Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive talk page notices by User:SPECIFICO

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

As noted elsewhere, User:SPECIFICO explicitly has stated he is an Austrian School economist who thinks those connected to the Ludwig von Mises Institute which he sees as a competing economics faction are "hijackers" and "multi-level marketing" schemers. He has made biased edits and reverts on several related articles and his POV is so strong he fails or refuses per IDIDNTHEARTHAT to understand clear explanations of policy. He now has taken to leaving me eight questionable and even baseless Talk page "Notices" over the last two weeks, including three under one header, that look like attempts to disrupt my comments and editing. He is starting to do this as well to User talk:Id4abel who also has problems with his editing on these articles.

• June 15: Edit warring warning regarding this diff at Austrian economist Jesús Huerta de Soto article, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#SOTO.

This was a false accusation of 3rr where I had to explain his own edit warring to him.

• June 20: Three different warning notices at once regarding this diff at an RfC on another topic, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#Section_header.

I did launch into a general soapbox discussion of editing issues, but it obviously was not a personal attack on another editor, one who I was quite unfamiliar with. And I did strike it.

• June 21: Disruptive editing warning regarding this diff at WP:OR Noticeboard, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#OR_noticeboard.

Because I complained about User:SPECIFICO coming to the WP:OR noticeboard to dismiss policy issues and refusing to discuss policy. See the seven section discussion of his WP:OR entries to Huerta de Soto article.

• June 26: Edit warring complaint regarding this diff at Huerta de Soto article, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#Skousen.

My first revert of WP:OR discussed at both Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#More_WP:OR_using_Skousen and Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Removal_of_Barry-related_WP:OR.2FSynth.

• June 27: Edit war warning regarding this diff at Austrian economist Murray Rothbard article, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#Rothbard.

My first revert of new POV controversial material. The article had been protected for two days previously because of my June 2 3rr/Edit Warring complaint about User:SPECIFICO trying to denigrate Rothbard. This time SPECIFICO was removing the fact that Rothbard is an economist from the first sentence, despite four solid refs saying so and despite previous talk page rejection of such a suggestion. This is a prime example of his extreme bias against competing Austrian economists which leads to his disruptive editing.

• June 28: Off topic personal remarks warning regarding this diff at Murray Rothbard RfC, discussed at User_talk:Carolmooredc#June_2013.

After taking my advice to start an RfC on Rothbard as an economist, SPECIFICO objected that I wrote "Sources are what counts on Wikipedia, not editors' personal opinions and WP:OR." (This in reply to his criticizing my RfC support for economist.)

Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note At first glance, there does seem to be some merit as to the unnecessary aggressiveness. I don't have time to dig deep tonight, but hopefully someone will. Bumping because they needs to be addresses and not just archived. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Carolmooredc Addition: Thinking about it, realized the last three talk page notices came after I put a talk page message about Wikihounding on his talk page (corrected at this diff) because he followed me in 30 hours to 4 pages he had not edited before and there either reverted me or left a negative comment. So maybe this became his new mode of harassment. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Editor SPECIFICO seems to be in a habit of handing out Warning with citations to WP policies to any user who has reverted his change as seen here or here or here or here(even this editor warned him for wiki hounding) (and might be many more - as edit history for user talk shows a persistent trend of showering warning to a particular editor for a period of time and then moving on to some one else - depending on who he is having an argument with) -as this usually seems to happen to any editor he might be involved in argument over content - Carol Moore just might be his recent favorite.  A m i t  ❤  17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand this should be read through for the history these two editors have had  A m i t  ❤  18:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: FYI, I do refer to that ANI in my June 27th entry above. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit history shows a campaign to revise articles that touch upon Austrian Economics to push readers toward viewing that school of economics as a crank theory. Supposedly SPECIFICO is an Austrian economist so this whole thing makes little sense. I live in a mostly free country where people are allowed to support most any view they like, and advocate that view to others, but Wikipedia has different goals. The wikihounding that followed has not yet reached epic proportions, but it has grown well into the realm of unacceptable. Using reasonable sounding edit descriptions that conceal the actual actions taken, making a few useful edits to make finding the dishonest ones harder, citing respected sources and half sticking to what the sources actually said, deleting a claim with a valid cited source and attempting to defend the delete with no source whatsoever, and so on. It is masterful gaming of the system. I applaud the intelligence behind the campaign. There is dedication and craftiness that would be one of the biggest assets ever if applied to improving articles rather than used to push unsupported propaganda against a theory onto an unfamiliar population.

My first encounter with this editor was at 20:42 on 8 June 2013 where I replaced uncited and badly slanted text with cited text that better follows the neutrality policy within the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article. I think the second encounter is when the wikihounding began. This is were I think this Wikipedia system has a giant flaw in that it is much easier for an editor dedicated to making the article push one point of view rather than easier for the collaborative effort that Wikipiedia is supposed to encourage.

The first abuse of the edit war warning only resulted in a prolonged argument about how the three revert rule means whatever SPECIFICO says that it means.

The second abuse of the edit war warning had no response from SPECIFICO at all. Abel (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User Abel's analysis of User:Specifico's modus operandi is excellent, though it would take a huge WP:ANI to document it all with diffs. It's just easier to document the most obviously behavioral manifestations.

As we all know, such subtle disruptive/tenditious editing can cause a lot of anger, hurts collaboration and can lead to edit warring. I'm quite burned out after a couple months of it with User:Specifico and barely have the energy to finish off several new or improved sections on articles on other topics that were interrupted when I first noticed this destructive editing pattern on a couple articles I've watched for a few years, as well as related BLPs. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 04:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, supported by my inspection of his editions and my encounters in talk pages with him, he doesn't edit articles about austrianism trying to enhance the material, with definitions, perspectives, and critics in a neutral way. Instead, I believe he destroy the articles when he tries to harm the intelectual reputation of austrian thinkers. He doesn't respect Wikipedia policies about consensus and references in the way to achieve the goal of destroy those reputations, and his way to talk to users is totally wrong, it seems he believes he is an battle field with "enemies" that should be exterminate. I don't know if he is concious of the diference of an hostile schoolar debate and what are the porpouses of Wikipedia talks.--Sageo (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• More evidence to support my point about how this system has an enormous design flaw in that it took SPECIFICO seconds to pepper[1] [2] [3] the article with failed verification, not in citation given, and such tags with completely blank edit summaries yet took me I don't know how long to hunt down and type up exact quotes to show how each and every one of those tags was complete and utter nonsense. Abel (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I should note that this one article alone has more of that type of attack. These three were together and so easier to find. Usually the attacks are performed with far more stealth. Also, this is just one article. Given the number of edits made, there are likely hundreds more to track down and correct. Abel (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• How many boards have you been to about Specifico now? As I recall they all failed to get any response. OR, NPOV, BLP etc Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

June 15th - Notice that you appeared to be edit warring. Edit warring does not require 3rr. You can edit war with less or more reversions. Given that you were repeatedly removing sourced content, this can be considered edit-warring without crossing the 3rr bright line.

June 21st - Given you had already raised this as various places, it could quite easily be seen as disruptive editing. Close to forum shopping.

June 26th - More reversion despite no traction on the OR arguments.

June28th - Given that you have repeatedly tried to get Specifico sanctioned for NPOV, OR, BLP violations at various noticeboards (and failed), your comments could certainly be taken by Specifico as a personal attack on his editing. I read that comment as you accusing him of editing out of his opinion and OR rather than from a source-base.

In short, specifico should not be templating you so much. You should not be dragging him to every noticeboard under the sun when you are in a content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So those were all responses to CarolMooreDC's original dated comments above?Abel (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To User:Only in death: First, of course, you only are summarizing his/her claims all still at User talk:Carolmooredc, not my responses and corrections. Also, note that two editors were against Specifico's addition of WP:OR content unrelated to the subject of the Biography on the talk page but we didn't want to edit war by reverting User:Specifico again. I went to WP:BLPN with the OR issue and no one responded; who knows why. I asked at Editors assistance (my question) if it would be ok to go to WP:ORN since no response. Two longtime editors said yes. So I did. So that is not "dragging him/her to every noticeboard under the sun when you are in a content dispute." And this WP:ANI is a behavioral issue.

