement. In particular one editor (not me) has called for administrator intervention.

(Although this isn't a new dispute I'll still send Mfuzia an ANI notice just to be on the safe side.) --Nstrauss (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a detailed analysis of the material there; it is indeed inappropriate, regardless of whether the ed. is an employee or a student Mfuszio's editing is essentially identical to that of another editor, Crcorrea, who has made similarly promotional edits over many articles ; I assume they are sockpuppets, for I think it unlikely that even two separate employees would use the same exact format. I have proposed blocking both of them for an extended period. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed enough of the material to trust your judgement on this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

84.193.228.7 (quite likely some sock) running rampant

I stumbled upon this sock only today (it has only edited back in April), but I have a feeling that this merits an investigation. If you check out some random diffs of his edits, you can see that the only intention of this user was trolling. GeoIP lookup traces this IP to "Hasselt, Flanders, Belgium, Europe" so I believe we have another open proxy (or a toll from Belgium, but given the fact that only Hungarian articles were affected it's quite unlikely). Although the IP account hasn't been used since, if it's a(n open) proxy, it might get "reactivated" at any time. -- 92.52.45.96 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Damn, this crappy CMS has logged me out despite the fact that I logged in just ~30 minutes ago. Nevermind, I'll log in later on..... -- 92.52.45.96 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the edits looks like sneaky vandalism or in the AGF case like he pasted completely irrelevant text by accident. The IP has only edited on April 21, so this is not administratively actionable because it's far too stale. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel constant attacks and not assuming WP:Good Faith

User:Arzel continues to be very hostile in his editing and interactions with me. Some examples are:

1 2 3 4

I have asked him to not make these attacks.

5 6

In my opinion, this is a continuation of disruptive editing by him . I would ask for some resolution to this. Thank you.Casprings (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

These two have been going at it for sometime, including frequent edit-warring over the article content.[160] Full disclosure: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but I have commented several times on the article talk page and have Wiki-gnomed the article itself. I don't see how this dispute can be fairly resolved by admin action. Perhaps WP:DRN might be a better place to resolve these disputes or both of you can simply conside in the fact that this is a controversial article that Wikipedia is simply not able to adequately resolve. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Casprings is not the only editor having problems with Azrel's behavior. He's just been reported for edit-warring: [[161]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This editor seems to be angry in general. Maybe a topic ban would quiet things down a bit. Dusti^*poke* 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly community support for that.Casprings (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here. Apteva (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a new discussion is warranted then, and that information should be considered along with what we've got here. I'd support a topic ban in this case. Dusti^*poke* 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The AN re-posting of Caspring's complaint by Cartoon Diabolo is NOT a different complaint, just a re-posting. Constitutes piling on to a paper-thin ANI by double-listing. If Cartoon thought Casprings mis-listed this complaint, this section should have been moved, not duplicated. If Cartoon thought Casprings' ANI to be of merit, they should have supported and added to it, instead of duplicating. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is some other information on the subject than

• Arzel was blocked in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring on other articles
• Questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as hereand here.
• WP:BATTLE in several cases. Some examples include here, here and here.
• Arzel is a single purpose account as with a political view to promote.
• misrepresentation, NPA; POV pushing - [162] [163] which he explained on the talk page saying the NYT and MSNBC were not reliable sources for the TPM article[164] stating sarcastically that all media should be included if the NYT was - which, btw, was supported by Malke 2010[165] who said "Agree with Azrel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant." and that's from the last few days; also see here on this page, [166] BATTLE, misrepresentation, quoting bits out of context.

• battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, uncivil discourse: [167][168][169][170][171][172]

• pettifog retribution: [173][174]

• clear political agenda: [175][176][177][178][179]

• *Noticeboard discussion detailing disruptive editing and tendentious editing

• Edit Waring thread Final statement on thread was: "Stale - if I had reviewed this when it was live, I would have blocked; BLP is not an excuse to edit war over anything just because it's a biographical article."

• Noticeboard thread that found "I don't think Arzel should have removed that comment. The editor appears to have been asking about whether or not particular information should be included in the article. This to my mind seems an appropriate use of an article talkpage. Arzel's characterisation of the edit as WP:FORUM is therefore erroneous in this case and the comment should be restored. As for what should be done with Arzel, I'll defer to the wisdom of others."

• Noticeboard thread on edit warring on several articles

• Questioning the good faith of editors

• Attacking an editor

• Thread detailing behavior on administrator notice board.