Not to ignore your mention of NPOVN - This NPOVN was regarding another editor soapboxing; when Specifico demanded evidence, and since s/he often collaborated with that editor in soapboxing, I provided evidence of them both doing it together and/or in his/her biased soapbox. That was Specifico's disruptive behavior of the month of May. I'm sure after this ANI, whatever the outcome, Specifico will find a new disruptive behavior. The only thing that keeps Specifico from totally destroying BLPs of those s/he detests seems to be taking her/him to various noticeboards. And when there are only two or three editors on an article (and s/he ignores the other two even when they explain policy clearly) that is the standard WP:Dispute measure. (I'd try dispute resolution noticeboard but s/he tends to ignore or mock usual Wiki dispute resolution processes.) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Id4abel has been canvassing like-minded users in order to bring them to this noticeboard thread.[4][5][6][7] — goethean 12:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How is notifying people who are already involved but possibly not aware, regardless of their feelings, canvassing? Canvassing is trying to recruit people to jump on your side. I only asked that they share their experiences to make this report more complete. Abel (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Four points:

1. For CarolMooreDC (and Abel) – just what course of action would you recommend?

• You got me, what options are available? Abel (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

2. I have found SPECIFICO to be extremely reluctant to tone down the various warnings posted. This has been disappointing and frustrating for me because I've pointed out that the warnings were ill-founded.

3. Advice on Abel's user talkpage was posted about the need to be more neutral with ANI notification's. A positive response was made by Abel.

4. With this in mind, the concern about votestacking is not a major one. For myself, I consider myself more of a Wikipedian than "like-minded". – S. Rich (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible course of action: I can see from user contributions s/he is laying low right now, so I don't know if a short block would even phase her/him. I think User:SPECIFICO would take seriously something like a short topic ban, say a month from Austrian economics topics and related BLPs (and any related topics, like libertarian BLPs and topics, should s/he disrupt them). Then s/he might show some respect for Wikipedia processes and for other editors who have an interest in these topics.

Also, Austrian economics/libertarianism/various BLPs involved here are very complicated topics and there are a wide variety of views that different individuals can hold in relation to any of them. Therefore, it should not be assumed that those who are interested in a topic and argue to follow WP policies have some overwhelming bias regarding any topic that is in any way as strong as the explicit negative biases expressed by User:SPECIFICO in user and article talk pages, biases which have led to his/her repeatedly ignoring Wikipedia policies. This false and simplistic allegation has been made by User:SPECIFICO in the past with no real evidence and inferred by one or two others since then. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a topic ban is appropriate. A substantial portion of SPECIFICO's topic edits have been worthwhile. He has more of a problem with editor interaction, which I've seen and described as high-handed at times. Rather, a one-way WP:IBAN would work better, where SPECIFICO could not violate the 4 restrictions described in IBAN. Who would be the beneficiaries of the IBAN? CarolMooreDC and Abel are certainly two candidates. For myself, I would not care to be included (as SPECIFICO may interact with me). If other editors wish to be included as beneficiaries of the IBAN, then (assuming they'd had some difficulties with SPECIFICO), they could say to him "I want your IBAN extended to include me because of ....." – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not dispute that 90% of User:SPECIFICO's edits were more or less within policy guidelines. The problem is the 10% which were very biased and where he refused to follow policy, or listen to other editors in regard to policy, and would ridicule other editors or the subjects of BLPs when he was challenged.

Moreover, User:SPECIFICO's refusal to interact and reply to policy concerns, including ones raised by you (SRich32977) on several articles, has been part of the problem, so it's not the solution. Only after I left the following in a response to one of his alleged edit warring alerts did he quickly respond to four or five outstanding issues raised on article talk pages. At this diff I wrote: Also note per various edits of yours, quoting WP:BRD, "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block." And I've noted several cases on several articles where you have done problematic edits of materials others have reverted without bothering to respond on the talk page. Any IBAN would be just an excuse for User:SPECIFICO to keep doing biased edits and then ignore others complaints and revert them.

It would help if noticeboards were more responsive on complicated/abstruse/non-sexy economics-related issues we need to put before them. (And with BLPs it can be hard to figure out sometimes which noticeboard we should go to first, etc.) User:SPECIFICO has been known sometimes to give in to community opinions which go against him. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 13:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol makes a good point that an IBAN would likely lead to more of the problematic behavior rather than less. Clearly the recent lack of editing after prolific editing is mostly, if not completely, due to this discussion. Which suggests that some type of sanction is needed, and would likely be followed. Which would be a benefit to the entire project. Of course it also shows how a temporary ban of any kind will likely be followed, but not have any permanent impact on behavior. On the issue of duration, "Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site." That seems to suggest any limited ban should at least be a period of no less than a few months. That agrees with the evidence that a quarter or more might actually be seen as meaningful, and so has a chance of making a lasting impact on behavior. The topic ban looks like the most logical option. Abel (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was tossing up commenting on this thread but I'm jumping in for a couple of reasons: 1, Carol's very first diff is from a conversation between myself and SPECIFICO - part of a 3-to-4-way discussion about cleaning up the walled garden that is the collection of Ludwig von Mises Institute-related BLPs. (Which brings me to...) 2, Carol's last point, which I think is the most pertinent one here. The community isn't responsive to threads like this because a few minutes of looking at the history suggests this is all one giant content issue, because there is one giant content issue here. Editor behaviour is distinct from that, and should be dealt with, but it is obviously difficult to separate the two when they are so intertwined. Without any prior knowledge or interest in the subject, I was asked by another editor if I could help clean up a couple of related BLPs. I did (a bit) and then organically progressed to a couple of related BLPs (and they are very much "related"). For notability, many rely almost entirely on "significant coverage" from other institute figures, whose articles in turn rely on coverage from other institute figures, whose articles in turn rely on coverage from other institute figures, and so on. Each is published extensively in blogs and journals and periodicals that are related to the institute because those are the publications most interested in their views. Very few of them would be considered "mainstream". That doesn't mean they aren't notable but many of the issues relate to how their work is responded to by institute colleagues. Should the views of institute colleagues count for more or less than external non-institute responders? Should we allow notability to be established only (or even primarily) by institute-related coverage given many are unquestionably reliable sources with regard to libertarian economic theory. Part of the problem is that the walled garden was established long ago and those responsible have had no desire to clean it up (some of those editors being the subjects of the articles themselves). Editors like SPECIFICO have tried to clean it up (that 90% Carol refers to) but being of a different school of thought there is obviously a motivation for doing so. Such a clean up requires some frank discussion, some hard decisions and some ruthless weed-whacking. The issue is where that weed-whacking becomes editor-whacking. If anything, I would suggest a short topic-ban to give SPECIFICO a chance to calm down and re-find that line between weed-whacking and editor-whacking, though it would seem he has self-imposed a short break as a result of this thread anyway. As for the content, there's probably a good opportunity for interested editors to get together and work on a mini-project/editing drive to clean up economics BLPs (and not just institute-related ones). Stalwart111 06:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Stalwart111's comments. There's no doubt that many of the Mises/Rothbard/Rockwell/etc.-related articles are filled with WP:OR and primary sources by fans (and sometimes detractors). (I watched and tweaked Murray Rothbard for years but never bothered to correct the obvious issues; so many articles, so little time.)