Casprings (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

He also caused problems in the Thomas Sowell article and subsequent DRNs of it. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that User:Anonymous209.6 is also problematic on the article. He has a history of disruptive edits. For example, he continues to edit out content on Rep. Smith, even with discussions on the talk page. He has many examples of POV pushing:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Smith Comment again 8 - Smith Comment again

I am simply going down his edits here. I think he has also shown a clear pattern of edit warring and POV pushing.Casprings (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Move all of that to WP:3RR please. :) Dusti^*poke* 23:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

But I don't think the problem is over four reverts in 24 hours. It is just constant POV pushing and edit warring.Casprings (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

|}

(edit conflict) Note: there is a separate report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo As I said there, I really wish everyone would simply follow WP:BRD, but if not, it takes two to edit-war. And in this particular case, it appears that we have several edit-warriors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should have done a discussion in the WoW article earlier but there is clearly a pattern of disruptive edits (even with discussion) in the other article. If no one else is willing I could move the Anon edits to 3RR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed the above as it's about an entirely different user and situation and asked the editor to take that issue to 3RR Dusti^*poke* 00:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding a possible topic ban for Arzel

I think it's appropriate for a topic ban to be imposed here. He's obviously got some issues with WP:CIVIL, WP:POV, and WP:3RR when it comes to controversial topics like women's rights and rape. I believe a topic ban is a good route for this until he's able to control himself.

• Support Casprings (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No case for such a draconian solution has been presented. Using topic bans to purge a playing filed of people who are not an exceedingly major problem is ill-advised, and is likely to result in gaming the system to remove "opponents". The above discussion seems far from being something for which topic bans would ordinarily be considered in any case. Collect (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussions surrounding this user are astronomical, and it's a wonder he's not currently blocked. I think that both are appropriate in this situation, however, a topic ban is more favorable in my view as there's a potential for him to be a good editor. Dusti^*poke* 00:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean like the one where an editor proposed that I be topic banned from all political articles, broadly construed? Give me a break! The amount of gaming going on at the drama boards at times is astounding - and again my position holds that the solution proposed is far worse than the ailment. Cheers - you will find a bunch of the same people repeatedly urging the banning of Arzel at an "astronomical number of discussions". By your system of "astronomical number of discussions" sooner or later everyone who is "discussed" should be banned. I do not "count discussions" I only consider "content of discussions." Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

While your "political article" ban being broadly construed may have been a bad choice of topic ban, it's obvious this editor cannot collaborate with others in these specific topics. Take a look at his contributions and tell me he's collaborative. Dusti^*poke* 01:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The argument for a topic ban on Arzel was lost when Casprings had to cite 3 and 5 years old blocks to support his rationale.--v/r - TP 01:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

While I would have agreed with you, the fact that a recent topic ban was just discussed about this same editor a few weeks back pointed me in this direction. Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per TParis' reasoning, not to mention the absurdity of Casprings accusing others of POV pushing. This ploy is nothing more than a WP:BATTLEGROUND maneuver. Federales (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got to stop you there. I'm not involved in this situation, and I'm the one who brought up the topic ban. I've brought it up because A) the recent discussion concerning the same user and B) This editor has proven time and time again he can't collaborate with others on these select controversial issues. Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If someone else has a better suggestion on how to get this editor to collaborate in a constructive manner, please bring it up. Otherwise, the only options seem to be to block the editor or ... I don't know? Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment I only meant to offer what I thought was relevant information. In all honestly, I only want to get to consensus on the page. I would like to get it to WP:FA and have spent alot of efforts to get it there. As such, I have struck the information because it is problematic. . Casprings (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose These "attacks" from Arzel cited above are basically just saying what would be obvious to anyone who looks at the editing history of Casprings and the article in question. It is plainly designed as a BLP coatrack to go after Republicans by someone who is of a different political persuasion. Shoehorning in negative discussion of as many possible Republicans as he can based off a tangential or trivial connection in a source is not a desirable means for creating a neutral article and is very much suggestive of an agenda on the part of Casprings. Articles constructed in this manner, such as "Israel-related animal conspiracy theories", amount to little more than propaganda.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Concur Federales (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a content dispute. And really, a topic ban? We can't be topic banning editors because they don't agree with something. There has to be point-counter-point or the article will read like an attack page. This is a contentious article. I applaud Casprings for creating it. I'm sure countless women in America feel the same way. I believe him when he says he wants to get consensus and he said he struck the problematic material. That will probably solve a lot of this. I've seen Casprings back off when the community has pointed out to him that he's made an error. I admire him for that. Not everybody can do that well. Casprings, I didn't see any personal attacks from Arzel. The diffs I read seem like the usual snarky stuff on a contentious article. Suggest you both agree to be more considerate and give some ground on those edits. Don't throw in all those bits from 1995 I noticed a while back. The article is about the 2012 election cycle, afterall. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per Dusti. I see that several editors that have not edited one or more of the pages in question have weighed in here opposing a topic ban, which I find curious. I have encountered Arzel's irrational behavior in a revert-war and refusal to discuss the topic on the article Talk page, so I am convinced that there is doubt as to the editor's ability to engage in rationale discussions facilitating collegial editing here in relation to controversial political topics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support article ban. I have the article in question in my watchlist (probably the only politics-related article on my WL), and, apart from the current disputes, this editor is used to raise any sort of issue with the article, usually on the basis that the whole article is a coatrack against Republicans. He is also used to raise the same problem again and again and again when his view cannot find consensus (eg, he raised the question about 2008 exit polls at least a dozen of times, and on different boards). I specifically consider his battleground behavior and his assumptions of bad faith the main problems here. On the contrary, he said several times that the article should be deleted and should not exist at all, and at this point frankly I have no faith that this editor's tags, reverts, bold removals of sections, accusations to other users have the main goal of improving the page. Recently, I was impressed by his pointy attempts to have "Legitimate rape" redirecting to Rape (that does not even mention the term) and not to the said article. Cavarrone 06:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you fail to acknowledge that I reverted myself on that and redirected to the appropriate place. Arzel (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: User has a long history of POV-pushing and aggresive battleground behavior that needs to be addressed, as the recent topic ban discussion from March indicates. My own encounters with him, though thankfully few, have been extremely unpleasant. Would support a wider topic ban on all political issues, as was proposed in the previous topic ban discussion. I find TParis's reasoning odd, because he fails to notice this is a long standing problem that has not been adequately resolved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then you'd have failed to notice I was the patrolling admin on the 2012 US election topics and I am fully aware of who Arzel is. This is a case of one POV upset that another POV could possible in a million years disagree with their righteous cause. It happens all the time and we don't topic ban for it.--v/r - TP

It's obvious there isn't a consensus about a topic ban, which was my suggestion. I've collapsed that to ease reading (since it's no longer relevant). Dusti^*poke* 05:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't hat. It's all relevant. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: User also removes large amounts of content without talk page consensus, purportedly due to unreliable sources.[180] Given that the content is sourced by Slate, I fail to see how this isn't editing with a purpose of pushing an agenda. Problematic to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ongepotchket (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That information from Slate is duplicate information that is already in the article. Did you actually examine the diffs? Arzel (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose In the scale of things Arzel is on the lower key end of the spectrum of people working on political articles. I see some people here who don't have that quality who would probably just like to get rid of Arzel. Further, I have no faith in ANI's on general (alleged) behavioral topics. They are usually dominated by people with grudges or who view them as an opponent to their POV efforts. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. This user has a long history of belligerent behavior. It's high time that Wikipedia takes more seriously the policy on civility; this type of rude aggressive behavior should not be allowed to slide on by. FurrySings (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my comment here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Continued effort to edit war on redirects to the article by user:Arzel

Another issue that continues is an effort to edit war the tragets of redirects to the page. There have been serveral moves of redirects away from Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 by both user:arzel and User:Anonymous209.6. Some examples include

Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy 1 2 3

The same sort of redirect war occurred on Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy, Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy, and Legitimate rape. As such, I set up a conversation on the targets of these redirects at Redirects for discussion. That discussion can be found here.