However, when we actually start to beef up articles, there are lots of secondary credible and even notable sources that can be used. The Murray Rothbard lead and Jesus Huerta de Soto's whole article are perfect examples of improved material since SPECIFICO started complaining. But see the talk pages and they are filled with sections with a couple editors arguing with SPECIFICO about her deleting things that might make the individual or group look credible while adding questionable, biased or WP:OR/synth info. When s/he can't stop us from complaining about or modifying or reverting biased or policy-violating edits, or asking for help from other editors per WP:Dispute, s/he resorts to various serial questionable behaviors from soapboxing, to ignoring to templating. S/he needs to chill. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, as he has in all of these NB discussions, has laid low. In this case his behavior is a bit different. Not only is he letting the discussion go along without input, he's not edited anything for the past week. (Unusual for him.) So the "chilling" effect is in force, even without formal action. But what about those additional 90% positive edits that remain for future posting? Would a topic ban (e.g., enforced additional chilling) end up in a permanent retirement from WP? (I hope not.) But a topic ban, of whatever length, would not address the 10% problem, which is his interaction with other editors and POV. So, I will again argue for the IBAN. Specifico would not be able to post 3RR or OR or any other warnings. Specifico would not be able to castigate or admonish or correct or criticize other editors. His talk page comments, which should be focused on article improvement, would be tempered by the requirement to consider and heed IBAN restrictions. Any proposed controversial changes to articles would have to be resolved through other methods. An IBAN would be effective in achieving the goal of article improvement, which a topic ban cannot do. All Specifico has to do at this point is post a notice here that says "I agree to an IBAN with editors X, Y, and Z." Then we can close this and see if the results match my predictions. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The 10% is the POV, WP:OR, edits or reverts he does that need discussion. If you want to talk about what percent of his talk page/noticeboard behavior is soapbox, mocking, irrelevant, non-constructive (or just ignoring people and threatening to take to edit warring if they revert him because he's ignored them), etc. you are talking 66% of his edits. So unless this means he cannot complain when we revert his problematic edits (or revert our reverts) - this makes no sense to me. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the 4 restrictions that IBAN entails. He would not be able to make threats, mocking comments, NB postings, etc about you or other specific editors. The fourth restriction addresses your concerns about reverts. IOW, if he did not like an edit that you made, he'd have to post the reason on the article talk page and justify a desired change (without referring to you as an editor.) Then you (or someone else) could make the change to your edit. – S. Rich (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IBAN#Interaction_ban: I should have read down to #4. Gave up too soon. Too good to be true! CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect to both Carol and SRich, I really don't think an IBAN is the right solution for this particular problem and I'm questioning the wisdom even of a topic ban. These are long-term content issues that can really only be resolved by a group of editors working together. As Carol quite rightly points out, "so many articles, so little time". There is obviously a clean up effort underway, though still among a small group of "expert" editors. Banning one of those editors from interacting with some of the others is counter-productive, I think, especially when his remaining interaction/collaboration options will be limited to only those who agree with his world view. It creates an "us-and-them" mentality. I think he's frustrated by Wikipedia's long-term acceptance of questionable content in this particular area and then frustrated again when some of his enthusiastic efforts to clean it up have been delayed/questioned/opposed. He's taking that frustration out the editors themselves - "you haven't cared about cleaning this up for the 5 years it has been here, why are you opposing my clean up efforts now?" I think there is agreement from other editors that SPECIFICO's behaviour was unacceptable. I think there is tacit agreement even from SPECIFICO himself (given his self-imposed wikibreak). If it continues, I think there would be strong community support for sanctions to prevent further disruption. But I think anything now would be a punishment rather than damage-prevention. I've had positive, collegial interactions with almost everyone involved here so I know each person is capable of moving forward from this in a manner that lets bygones be bygones. I also think there's some value in everyone having a read of WP:DTR. Everyone involved is perfectly capable of crafting a well-written line or two and really nobody here should be using templates to "talk" to each other. New rule: if you add a template to another user's talk page about an economics BLP, it had better be a barnstar! Ha ha. Stalwart111 03:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich has won me over to the permanent IBAN idea. Not an ideal solution, but probably the best solution available. Abel (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely the "best solution available" is to accept that Carol's well-explained post and your subsequent endorsement of it have together had the desired effect of prompting a wikibreak and a re-think? You'll not likely get community agreement for the implementation of, "not an ideal solution". Sanctions are for stopping disruption. The disruption has stopped. Anything beyond that is punishment, which is not what bans/blocks are about. Stalwart111 10:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

One-way interaction bans do not work, and have never worked. They are unfair in that almost always it takes two to cause an issue. Also IBANS are for problematic editor conduct towards other editors. Not for good faith content disputes. An IBAN would impact just as strongly on Abel or CMDC. You have issues over content, deal with it on the talk pages. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The only reason the disruption stopped was the pending ban or block. Choosing no ban or block would put us all right back to disruption, making all this effort a pointless exercise in futility. Abel (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I did remain skeptical of IBAN despite my comments. RE:User:Stalwart111, obviously one reason an admin hasn't dealt with it by now is User:SPECIFICO's (probably temporary) disappearance. Hopefully later s/he will not claim that there was "no problem" and it was a "frivolous complaint" and start with some new disruptive pattern. Coming here with a new complaint now hopefully would be taken more seriously.

I just wish someone would look at and comment constructively Wikipedia:ORN#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, an aggravating dispute in all this. Even Specifico admitted s/he would not like it if I went around to his favorite economists' articles and added WP:OR mentions of Friedrich Hayek's views that contradict some point made by the economist; i.e., material from a source that makes no mention at all of the economist in question. (per WP:OR we only use "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"...) We really have to start beefing up community input with some sexy/exciting new program to get more former, experienced editors back. Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Abel - there was no "pending ban or block". Bringing an editor here is no guarantee that a ban or block will be applied. There was a request for action which was effectively ignored by the wider community (as Carol pointed out above) not because it is without merit but because it is more complicated and there are obvious content issues involved.
• @Carol - I have little doubt that any subsequent meritorious complaint would result in action. If he feels this complaint was frivolous, he should have said as much and he had the chance to do so. Instead, he took a breather and self-imposed a wiki-break. I don't think he could now come back and claim otherwise and I, for one, would be back here calling for sanctions if he did.

On content - I'll have a look at your ORN post (for whatever little I could add) but part of the problem is that many of the articles I helped to clean up suffered from the same problem, but the other way around. In many cases BLPs included claims like x supported y and the citation was y's blog or journal article suggesting that the correlation between x's view and y's written work was self-evident, even though y's written work mentioned x not at all. Pure synthetic OR. Given that lax "standard", I think it is difficult for some editors to now accept that the same should not be done when talking about criticism or disagreement - ie. x opposes z, y supports z, therefore x opposes y, all cited to z's written work. Also OR. The other issue is with some of those "former, experienced editors" given many had obvious conflicts of interest. We don't want them back editing their own articles - that's how we ended up with the walled garden in the first place.

• I'm not out to have the last word on this but I really don't think we're going to get anything productive done by hanging out here for sanctions that aren't going to be imposed or by thinking that ANI can help resolve content issues. Can I suggest we allow an admin to close this and that we all get back to productive editing? Stalwart111 00:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I finally realized there actually is an essay called Wikipedia:Walled garden. Editor's laziness or lack of expertise in finding unrelated and outside sources should not be read as meaning no other solid WP:RS write about the topic. And it's particularly annoying when one brings in a good WP:RS from academic scholars and editor(s) who yell "Walled garden" try to remove them as not notable enough! (Not to mention removing good sources that actually compare Friedman and the economist in question.) Hopefully won't be a future problem... sigh... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A pending ban or block need not be inevitable, hence pending. The final results of this discussion could go any number of ways. You clearly favor doing nothing and hoping that an editor with an identified problem will mysteriously end that problem after experiencing no reprimand whatsoever. While that is certainly one possible outcome, I find it extremely unlikely. An outcome of zero reprimand sends a very strong and clear signal that the disruptive behavior will only bother a few editors that all-in-all no one really cares about, and so the disruptions can freely continue. Why would any rational person worry about a second incident when the first incident resulted in not even a slap on the wrist? They would not worry and should not worry. Sure the disruptive behavior was discussed. Some people mentioned a possible ban or block. With no sanction of any kind resulting from the identified disruptive behavior, the project obviously does not have any real plans to enforce any kind of punishment. Incentives matter. Doing nothing provides a powerful incentive. I prefer some type of action other than nothing. The sanction could be small, like S. Rich's proposed IBAN, but the sanction must exist in some form to avoid condoning the identified disruptive behavior. Abel (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't reprimand, punish, slap on the wrist or ban to make a point, we prevent disruption. What disruption are you seeking to stop that hasn't already stopped? The disruption can't "continue" because it has stopped. It would have to "restart" which would then be considered obviously disruptive. By taking a step back he has acknowledged he has done wrong. Even if he hasn't, we have collectively agreed to interpret his actions that way and he hasn't sought to "correct" that. The idea is that we give him WP:ROPE - if he now chooses to hang himself with it, so be it. Stalwart111 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I’ve taken a look at this thread and I have a few thoughts:

The overriding problem on these articles is the dogged campaign of battleground and ad hominem which carolmooredc has pursued. This is manifest in various behaviors, among them, 1) a persistent strain of hostile personal remarks about other editors in her edit summary, article talk and noticeboard postings where the valid purposes of WP would be fully served by statements confined to WP content and policy. 2) A string of noticeboard postings that appear to be motivated either by personal animosity or her unwillingness to engage with those who disagree with her preferences regarding content. 3) A pattern of unsubstantiated statements and out-of-context or half-truth assertions on talk and noticeboard pages on which she is seeking validation for her views. (I am not saying these are intentional deceptions, but their effect is to confuse and derail the process on talk and noticeboard pages.)

All in, carolmooredc’s behavior is disruptive. She’s been told that on many, many occasions. Some recent examples:

• Here, she brought an ANI against me for using allegedly improper wording on various project pages to solicit comment on an RfC. After discussion by numerous editors, it was discovered that carolmooredc had posted wording substantially the same as my own on another project page. The issue boiled down not to what I had written but the fact that it had been I who wrote it.