However, user:arzel has again decided to edit war those redirects. 4.Casprings (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. Do you want to receive the same block that Arzel does? Since you pointed out that Arzel's last blocks were in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring, you've had 2 edit warring blocks in 2012.--v/r - TP 14:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Aside edit wars, moving the target articles of these redirects to Todd Akin or to rape lack any sense. This is the main problem, in my view. Also, here Arzel removed the template for Rfd, a bad action especially as in the relevant discussion there is a strong consensus against this move. Cavarrone 14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I missed that exemption in WP:EW and WP:3RR. Can you point out which one exempts folks to edit war to enforce consensus?--v/r - TP 14:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What?! Are you saying that actually users are allowed to remove Rfd templates (or AfD templates) during an ongoing discussion and to change target articles against the consensus in the Rfd? During the Rfd process noone is allowed to remove Rfd tag or boldly change targets before the discussion is closed. This clearly has nothing to do with WP:EW. Cavarrone 14:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate the WP:3RR and I also tried to discuss this on the talk page. When no one was willing to discuss the issue, I took it to discussions on redirects. That said, rather I deserve a block or not is a matter of evidence presented and the communities opinion of that evidence.Casprings (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed the sentence at WP:3RR that says, " Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring..." The community is not required, only an uninvolved administrator. And as I have never interacted with either of you in any capacity, other than as an administrator with respect to my interactions with Arzel, I see no reason why both of you shouldn't face a block here. Discussion has never been an excuse to continue an edit war. You're supposed to stop reverting and discuss.--v/r - TP 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what edit warring is. I also don't think what I did was "edit warring". I have sought dialogue both at the talk page and on discussions on moves. The consensus is clearly that the target should be the current page. Yes, I did revert. However, there is a revert button on here for some reason. A revert, especially when the user is seeking consensus and does not violate WP:3rr, does not constitute an edit war. That said, it is up to the community to judge my actions, based on evidence.Casprings (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand there that an administrator can block someone. I also understand that you, as an administrator, are simply an editor with a few more privileges. This is an active discussion in the community. I would hope you wouldn't take it upon yourself to block either one of us, without a fuller discussion. If you did, it is certainly something I would take up on appeal of that block.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that, but I'm not going to block. I'm pointing out that you're not the innocent victim here. This is my suggestion to you, next time Arzel appears to be edit warring, stay out of it. Put yourself on a 1RR and report him next time before you war yourself. You'll find more support from me when your not guilty of the same behavior you want him topic banned for.--v/r - TP 15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

One, I did not propose a topic block of any sort. Another editor did that. Two, my great "crime", was bring up his previous blocks, along with other information. This was a cut and paste from a previous conversation concerning the user. I did this only to provide relevant information for another editor.Casprings (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you really want to derail this topic into who said what? Because if we do, I never said you proposed it, I said you wanted it. If that's no longer what you want, undo this edit then.--v/r - TP 16:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The mistake you're making is in thinking I have any attachment to Arzel and am biased in this favor. Clearly, I am not.--v/r - TP 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that would be helpful to the article. You are right, I did support a topic ban and you did not say I proposed it. However, I do find it rather interesting to say that "The argument for a topic ban on Arzel was lost when Casprings had to cite 3 and 5 years old blocks to support his rationale." Again, I was simply providing something for the editor who proposed the topic ban, as I said when I stated "Here is some other information on the subject than" I think you have neglated to consider the evidence on your quick oppose based on a posting of some information.Casprings (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're still diving into irrelevant semantics. But since you insist, you copied and pasted information that another editors posted, yes. Each of us is responsible for the things we post. If you did not contextualize the information in the form of "Someone else said..." then it implies your belief and support for what you've posted. So again, you used 3 and 5 year old blocks to support your rationale for another edit warring block on Arzel despite you having two most recent blocks than his last block.--v/r - TP 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't irrelevant. Words have meaning. No, I did not contextualize the comment as, "Someone else said" "However, where did I say, "He had 3 and 5 year old blocks. He therefore needs a ban." I posted information that was relevant to the conversation and did so without adding any commentary to the information. Please do not put words in my mouth. As far as that issue, an editor should be banned or blocked based on current behavior. By blocks were deserved, but helped me read the policies of Wikipedia and try to modify my behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)

It's implied when you do not contextualize someone else's words that you are speaking them as your own. That's why we invented the quote. "As far as that issue, an editor should be banned or blocked based on current behavior." Again, if you felt this way, then why did you (re)post information about Arzel's 3 and 5 year old blocks? They arn't relevant. You've backed yourself into a corner where your actions do not reflect your words. You took the action to post information from your account, from your keyboard, you hit the submit button with information about Arzel's 3 and 5 year old blocks, but your subsequent words are saying they don't matter? It's a good thing you struck the entire paragraph earlier because you'd be looking pretty foolish right now otherwise.--v/r - TP 16:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it is information that is relevant to the conversation. Providing information isn't a good or bad thing. I don't know how someone will judge his blocks. I agree with the argument that we should focus on current behavior. Another editor might think that one should look at the totality of the information. I don't know. I was just providing something for the reader. As far as striking the paragraph, I did it out of respect for community opinion, when readers (such as yourself) had a problem with it. However, I still see nothing wrong with providing the reader with information.Casprings (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I don't know how someone will judge his blocks." I won't discuss this with you if you intend to be dishonest. You know exactly how you hoped those blocks would be seen. And since I cannot prove your hopes, only your honesty will suffice in this discussion. We can discuss this all day long and you can oppose my point of view on the subject of your dispute with Arzel, but if you cannot remain open and honest then there is no point in even trying to rationalize with you.--v/r - TP 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? I posted information about an editor that was relevant to the discussion. I did not say, "look at this, he therefore should be blocked" I said, you might be interested in this. You are assuming a level of dishonesty that is not there nor do you have the evidence to support. I question your judgement on this and would direct you to WP:goodfaith. An administrator making such wild leaps on the motivations others is troubling to say the least.17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I posted information about an editor that was relevant to the discussion" contradicts "As far as that issue, an editor should be banned or blocked based on current behavior." Good faith only goes so far as someone sticks to one story. So which is it, are 3 and 5 year blocks relevant or should an editor be blocked or banned based on current behavior? Is it "you might be interested in this" or is it "I don't know how someone will judge his blocks." Which is it, Casprings, because you are contradicting yourself.

Let's try this one, do you want to reset, go back, and try again with Arzel and set this topic aside until a later date when your own behavior does not sink to the same levels as Arzel's?--v/r - TP 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No it actually doesn't. Information can be relevant and also not used in a one person's decision making. A cat could be black. That information is relevant to the cat. How a person uses that information in a decision to adopt or not adopt a cat an individual decision. Some may consider it important. While others may not. While I view a piece of information one way, that does not preclude me from providing that information to someone else.Casprings (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What I want is a path towards creating a WP:FA quality article. I do not care how that path happens. I care about content and creating a good article.Casprings (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I do not care how that path happens." The ends justify the means? If someone challenges your article, get them topic banned. It's okay as long as you get an FA out of it. "A cat could be black." No one offered physical characteristic of Azrel. You offered previous admonishment in a discussion about admonishment. If I want to know if Arzel has kids and you tell me he's married, then that's like telling me the cat is black. Not what happened here. The equivalent is me asking if the cat should be shot for attacking my prize chickens and someone comments that the cat has previously attacked animals. Do not downplay the significance of your comment because if it was so insignificant as you are now saying, you'd have never posted it earlier.--v/r - TP 18:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I say that the ends justify the means. I said what my driving force here is, and that is the article. I will work with anyone that is truly interested in improving content, as I have shown in my notifications in the article (will provide diffs, if you want them). As far as your analogy, fine, use that. I would want that information. I am not telling the reader what their course of action should be with the information. But to somehow question my motivation for providing it is troubling. Information is a good thing and if I know of or can provide relevant information to an editor, I will continue to do so.Casprings (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Different words, same meaning. "I will work with anyone that is truly interested in improving content" Of course you will. The problem is that you have appointed yourself judge and jury about whom is "truly interested" and you've decided Arzel clearly is not. Who is to say that Arzel's actions are not improvement? You speak of WP:AGF, live it then. Engage with Arzel with a collegial attitude and see where that gets you.--v/r - TP 18:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a Moderated Discussion of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I proposed this on the talk page, and I think it is still a good idea. I propose that we created a moderated discussion for the remaining disputes on this page. It doesn't seem like these disputes will be resolved, if it is only done through dialogue. I would suggest an uninvolved and experienced editor would be of assistance in finding consensus here and resolving any remaining disputes. This might help in framing the discussion and getting resolution.

Look, I could care less about the editing drama here. This is a hobby in which I have set a goal of getting this article to WP:FA something that this drama has derailed again and again. I would like to get a well written article that is neutral and well written. A moderated discussion may be a means to do that.Casprings (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you wanted a well written NPOV article, you'd embrace those with a differing POV. That's not what you want. You want an article written the way you want it, promoted to FA, and hailed as a authoritative piece to push a worldview. The drama is generated when you see these one-sided efforts as two-sided because you lack the capability to see your own shortcomings. If you want a good article, you'd be better off reaching out to Arzel and getting him on-board to write the article together.--v/r - TP 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For someone not biased and acting in the role of an administrator, why the need to state, "You want an article written the way you want it, promoted to FA, and hailed as a authoritative piece to push a worldview." Why the need to question my WP:Goodfaith? Isn't WP:FA a means to ensure that articles reach the highest level of standards for Wikipedia, thus are in fact WP:NPOV? If I had such bad faith motives as you give me, why push for that? If you read the WP:FA reviews from uninvolved editors, there is general agreement that the article is WP:NPOV. I invite you to read those reviews, here and here.Casprings (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A POV is not the same as bad faith. I'm telling you flat out that everyone has a POV and that well includes you. If you want an article that is WP:NPOV, other than Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, you have an opponent right here who can write for himself if you'd take the opportunity to reach out to him and capitalize on it.--v/r - TP 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No doubt. I would have assumed uninvolved reviews at WP:FA are a good means to judge how well one has lived up to the highest standards of Wikipedia. I am disappointed that you would assume my motivation for taking the article there is to push a worldview. I would have thought all editors should want editors to reach for that standard in all articles. That said, I have no problem with working with user:Arzel in improving the article. However, at this point, the only means for that to happen is in a structured moderated discussion. Or at least that is the only way I see.Casprings (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 POV Pushing