[8] [9] [10]

• Here, with no prior warning, she brought another unfounded ANI against me:

[11]

• There are many more instances of her disruptive editing and personal attacks. Any reader who wishes to find them can do so on the noticeboard talk page and edit summary archives. Her messages are full of gratuitous ad hominems and other hostile remarks.

[12]

She’s been warned over and over about her disruptive behavior, for example: [13] [14]

With respect to the talk page templates referenced in this complaint: Each of them was preceded by my clear statement of the content and policy issues on the article pages. In each case, I posted the templates after the editors declined to respond to those statements. That is not apparent from the tone and content of OP’s complaint. Even if carolmooredc feels that 8 talk page templates were “baseless,” how does that stack up against the same number of noticeboards initiated by her, several of which resulted in her being rebuked for having brought them? She does not seem to get the message when others warn her about this behavior but I think it would be constructive for many articles if she would focus much more on content, and much less on editors, in her editing activity.
SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart111, well put, thank you. Now I think I see how this is supposed to work. Doing nothing is not condoning. This is meant to be a notice that the behavior is now identified as disruptive. The editor is free to continue the disruptive behavior and face whatever comes with that, or change the behavior and happily ever after. Abel (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope editors will ignore User:SPECIFICOs exaggerated comments which are not supported by diffs. Regarding the actual diffs:

• After WP:DRN said cavassing was a behavior issue, I brought an ANI vs. SPECIFICO for doing 10 Wikiproject announcements which I thought at the time was totally out of proportion; as it happens others said that was too many. Live and learn. The closing admin did agree it was a "bit much." (I don't know what happened to the closing box; it's not in the archive.)
• Yes, I did a 3rr, after a brief notice; but SPECIFICO was busy removing so much generally positive info about Rothbard in a pattern of negative editing I'd see on other articles it seemed necessary; and the article was protected for two days because the admin did see that there was problematic editing going on.
• Actually the Talk libertarianism diff was a humorous one in the context of a group of disputing "radical" editors who would get the political point. But not relevant to our dispute.
• Re: the two diffs to User:SRich's comments. SRich comments constantly on other editor's alleged bad behavior, collapsing sections, removing comments, putting notices on user talk pages, etc. Sometimes he's right, other times he's being hypersensitive. But since he's good on editing policy issues, I cut him some slack. I don't see what he was commenting on but I have had to remind him a few times that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors recommends we publiclly comment on biased editing. Since article talk pages are the first place to bring up issues under WP:Dispute, that's where I did so.

Obviously I have lost patience with User:SPECIFICO's biased editing. However, if I really was edit warring and those notices were legit I should have been taken to the appropriate noticeboard(s) long ago. The text of every notice and my responses are linked above and/or remain on my talk page. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 15:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I’ll respond to carolmooredc’s concern by giving two more examples, with diffs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=561365894&oldid=561295338

carolmoore states she opposes user:Steeletrap’s edit due to the fact that it was Steeletrap who made the edit. carolmoore subsequently undid Steeletrap’s edit without further discussion or resolution of the matter on talk or elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&diff=561365157&oldid=561310951 carolmooredc’s derogation of user:Steeletrap and myself as “colleagues” and as “academics” is a persistent refrain.
There is no relationship between us. Per user pages: I am a businessperson. Steeletrap is a student.

• From this ANI: carolmooredc supports her condemnation of me writing: “Even Specifico admitted s/he would not like it if I went around to his favorite economists' articles and added WP:OR mentions of Friedrich Hayek's views that contradict some point made by the economist” [15] In fact I did not state or (nice word) “admit” that. She provides no diff and there is no such diff on WP. This kind of misstatement, (again I do not know or assert that it is intentional) is very damaging to the editing and dispute resolution processes here.

I stopped editing the Hoppe article due to carolmooredc’s harassment there. I also stopped editing Rothbard for an extended period but recently returned, erroneously thinking her behavior might not recur. Meanwhile, editor Steeletrap, who experienced these same behaviors from carolmooredc on a number of articles, appears to have left WP permanently. Any editor who is interested in looking at carolmooredc's tone in talk page, edit summary, and noticeboard comments will note that her statements habitually include gratuitous statements about editors and personalities instead of article text and policy.
SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, User:SPECIFICO is blame shifting and focusing on me and others, rather than dealing with his/her specific incidents/behaviors listed at the top of this ANI. To reply: Re: this diff I provided ample evidence of the distain User:Steeletrap has for the subject of that BLP at this NPOVN. S/he doesn't try to dispute this in the relevant talk page section, does s/he? As for what I say SPECIFICO admitted, yes, I should have provided a diff. Saying he admitted actually was an overly generous interpretation of SPECIFICO saying "No" as his last entry in this talk page discussion. As you can see, he didn't bother to reply to my more important policy point regarding WP:OR. Thus I later removed the WP:OR in question. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that a frank discussion of our difficulties can be a constructive part of the ANI resolution process, per WP:BOOMERANG SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Some comments on Abel’s remarks.

The first paragraph of Abels initial statement does not warrant a reply. It’s unsupported opinion and undefined accusations. Moving on,

1. Abel cites an edit of hers on the Hoppe article, 20:42 on 8 June 2013 [16]. The text Abel replaced was not written by me. I stopped editing Hoppe on May 24, Two weeks prior to Abel’s first edit of that article. I ask Abel either to explain the connection the inference he expects us to draw from his statement or to strike it through and retract it.

[Insert: text] Have never had a sex change. Have no plans to do so. Maybe one day I'll change my mind about that, but until I do, calling me a girl is inaccurate and not polite. Think SPECIFICO is right about Hoppe article. That interaction was actually from an anonymous editor who uses the exact same techniques as SPECIFICO, and while SPECIFICO has had plenty to say about that article, the edit that I was thinking was SPECIFICO's work could have been anyone. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: text] Second time that I was called a girl by SPECIFICO. Seriously, this childish nonsense isn't helping you. Abel (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: text] So after twice calling me a girl, SPECIFICO is now calling me a sexist. Abel (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Abel says I began WP:HOUND him on June 21 at the Austrian school article. That’s an article I have been working on continuously and frequently for the past 9 months. Abel’s edits on that article are 2 edits in Feb. 2012 and 2 edits in June 2013. Abel, please review the policy statement that describes wikihounding and reconsider your statement that I hounded you at Austrian School. In the talk page comment Abel links at Austrian School, he complains that I reverted some text with a terse edit summary “removing unsourced content.” The text I reverted was in two parts, first an uncited and erroneous statement that the earliest group of Austrian economists included two later figures, Mises and Rothbard. The second part was Abel’s re-write of some text that had long been in the lede after extensive and detailed discussion on the article talk pages. Abel’s version, aside from not being supported by the cited reference, was poorly written and added a weasel reference to econometrics and some other very unclear text. My edit summary was terse but accurate and if Abel had posted a talk inquiry with anything less hostile than this out-of-the-blue personal attack on (me) [17] an editor he’d never previously encountered, the process might have gone perfectly smoothly. Instead, with some encouragement and ad hominem from carolmooredc, he posted an additional personal attack on me: [18] Another editor admonished Abel on his talk page and removed the second personal attack, [19], but Abel undid the removal and reinserted his personal attack on me at the article talk page and posted one more on Srich’s talk page. This is hard for me to understand. We’d never previously crossed paths and she has a detailed conspiracy theory to present.

[Insert: text] The hounding followed those edits, not a part of those edits. You followed me to another article that you had no interest in until I edited the Austrian School. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