As suggested here, I would start a thread on User:Anonymous209.6 POV pushing in Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 He has a history of disruptive edits. For example, he continues to edit out content on Rep. Smith, even with discussions on the talk page. He has many examples of POV pushing:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - Smith Comment again 8 - Smith Comment again

I am simply going down his edits here. I think he has also shown a clear pattern of edit warring and POV pushing, if one looks at his history on the talk page and working on the article.Casprings (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings is referring to BLP-violation removals of material on KING, under the title SMITH, and mixing in fixes of references, and other fully justified edits by me. Blind mass reverts by Casprings have not been similarly justified. Re: BLP, removal of false material on a BLP page is never considered edit warring, even if it would otherwise violate 3rr (and I have refrained from testing that limit pending objective input from admins which never came), whereas repeated INSERTION of BLP-violating material, a la Casprings, IS in fact edit warring even if it does NOT violate 3rr.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is well sourced material. It is not WP:BLP. Moreover, you aren't willing to even discuss the issue. However, that is not all I am complaining about. I am complaining about a long term effort to push a certain POV in the article and edit it away from WP:NPOV. That is far more than that simple edit.Casprings (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"I am complaining about a long term effort to push a certain POV in the article and edit it away from WP:NPOV." Copy-paste and put Arzel's signature block on it. He'd say exactly the same thing about you. The most dangerous editor on Wikipedia is the one who doesn't recognize their own POV.--v/r - TP 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is one reason why diffs and evidence is important.Casprings (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's easy enough. Click on your own diffs and click the "previous version" button.--v/r - TP 18:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are extensive discussions (without constructive input from Casprings) at the top of the page. Please keep like discussions together. Casprings; you have already been warned about making a shambles of Talk page discussions with rabbit-hole RfCs. Kindly stop trying to fork Talk page discussions, or allege that the only discussion that counts is in what place on the page you think is relevant. Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#POV_tags_for_King_and_Bartlett--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And which editor, besides yourself, thinks your edit is the way to go? I have contributed to that thread and others. Please point out the "warnings" I am violating.Casprings (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Drama-board-it is a severe Wikipedia affliction. Echoing TParis's comments above. Though WP:BOOMERANG is not that far a toss. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Death Threat Made By 202.20.5.122

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

---

User 202.20.5.122 just made a threat on Talk:Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand after a previous edit was reverted by a bot. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad - the bot was simply signing an unsigned comment. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit is here Dusti^*poke* 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds beat me to the block button by mere milliseconds...again.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of... I don't know - but shouldn't that be RevDel'd? Dusti^*poke* 00:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done :). Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Scottie Pippen

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

---

Can I please get some assistance at the Scottie Pippen article? A user insists on restoring a poorly sourced section on a reported assault incident. One of the claims, that Pippen was being questioned for use of a weapon, is simply not mentioned in the article used as a reference: [181]. Also, several sentences in that section are copied verbatim from TMZ, so it's mostly a copyright infringement, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? If you'd like, you can go to 3rd Opinion to get some help. Dusti^*poke* 01:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are BLP issues and copyright issues here. I need more help to prevent those things from coming back into the article. It may be possible to discuss the alleged assault in a policy-compliant manner, but the material being added is far from appropriate. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The user has been warned not to reinsert gossip from TMZ. I think that's all that is necessary.—Kww(talk) 02:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An IP reinserted the material. Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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

173.219.160.230 - nonconstructive edits to Wendy Davis (politician)

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

---

Multiple problematic edits posted from this IP address in the last 15-20 minutes. The subject of the article has met with controversy today, reflected in some contentious editing, but this IP address has been the most problematic. Diffs. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To quote the notices placed on this page regarding ANI discussions that you ignored, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion". Please do so. ★★RetroLord★★ 04:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Dusti^*poke* 04:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Retrolord! When I left this page and refreshed the IP's talk page, I could have sworn that I saw a block notice and I thought the ANI notice was superfluous at that point. I must not have scrolled all the way down and must have been looking at the old block notice. I know that I wouldn't like to be reported anywhere without notice and I can't believe I messed that up. Thank you again for letting me know. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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

More eyes, perhaps, on Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013

Hi all. Apologies for using WP:AN/I as a centralized "Wikipedia Noticeboard for Teh Dramahz", but there are any number of cans of worms being opened up, even as I write. I'm online, please feel free to message me if there is anything particularly egregious that needs admin intervention. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, false alarm. I'm happy to deal with any content disputes about Australian constitutional and parliamentary procedure about this or any other matters, starting with a discussion on the talk pages. In the interim, there is a very important match contested by eighteen men in maroon I'm now at liberty to follow.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive CSD nominations

Today an anonymous editor has been rapid-fire nominating TV personalities for speedy deletion. Most of them do not meet criteria for speedy deletion and the rate of nominations makes it clear that they are not being well considered. I have blocked four related IPs so far for the disruptive behavior. The behavior suggests that this disruption will continue with new IPs, so please keep an eye out and pay closer than normal attention to {{db-a7}} nominations for the near future. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• 75.15.215.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.217.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.218.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.218.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.15.218.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Add 75.15.218.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) to that list. Range is entirely too large to block (75.0.0.0/10), over 4 million addresses. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Where the heck did you get that number? Using the IPs listed above, rangeblock calculator says it should be 75.15.208.0/20 (4096 addresses).—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well how about 75.15.218.00 to 75.15.218.999 for example - is it technically possible? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, IPv4 addresses are 8 bit so it would be 75.15.218.0 to 75.15.218.255 (75.15.218.0/24).—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I got those numbers from doing a WHOIS on 75.15.218.248.

NetRange: 75.0.0.0 - 75.63.255.255

CIDR: 75.0.0.0/10

A smaller range could be blocked, but we are guessing how they rotate their IPs.

Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

He probably is a mobile user (using either a netcard or mobile phone/tablet).  A m i t  ❤  16:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be a very logical conclusion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you used the toolserver WHOIS which doesn't tell much. The rangeblock calculator is the best bet in locking down the range. Even from looking at it, and The Anome's comment below, your estimate was way too large.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's clear they're all limited to the /16 75.15.x.x, and probably just to 75.15.192.0 - 75.15.223.255, which is an even smaller /19 block of 8192 addresses. Any more problems, and I suggest we should do a short rangeblock on 75.15.192.0/19, to see if we can get their attention. Ortherwise, they have a distinct editing style, and we can catch that with the Edit Filter. -- The Anome (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had already given guidance as to blocking 75.15.216.0/21 (4k) on my talk page, but for a few hours. As to how clear it is, I'm not as sure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's split the difference and go with Ryulong's 75.15.208.0/20, see above. -- The Anome (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the /21 doesn't cover that first IP reported.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced this is the best range, reaching back, but I will defer as to the range. I've blocked 75.15.208.0/20 for 12 hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on film infoboxes by 37.117.127.158

This guy is a disruptive editor on film infoboxes, as seen on of the diffs here on Olympus Has Fallen, [right here] in The Equalizer (film), there on Interstellar (film), on there in A Good Day to Die Hard and here in Transcendence (2014 film). There are also other films involves, which includes The Green Mile (film), Man of Steel (film) and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

This user with this IP address has been removing line breaks on the film infoboxes, replacing them with commas and removed links on Box Office Mojo on the infoboxes. His disruptive editing on film infoboxes on various films has been reverted and he won't stop his disruptive editing. It has to ben solved. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor seems to be trying to add wiki links to the names and messing up doing so. Probably he is not even reading his talk page. A m i t  ❤  16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've used the SSOD on his talk page. If that doesn't get his attention, nothing will. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oof. That is one big red sign. Considering where the IP geolocates to shouldn't it say "arresto" :-) Thanks for taking the time make that post. It is appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the biggest stop sign that i have seen in a long time on a website. if the user doesn't understand "stop" then probably he needs to take his activities out of the "english" wiki to elsewhere ;-).  A m i t  ❤  16:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:TParis questioning WP:Goodfaith and possible bias

I am posting this mainly because the user is the administrator and should be held to a higher level of conduct. However, I am troubled by several of the edits by User:TParis both here and here. In edits such as: 1 2