3. Forgive me, I had planned to write about the rest of Abel’s complaint but I think that to do so would needlessly aggravate the discussion at this point. It is disappointing and troubling however that, after Srich had mentored Abel concerning his personal attacks on me, Abel then makes personal attacks in this noticeboard discussion. For the moment I am less optimistic than Srich that Abel has understood Srich’s remarks about good faith and civility. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: text] So "would needlessly aggravate the discussion" is the same thing as "can't think up any nonsense that would sound plausible to someone who already agrees with me much less anyone else." I do like the cheap shot where you leave out that I discussed the personal attack claim with S. Rich and S. Rich agreed that his personal attack claim did not hold up. The only claim anyone had left against me was not assuming good faith. Ironically, this discussion has shown a complete lack of good faith, hence I did not need assumptions. The evidence that I considered to be obvious now has a plethora of support right here in this report. Abel (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As before, I submit that an WP:IBAN is a viable solution for these editors. I suggested a one-way IBAN because SPECIFICO had not commented on this ANI. Now that he has, and reinforced the idea that this dispute is about the interaction between editors, I suggest the IBAN be two-three way. Give it a 30 day test run. Enforce it with blocks if an editor violates it. Editors should consider the wise words of WP:ANI Advice. To be truly courageous, mutually volunteer for the IBAN! Then we can post {{resolved}} at the top of this "discussion" and be done with the drama. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I'm at a loss to understand why my silence would prompt you to propose a unilateral sanction against me. However, what's relevant at this point is that we should try to reach some common understanding of the problem before we moot various potential solutions. In short, I think you're jumping the gun here and we should let this discussion unfold according to the facts on the ground, so to speak. I would have remained silent were it not for several statements which seemed to indicate that some editors were taking my silence as an acknowledgement of the allegations presented here by carolmooredc and Abel. In fact, as you've noted before I have purposely avoided contentious noticeboard threads in the past and will do so in the future where silence is not seized on as an endorsement of various flawed accusations and misstatements. Anyway, first let's sort out the problem, then figure out the solution. There is some progress being made via the Hoppe, Rothbard, and Soto RfC and ORN threads, so it's all good. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, the ANI was focused on you, so I did not want to (and really could not) suggest a mutual IBAN without evidence – and doing so would have prompted more drama. (Moreover, I was not going to carry your water in this regard.) Consider, if the discussion had reached a conclusion during the week before you spoke up, then whatever sanction decided upon would be effective as to you. At that point, you could have brought up your points, in a new discussion, and argued for a mutual IBAN or relaxation of the uni-IBAN. (All you would have to do is say "I was out on a camping trip and didn't know the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor.") This particular ANI, in comparison to the other NB discussions, has more umpf to it, and I had expected a response from you. My suggestion was more geared towards getting a response. And now that you have responded, it reinforces my contention that this is an editor interaction problem. (Rember, I had suggested the IBAN for everyone in the past.) As you state above, there are a variety of accusations and misstatements. The accusations and misstatements are what have prompted this drama. Terse comments have not helped allay the tension. It is time for everyone to layoff from comments about each other and their particular edits. An IBAN, even if temporary, is the only way to go. – S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO: I think I stated the problem as I perceive it clearly in the first couple sentences of this ANI:

As noted elsewhere, User:SPECIFICO explicitly has stated he is an Austrian School economist who thinks those connected to the Ludwig von Mises Institute which he sees as a competing economics faction are "hijackers" and "multi-level marketing" schemers. He has made biased edits and reverts on several related articles and his POV is so strong he fails or refuses per IDIDNTHEARTHAT to understand clear explanations of policy.

You are under the impression other editors' POV is as strong as yours and that their opposition to your edits comes only because they have some "fringy" POV as opposed to your allegedly mainstream one. (Not that you can quote much evidence of that from Wikipedia postings in the case of the editors who have commented here.) You don't understand that long-term editors, no matter what their POV, develop a dedication to policy for more reasons than I can detail here. Hang around a few more years and maybe you will get that. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽

carolmooredc, your statement above this is entirely ad hominem and includes several of your personal speculations and inferences as to my beliefs and motivations. Please consider. Could you state your concern in a way that refers solely and specifically to editor behavior, which is the subject of the current ANI? I think it will be help focus and advance this discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 7 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors recommends bringing POV concerns to noticeboards as part of behavior, as I did earlier in greater detail at this NPOVN. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 21:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The harassment continues even now

• Yes, I screwed up the notice/question here but does that mean I have to endure intrusive comment after comment as I try to correct it? (just continue through the diffs to see them.) I just scratched the question because under that pressure it was hard to focus on what the general question that I was trying to direct only to the policy talk page was.
• Yes, User Abel screwed up the [Insert] format but SPECIFICO had to comment and criticize here and then comment and criticize in another thread on another topic here. S/he doesn't realize sometimes it's better to just let people screw up on talk pages rather than nitpick and harass them. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it is all just sad attempts to avoid responsibility. Which leads me to, even more, see the value in Stalwart111's argument for largely doing nothing now, and just wait an see if the behavior continues or stops. Also, thank you to Carol for telling me about the [Insert] format, didn't know that was even a thing until you mentioned it. Abel (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Dismissal as WP:Battleground. This ANI is a straightforward case of WP:Battleground. As SPECIFICO's numerous diffs posted above indicate, and I (or the talk page of any article where SPECIFICO and Carol are both aactive) can attest to, Carol's criticisms of SPECIFICO's edits are centered around personal attacks. The only references to content issues she makes in these criticisms are vague, unspecified charges rather than substantive citations of policy. For instance, on the talk page of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Carol repeatedly asserts the term "BLP" but virtually never details specific BLP policies that are violated, instead focusing on how SPECIFICO or myself are out to defame people when she disapproves of edits we make to Hoppe's entries). This ANI is about a personal grudge, and therefore should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That WP:Battleground claim, which might be totally accurate for the interaction between Carolmooredc and SPECIFICO, completely ignores every diff I cited showing disruptive editing. There are many. Abel (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Given this comment elsewhere by User:Stalwart111: "The Mises/Austrian stuff has been going on for years but has been particularly nasty over the last 6 months or so. You are witness to the latest battle in a long-running war (I'm not sure whether you've experienced any of the history). Editors have been topic banned, indef'd, etc. and the POV has proven to go both ways. The benefit of the "walled garden" I've mentioned is that most of the conflict has happened behind those walls. But bringing it to ANI means more attention. Maybe that's a good thing for WP as a whole, but I don't think it would be pleasant for those involved." It seems to me that I can no longer waste my time on any contentious articles - especially BLPs where I get most annoyed - since blatant POV pushing is dismissed even when several editors complain. I much better spend my time on personal writings and political activism than on trying to make Wikipedia editors abide by NPOV regarding people/views they despise, be it Palestinians/Critics of Israel/Austrian economists of one narrow school/libertarianism/libertarianism that's too capitalist or too socialist/Sexually abused women falsely accused of murder, etc. So feel free to trash away, I won't be watching those pages any more. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries

Dear Administrators,

When Wikipedia changed its rules to allow an individual to edit content about him or herself, I finally allowed a friend, a professional technical writer, Robyn42, to contribute content to Wikipedia based on my career as a gallerist, an author, and a member of New York's professional theater community. Recently another contributor, Chicago57th, has also contributed content about me with my approval.

Suddenly a man identified as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz embarked on a strange (the kindest adjective I can use) campaign against me and my gallery, unilaterally deleting wholesale from Wikipedia content that mentions my name or my gallery. Further, of his many deletions Mr. Wolfowitz did not present even one for discussion within the Wikipedia community. Instead, Mr. Wolfowitz sought to justify his behavior not by offering good reasons that stand up to scrutiny but, instead, resorting to spurious attacks on my character and conduct.

In the article on Joel-Peter Witkin, Mr. Wolfowitz deleted my gallery’s exhibition for Witkin, saying that the text was “unsourced” and “promotional.”[20] As anyone can see, the "Chronology" section of Joel-Peter Witkin's article contains more than 100 similar listings for exhibitions of Witkin’s work. [21] Fewer than 10 of those exhibitions are sourced. Surely, each listing is equally “promotional” in mentioning the venue for the exhibition cited. What is the rationale for deleting only one, the exhibition at my gallery? If Mr. Wolfowitz were to delete each of the similarly unsourced exhibitions from this section, Joel-Peter Witkin would be left with fewer than 10 exhibitions, not the 100 exhibitions that remain in "Chronology" now.

In the article on Raphael Soyer, Mr. Wolfowitz again deleted my gallery from a list of galleries and museums where Soyer exhibited. [22] Mr. Wolfowitz also deleted my gallery’s highly-regarded, scholarly catalogue, “Raphael Soyer: Looking Over the Artist’s Shoulder.” [23] My gallery’s Soyer catalogue is in the collections of museums, libraries, and galleries all over the world. Yet Mr. Wolfowitz deleted it, saying (amazingly) that it was “off-topic.”

In the article on Kurt Vonnegut, Mr. Wolfowitz deleted Vonnegut’s exhibition at my gallery in the section “Art Career.” Our first contribution was a single sentence: “He exhibited at the Margo Feiden Galleries Ltd. in New York." Mr. Wolfowitz deleted this material, saying it was “unsourced” and “promotional." [24] We put it back, sourcing it with two university library archives that include the material. Mr. Wolfowitz again deleted our contribution saying that it was “spammery” and objecting to the library archives as sources. [25] We again posted our contribution, this time with additional material sourced with three newspapers. Mr. Wolfowitz deleted that as well. [26] Had all this behavior been a good-faith effort on Mr. Wolfowitz’s part, he could have used the Talk page to ask for even more than our five sources. The fact is that Vonnegut was represented by my gallery, which curated his art and gave him a one-man exhibition in 1980. Mr. Wolfowitz’s repeated deletion of this well-sourced exhibition makes it clear that his concerns are not as he states them to be. It is also clear that he is not concerned with the opinions of the Wikipedia community but is determined to delete my name and any reference to my gallery for reasons best known to himself.