That caused me to post this. These question my WP:goodfaith ,without any demonstration of evidence. I think it is warrant to ask for further examination of his actions, given that he is an administrator. Casprings (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the problem with his edits. He is an admin but that doesn't take away his right to opine. I don't see anything that is a personal attack, or even ad hominem here. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not his conclusions are accurate, but he wasn't disruptive in how we outlined his conclusions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Than perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of attack. I thought calling another editor dishonest would be considered an attack. I also thought stating that "You want an article written the way you want it, promoted to FA, and hailed as a authoritative piece to push a worldview" would be questioning another editors motivation behind their posts. Thus questioning WP:goodfaith. If I am mistaken, so be it. The thread can be closed. Casprings (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  How many ANI threads do you intend to open in 1 day? As many as people who don't agree with you?--v/r - TP 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Why not address what I said, instead of making non-relevant statements on the number of threads.Casprings (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Dennis has already said enough. You have a problem with folks disagreeing with you. You see them as opponents. That's demonstrated by the three threads you've opened today. Nothing I've said to you has been a personal attack. I've pointed out where you've contradicted yourself and said it's evidence of dishonesty. Besides, you're required to discuss this with me on my talk page before opening a thread. Moreover, I've addressed exactly what you've said. That's my entire point, you're talking out both sides of your mouth to try and cover for previous misstatements you've made that you now know were in error. All in all, I don't think you're wrong. As the patrolling admin in the 2012 elections, I saw first hand Arzel's POV pushing. I'm saying you're no better than he as far as edit warring goes. I'm also saying that you, as well as everyone living and breathing, hold a point of view and yours is different than Arzel's. You two should work together. As far as "number of threads," quit opening a number of threads and I wouldnt have to opine as the only uninvolved administrator in those threads. Anything else?--v/r - TP 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • If someone thinks you are misleading them, they can say so. There is a large difference is saying "I won't discuss this with you if you intend to be dishonest." and "You are a fucking liar". WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact, and if someone genuinely thinks you are being dishonest, I'm not likely to sanction them for simply thinking so. Those were heated words, but not a personal attack. Sometimes things get heated, and I loathe when any admin gets involved where he isn't needed, particularly since this is a content dispute, thus he is acting as an editor. We hold him to a high standard of conduct because he has the admin bit, but that doesn't breach it by any means. Admins are human, too, we are allowed to disagree with you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

    It's not only a content dispute. There is edit warring going on and I've suggested that Casprings acknowledge his own warring before it boomerangs and that he go back to the article and try and behave so next time Arzel edit wars, he has a leg to stand on. It was pretty good advice, I thought, instead of blocking both of them.--v/r - TP 18:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• The two of you are having a disagreement; harsh words will sometimes be exchanged, I'm afraid. There's nothing actionable here and TParis doesn't have to adopt some bland inoffensive tone because of being an admin. There's nothing here any other editor would be sanctioned for and nor should TP. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've followed the above thread and participated to a limited degree, and while I can see the concerns TP has, I can also see the concerns Casprings has.

TP would appear to be correct in emphasizing that Casprings is engaging in the same type of behavior he is bringing the complaint about, but does that in turn justify suspending an investigation into the substance of the claimed (and counterclaimed) violations? That would seem to invite a repeat performance.

There would seem to be a number of issues that require attention. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree it doesn't justify suspending anything. However, I don't think Casprings wants to face a block as well as Arzel and so I suggested an alternative that he has failed to realize.--v/r - TP 18:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't you provide some sort of evidence that a block is justified, before continuing to threaten one. There are these things called diffs. One could use them to point out edits I have made to push a POV, for example.Casprings (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Go to all of your diffs and hit the "previous version" and "newer version" buttons.--v/r - TP 18:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: have a cup of tea and stay clear of the drama boards for a while. Starting multiple AN/I threads at the same time etc. is unwise in the best of times. Collect (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U Beyond My Ken

I'm not allowed to do what I think would be the most appropriate thing, create an RFC/U, so I have to post here.

I'm witness and participant of repeated hassle over very little: White space in front of navboxes. The matter itself is of little importance, but it is trigger for some ugly behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken, again and again, most of all baseless accusations of socking every time an IP turns up. Named editors who oppose him are routinely included in the socking allegations.

That recently took a new development when BMK acknowledged that his way of doing things is not the preferred way to achieve these changes. I commented on this with a piece of criticism (because this very fact has been pointed out to him more than once and a long time ago) and a piece of what I think constructive advice (pointing out where he would get the changes he wants). He reacted, predictably, with socking accusations.

What I think is more important is that after he acknowledged the existence of CSS, he made (at least) two further additions of white space. He is well aware that these changes are divisive, and I can't see what good could come out of that, especially at this time.

This has been the topic of at least two bouts in AN:I, and other discussions in other places. Nothing good ever came out of it.

Please consider the matter, and please let BMK know what you think about it.

Note: During AN/Is, IPs are routinely accused of all kinds of evil deeds. Feel free to do that, but please don't forget to address the issue, ie. BMK's divisive behaviour.

Note: Please do not discuss the merits of the additional white space. This has been done more than once elsewhere, always with similar results. An ongoing thread about the merits can be found on WP:MOS/Talk.

Thanks for your time. --91.10.2.76 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)