In the article on the film The Misfits, Mr. Wolfowitz deleted the depiction of the film’s actors discussing the script with playwright Arthur Miller. [27] This "backstage moment" was drawn by the artist Al Hirschfeld. The production aspect of this film is a significant topic in American film history, and this image serves the article by being the unique visual documentation of it.

In another article, Mr. Wolfowitiz again deleted an Al Hirschfeld image and the accompanying text—this time for the celebrated canine actor Skippy. Mr. Wolfowitz described our content as “particularly outlandish promotional editing.” [28] However, this is a case where the subject’s portrayal by Al Hirschfeld, the chronicler of twentieth-century performing arts, truly contributes something substantial about the fame achieved by the article's subject, a dog. If Skippy, a dog, deserves his own article, should not that article include Skippy's rare distinction among animal actors of being portrayed by Al Hirschfeld? Doesn’t such a rare distinction at the very least merit discussion before the content is deleted?

Mr. Wolfowitz applied the same heavy hand in his deletion of Hirschfeld images, this time from the article on actress Dolly Haas. [29] Dolly Haas was married to Al Hirschfeld for 50 years. Two of the drawings Mr. Wolfowitz deleted served the article by documenting Haas’ American stage career, a topic that had been completely absent before we made our contribution.

Now to Valerie Solanas, where Mr. Wolfowitz has displayed a particular animus against me in his edits and comments. To begin with, he deleted the widely-published accounts of my meeting with Valerie Solanas on the day she shot Andy Warhol. [30] Once more, Mr. Wolfowitz made these deletions without any discussion on the matter. In point of fact, when another editor attempted to revert Mr. Wolfowitz’s edit and initiate a discussion within the Wikipedia community, Mr. Wolfowitz went into the article and deleted our contribution again, before the discussion had run its course. [31] What Mr. Wolfowitz called a “self-sourced account” was in fact sourced with three major articles and interviews: The New York Times, Interview Magazine, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The controversy is there for you to read in all its detail on the Talk Page Talk:Valerie Solanas.

In summation, one test of Mr. Wolfowitz’s behavior is this: what if every editor behaved as he did—deleting contributions without discussion, removing important exhibitions and catalogues of artists’ work, again without discussion, and removing objectively sourced and documented accounts with the claim that they are “self-sourced?” In short, if everybody behaved as Mr. Wolfowitz did, Wikipedia could not function at all. I will also add that Mr. Wolfowitz used inappropriate language throughout.

These are but a few examples of Mr. Wolfowitz’s behavior, by which he has gone through Wikipedia deleting my name and that of my gallery over and over and over again, almost everywhere that they appeared. In light of this pattern of behavior by which Mr. Wolfowitz is attempting to erase me, I am requesting that he be blocked from editing material relating to me or to my work.

Respectfully, Margo Feiden Factor-ies (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and notified Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) regarding this discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Factor-ies (talk · contribs) followed shortly after: [32]. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have not reviewed any of the content, and so I am making no comment on it. My general opinion: this is one example of why no one should edit articles about themselves or their corporations, or add/delete material about their activities or their corporations' activities in any articles (Snowden and the Booz Allen editors are a recent example). If a person's information is notable enough to be included, a third party will likely add it, and that's the way it should be. Taroaldo ✉ 07:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Granted, I have not looked thoroughly into Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edits mentioned here, but so far, I am not seeing any problem with HW's edits. Unsourced edits are being added to these articles and HW is merely removing them. I suggest to the OP that if they want to add content to these articles, they should source these edits to third-party reliable sources. The fact that there is other content that is not properly sourced is not a reason to add more unsourced content. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please extend every courtesy to another scion of the Wolfowitz clan. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure Wikipedia ever specifically "allowed" someone to edit articles about themselves - even Jimbo's phrase was that they should only ever propose changes on the article talkpage. I usually go so far as to say that they can remove WP:BLP-infringing content if it's not properly sourced. Major changes should, ethically, never be done by the subject - period. No comment on HW's specific actions here, yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• There's a lot to digest here, but after a broad overview I'd say Wolfowitz acted appropriately and even commendably. Our policies relating to conflict-of-interest editing are, to be fair, somewhat complex. The reason it isn't utterly prohibited is because article subjects need the right to remove false information about themselves from articles. Also, some very broad types of COI are almost impossible to avoid: if neither believers or non-believers could edite articles on religion, there wouldn't be many editors left. Beyond that though, most other COI editing, and in particular spam and self-promotion, IS prohibited. To quote WP:COI, "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• First, WP does allow people to edit articles about themselves and their interests, whether avocational or commercial. It very strongly and rightly recommends otherwise in the case of a strong commercial connection, but there has never been consensus to prohibit; although Jimbo is indeed one of those who advocates prohibition, he is not dictator, and his opinion should not be quoted as policy. I have looked at some of the edits. I'm pretty drastic myself at removing promotional links & mentions , but at least some of the items mentioned seem to at least need explanation: (1) For the Witkin show, I do not see the basis of rejecting this particular one, and I do not think it would have been removed had another editor added it. (2) The Vonnegut material was indeed documented from the first. The published Lily Library and University of Delaware archives descriptions are appropriate sources for plain description. In the past, many such descriptions were unpublished and cryptic, but the availability on the web has made these widely available (and used in WP), However (3) For the Soyer catalog, I do not see it in WorldCat. (4)For the Hirschfeld drawings, they were added as NFCC,and the criteria for their relevance is rather strict (in my opinion, stricter than it should be but that's another matter) Hirschfeld made a great many drawings, and illustrated large parts of the cultural world of his period in ways that add a justly famous degree of understanding, so the decision of which ones to add is exactly the sort of thing that is most subject to COI and is best done by a uninvolved editor. I note that the captions for them included, unnecessarily, the name of the gallery--including that is a very clear indication of promotional use, and would certainly lead any unbiased person to be exceedingly skeptical about their insertion. This illustrates the problem: a promotional editor may make good judgement, or not,and must be judged by the results. Had MF used better judgement in writing the captions, and judging what images to include, the effort would have been more successful.

DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see where the reporting party tried to work this out with HW before coming here. I would also note that COI editing is not against policy, no matter how unwise it is. Each edit is supposed to be based on its own merits. I suggest closing and taking any concerns to the actual editor on the article talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is strongly discouraged for very good reasons. The number of reasonable COI editors I've encountered I can probably count on one hand. Most are blatant COIs and end up getting blocked, or everything they do is reverted because it does not fit within the scope of the project. Taroaldo ✉ 20:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. There is such a thing as a COI editor who makes positive contributions, but far more often they try to sell something, push an agenda, or just "get their name out there". The current case appears to be a mixture of all three. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo raised this at ANI a month ago [33].
• I agree with you, DGG. Many good editors edit about their avocational interests. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dear A Quest For Knowledge: Thank you for your comments on this, and your even-handed approach. Speaking to the subject of sourcing, of course it is very important. However, Mr. Wolfowitz was not consistent in his treatment of what he terms “unsourced” material. If being unsourced is sufficient grounds for immediate deletion, why did Mr. Wolfowitz not delete all the other unsourced material in the same article? Mr. Wolfowitz specifically targeted material about me, using a rationale that he did not apply to any other equivalent material. However, Mr. Wolfowitz removed material that he termed “unsourced” when solid sourcing was clearly there for all to see. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dear DGG: Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion. The Soyer catalogue we published can be sourced, for example [34] [35] If unsourced material was Mr. Wolfowitz’s objection, I would have been happy to add a source. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and was guided by the other material on that page. As to the Hirschfeld drawings, which included the gallery’s name in captioning, it is commonplace in the art world, in fact the industry standard, that when art is reproduced its location is noted. Would you not, in captioning a photograph of the Statue of Libery, say that it stands in New York Harbor? It is important to know where the original art is located, and examples of this practice can be found within Wikipedia on the pages for Mark Rothko, Isamu Noguchi, Henri Matisse, and Paul Klee, and many others. If including my name in the caption was what bothered Mr. Wolfowitz, he could have, and should have, notified me. We could then have opened that discussion to the Wikipedia community. Thank you again for your discussion here. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethically, you should have known not to add your name, period. No discussion needed. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Dennis Brown: Thank you for joining in on this discussion. You are correct that I did not try to work these problems out with Mr. Wolfowitz before reporting them here. After reading your comments, I think that perhaps I should have done so. I did know that it was an option, but Mr. Wolfowitz himself never engaged with me, although he clearly had reason to. He could have, and should have, asked for sourcing--although sourcing was already provided for content that he deleted as uncourced. Such was his demeanor that I felt I needed to go to the Wikipedia community. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussing directly with the other edit is not just an option, it's a requirement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Taraoldo: Thank you for your interest in these issues. I contributed content that I felt would stand on its own merit in an encyclopedic reference. Your experience with other COI editors is clearly unfortunate, but I feel certain that you would agree that my contributions should be judged on their own merits. Interested parties can help build Wikipedia and indeed, very often, interested parties have more knowlege and more accurate information than anyone else. On the other hand, third parties knowledgeable enough to write on a specific subject will almost never be purely unbiased. Let me ask you this: if Madame Curie suddenly came back to life, would you prohibit her from including her own biographical details in Wikipedia, or adding to articles on radioactivity? Of course not. The point is, if I am not able to add my gallery’s exhibition for Joel-Peter Witkin, and Joel-Peter Witkin cannot add it himself, would I have to rely on somebody that saw the exhibition in the Spring of 1970, remembered it, and cared enough to add it to Wikipedia? That scenario seems unlikely, and yet many people born after that exhibition should have the right to find that information on Wikipedia. Factor-ies (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If nobody "cared enough to add it", then it likely was not at all worthy to be added by anybody (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If such an event happened, I would respectfully discourage her, or any other historical figure, from adding to their own articles. Of course no one has greater insights into an individual's life than the person in question, but this project is an encyclopedia, not a collection of autobiographies and personal anecdotes. This means someone else should be capable of finding and adding the information if it is truly pertinent. If someone else doesn't add it, that should never green-light a COI edit. Taroaldo ✉ 04:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I for one am totally supportive of Margo's position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is an extremely disruptive editor. One small glance at his "contribution" history shows that his edits are almost exclusively deleting huge chunks from every article he stumbles upon. This is, in my opinion, the complete opposite of Wikipedia's philosophy. In fact his talk page is simply littered with messages from puzzled editors complaining about his behavior or even asking that he stop threaten them! I myself have been recently dealing with Mr. Wolfowitz on several articles and even reported him due to edit warring on his part. I was unfortunately distracted by my personal life and the complaint was filed away, but he seems to be at it again and I may have to report him again as he refuses to engage in conversation and seems to simply believe his opinion to be fact. Wikipedia is collaborative. Wikipedia editors should strive to make each article better to the best of their abilities, reworking passages they find are awkward, finding sources when there are none, etc..., not deleting half an article simply because you do not agree with its content. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it has in fact been proposed, and rejected, that illustrations as used in WP carry credit lines. The consensus view is that this belongs on the image description page , which is linked, and satisfy attribution requirements. This applies even to artists and other creators and would apply even more to the mere owner or supplier of the image. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The real problem here is that Factor-ies had not received much guidance on what is acceptable editing. (She has 56 edits. Five-six!) I note that the particular edits and reversions (above) were done 6 months ago. I've posted a welcome message & further advice on her talk page. Perhaps when she reviews WP policies, guidelines, 5P, etc. she'll understand what's going on. Let's be careful not to WP:BITE. – S. Rich (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• While Factor-ies may be a new account, Feiden is likely not a new editor,and there is strong evidence of sockpuppetry. See my original ANI report here [36]. There is at least one Feiden edit as old as 2008. What underlies all this seems to be a long-running dispute over control of Hirschfeld's work, which at one point led to Hirschfeld suing Feiden, [37], and it's one facet of this that uploads of images by Feiden and related accounts pretty consistently failed to credit the origimal publication but listed the commercial gallery which sells them instead. Editors here should give Feiden's claims a more skeptical look. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever Margo's experience (or alter-ego) is doesn't matter as far as this discussion goes. Her complaint is not well founded and I recommend that it be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some of her complaint is not well founded, but at some much earlier point the underlying issues should have been discussed. The paragraph HW just contributed sheds more light on the matter for me than any previous discussion., and I wish they had said it a good deal earlier. The earlier AfD discussion HW mentions above is very relevant, and should have been followed up further. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator observation) (like others in this thread): Why does a Google search for news about "Margo Feiden" result in just one hit? Shouldn't a notable business have at least a few more non-industry-specific "newspaper" mentions? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, you need to do a Google News Archive search. Google News searches default to showing only results from the last month/30 days. Google's "Any Time" button is rather misleading. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Date range yields some (but not all) results, too. Weird. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dear All,

In the five sentences Hullaballoo Wolfowitz writes above, he manages to have at least an equal number of factual errors as well as disingenuous conclusions. When he deleted my contribution to the Valerie Solanas article, Mr. Wolfowitz ferreted out an assistant editor’s offhand response to an online comment. And, yet, Mr. Wolfowitz seems to have missed both the correction that is noted at the top of the May 17, 2000 New York Times article he links to, and, further, Al Hirschfeld’s statement, published in the NY Times on October 14, 2000 in which Hirschfeld lauds my integrity. [38]

The New York Times ran a sensational headline, “Al Hirschfeld Sues Gallery, Asserting it Cheated Him," and then retracted it, writing “[Hirschfeld] did not accuse Ms. Feiden of cheating him in the buying and selling of his work.” The Times article sensationalized the text just as they sensationalized the headline. The article was filled with errors of fact (even in the retraction), just as their headline was an error.

First, the dispute began not over the “control of Hirschfeld’s work,” but on the single issue of the appropriateness of a curator picked for a Hirschfeld museum exhibition. A part-time worker in my gallery, who was thrown out for stealing and serial lying, got himself hired by a museum to curate a Hirschfeld exhibition, using his experience at my gallery as his credentials to curate.

For now, the subject of this letter is the behavior of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Starting out with his own conclusion, Mr. Wolfowitz used blinders to extract only what he wanted--mixing and matching whatever supports that conclusion, and leaving unsaid all material that is exculpatory.

Referring back to his comment above, Mr. Wolfowitz writes that the artist and I had a “long-running dispute.” In fact Hirschfeld dropped the suit very quickly. And during this disagreement there was never a disruption in our working relationship. The fact is that Hirschfeld and I continued to work together, accomplishing commissioned drawings, limited-edition prints, reproductions of his art in books and magazines, etc. etc. etc.

Mr. Wolfowitz, talking as if he were an expert, accuses me, saying that I “failed to credit the original publication[s]” when contributing Hirschfeld images to Wikipedia. Instead, Mr. Wolfowitz should have asked me this properly on a Talk page. Had he done so, he would have learned that if I did not list a publication it was because the work was commissioned by me or by my gallery and did not run in a newspaper or a periodical. In some cases, the work was commissioned by clients, and when that is the case, I said so in the caption and/or in the text.

In an earlier letter, I said that I was fairly new to Wikipedia. In his five sentences above, Mr. Wolfowitz attacked that statement, saying that “there is at least one Feiden edit as old as 2008.“ Because Mr. Wolfowitz does not provide the user name that made the edit he credits me with, nor does he provide the subject matter or the article that the edit concerned, I cannot speak to this accusation. I am now aware only of a few contributions made at the end of 2011, followed by contributions made in October 2012. Compared with other editors, I am still green when it comes to Wikipedia (although I’m ripening very fast!).

Within his five sentences, Mr. Wolfowitz accuses me of sockpuppetry--essentially of the “use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts...to deceive or mislead other editors”. But I never made any attempt to disguise the fact that I and the two people contributing on my behalf have their own user names. They have their own user names because they have their own user names. It is that simple.

I have been in business from the time I was 16 years old. That was 50 years ago, and my record remains spotless.

As I said in my AN/I report, it seems that Mr. Wolfowitz’s actions--that is, unilaterally deleting wholesale from Wikipedia content that mentions my name or my gallery--was embarked upon for his own personal reasons. Mr. Wolfowitz constantly impugns my integrity, but gave no basis for doing so. Now I see that Mr. Wolfowitz’s behavior was retributory for a perceived harm that he believed was done by me to Al Hirschfeld. I was Hirschfeld’s gallerist and agent when Hirschfeld was in his 60's, his 70's, his 80's, and his 90's. This dispute occurred when Hirschfeld was almost 100 years old.As the world knows, Al Hirschfeld and I had a relationship that lasted for all those decades and, in almost 40 years working together we had one single fight. What marriage can boast a comparable record?

Respectfully, Margo Feiden Factor-ies (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Ms Feiden's last post is extraordinarily abusive, and contains grossly defamatory material concerning an identifiable living person of some prominence. Ms Feiden's comments make clear she is still carrying on the same external dispute that underlies the Hirschfeld lawsuit and other matters. It is clearly not appropriate for Ms Feiden and her associates/employees/friends/multiple accounts/or whatever to edit Wikipedia to promote their position. It is one thing to rail against the sins (sometimes real, I suppose, but mostly imagined) of The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but quite another to accuse an identifiable living person of criminal behavior - especially since the person involved is the "official archivist" of the Al Hirschfeld Foundation (Hirschfeld's widow is its President) and is prominently involved in its work, curating, for example, a Hirschfeld exhibit for the Library of Congress. As for the nature of the underlying dispute, Al Hirschfeld himself said, after the settlement, that his lawsuit was brought "in order to regain what I considered to be proper control over my artworks", and rejected some rather self-serving comments by Feiden in the Times piece she cites above [39]. We can bore the Wikipedia community to tears with the ground-level details of these arguments (and probably have to some degree); Ms. Feiden should be wary of the Streisand effect if this continues. Ms Feiden clearly dislikes me (I suspect more because I debunked a cherished myth in her (auto)biography at AFC [40] than for this particular dispute). Ms Feiden's campaign runs afoul of the principles set out by the Arbitration Committee in the recent Sexology case, although perhaps more subtly than the conduct involved there, and her gratuitous allegations of criminality against an identifiable person are wholly unacceptable. It is time for an uninvolved admin to close and hat this discussion with a suitable admonishment for Ms Feiden. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review requested - Sandstein's block of Saedon

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

---

During an arbitration enforcement discussion centred around Scientology, User:Saedon made a comment that (in part) reads "scientology is a ridiculous cult and we do not need members of said cult to build our articles on the subject". This is quite clearly inappropriate, and so User:Sandstein blocked Saedon for 48 hours for "Personal attacks or harassment". This block was (quite reasonably) documented here, where it was made clear that is was done as an individual administrative action rather than as an arbitration enforcement action, and is thus something any admin can undo, and something that can be discussed at AN/I.

Both User:Dennis Brown and myself questioned the necessity of the block; I can't speak for Dennis, but my area of concern mostly centred around the lack of any kind of warning. While warnings are not required for blocks, I usually interpret this (perhaps wrongly) as basically saying that if someone is being obviously, actively disruptive, we don't have to jump through the hoops of going "level 1 warning. Level 2 warning. Level 3...." before blocking; Saedon, is a user with no block log and to my knowledge no record of this sort of behaviour, whose contributions after the offending edit showed disengagement from the area. Even if he wasn't showing disengagement, there are ways to solve for user misbehaviour that are below the level of a block.

To his credit, Sandstein quickly responded to the concerns I and others raised. His argument for the block being preventative, rather than punitive, was based around comments from Saedon's unblock request, which confused me greatly since it doesn't seem appropriate to justify the necessity of an action based on things that happened after it. His next comment here was "the block will reduce the likelihood of similar misconduct by you and possibly others in the future". I'm interpreting this (perhaps uncharitably) as suggesting that Sandstein sees one of the legitimate uses of blocking as, essentially, a "time out"; that a block forces a user to adjust his behaviour, and furthermore that it sits as a warning to other users. Unlike the Royal Navy, we do not shoot one admiral to serve as an example to others; blocks should be in response to an active threat, not as a way of chilling others. Chilling negative behaviour vicariously is a side-effect of blocks, not a justification for them. I'm coming to AN/I to request wider comment as to the validity of the block, and as to the spin Sandstein seems to be putting on the blocking policy. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support unblocking. Oliver and I agree on every point above. Saedon has a long record of nothing but productive work and a warning should have been tried first. Nothing personal against the blocking admin, but blocking should have been the last resort, not the first. Saedon's wording was a mistake, but a mistake that a warning could have cleared up. There is no pattern of behavior to "deter" here, making this block unnecessary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good decision to block, but the duration was too long for a first warning. Two hours would have been better. Suggestion that other editors are not welcome is a serious matter, but the point is made with an initial short block. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock - The comment was fairly uncivil, but Saedon should have first been warned and given the opportunity to retract the unpleasantness. I think Sandstein operated in good faith, but erred in using the hammer so freely. - MrX 22:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Note: Saedon wishes to communicate " I understand that my status as a regular does not allow to act with impunity, only that it should afford me a discussion... I did not word that well in my unblock request and do not want people to think that I think I am "above the law," or so to speak." Ironholds (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Bad block, worse response. In a situation where a warning to remove the material would have easily sufficed, we have an admin blocking a long-time editor with a clean block log for two days, then compounding the insult by using the obviously frustrated editor's unblock request as grounds for the initial block. This is the kind of action that loses long-time editors. Mistakes are made, and both parties seem to have made one. Deciding to dig in your heels and justify a bad block after the fact is just a slap in the face, and that's the kind of insult that causes editors to become understandably frustrated with the entire process. This block isn't "preventing" anything, and an admin needs to lift it immediately. Dayewalker (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock - Warning would have been the best action, the block is not necessary - I'd consider this "lesson learned" and leave it at that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block - Compared to others discussed somewhere else (ahem) Saedon has no history of incivility and to jump straight to a block without talking to him and gauging his reaction is ridiculous. There's a double standard here. Why? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. It is true that scientology is a ridiculous cult, but obviously one cannot say that "we do not need members of said cult to build our articles on the subject", certainly not in the context of an AE discussion because you then blame whatever the discussed problem was there on merely scientology membership. However, one shouldn't block people without warning when they make such mistakes the first time here. If this were repeat behaviour, it would be different. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have unblocked Saedon based on the consensus of the discussion above. --Jayron32 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32 has just unblocked me and I wanted to take this opportunity to say a couple things. Firstly, thank you very much to Ironholds and Dennis for helping me throughout this ordeal. I also want to thank all those above who supported me being unblocked and Jayron32 for pulling the proverbial trigger. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge that I understand my comment was very poorly worded and those who know me know that I generally have a more professional decorum. I also agree that Sandstein acted in good faith and harbor no ill will towards him, though I would ask him to consider far less drastic measures in the future when dealing with editors who have broken a rule but who do not have a history of doing so. Like Ironholds, I am concerned that Sandstein's interpretation of the blocking policy is not in line with that of the community but I do not think it needs to be discussed further - I am sure there will be self reflection on both our ends (and this is not to diminish his hard work at WP:AE, where he is actively dealing with some of the most difficult cases on WP).

Lastly, I plan on abandoning my Saedon account and I am going to resume editing on my original account, User:Noformation. The reason being that my original account has a fair number of talk page watchers who may have been able to expedite this process today (not that I plan on getting blocked in the future :D) while User:Saedon does not have enough to even register a number. Anyway, I'm glad to be back so let's get on with the editing! Sædon^talk 23:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Jayron32 for unblocking. Tony (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Good call, Jayron, and the others who helped sort this out. Neotarf (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I thought "Saedon" was a pretty cool username. Mindy Dirt (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's my real first name so I still get to use it a lot :). N^oformation ^Talk 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Wouldn't it have made more sense (not to mention less drama-inducing), to have simply asked Saedon something like this, "Hey, I think you crossed the line with this comment. Can you please refactor or remove the comment?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It might have ... however, an attack on someone's faith is one of the big no-no's in most environments. Indef until they agreed to retract/remove would be appropriate as it would be in any work environment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I dare say that anyone who calls scientology a cult is unlikely accepting the notion that scientology is a faith, and thus does not agree that he is attacking anyone's faith. --Conti|✉ 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that's part of the problem. Certainly Scientology appears to be very problematic in various respects as an organization, and its tenets of faith very peculiar even by the standards of religious beliefs. And editors are free to say so. But as a matter of simple decency, nobody on Wikipedia (or in any other group) should tolerate that others are attacked as a person merely for adhering to a faith or other moral conviction. I've discussed this at some length on Saedon's talk page.  Sandstein  21:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a block or a warning combined with a request to strike would have been the best approach to take, what Saedon said was an absolute textbook example of the kind of personal attack this project's policy says will not be tolerated. You can't have a policy like that and then not enforce it. It just looks like hypocrisy. In this case, at least Sandstein did something to uphold policy. Nobody else did. Given the choice, I prefer Sandstein's approach. Andreas JN466 01:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take note that the community (as represented by the veteran editors commenting here) prefers warning veteran editors before blocking them, even for such acts as aggressively disparaging the faith of others. That's understandable in terms of our social dynamics, but it reinforces my impression that too many are perhaps unconsciously adopting a mindset that treats Wikipedia as a social network rather than a serious, rule-based collaborative work. It particularly reinforces the impression that administrators and other veteran editors can get away with much more misconduct just because they have plenty of friends. The opposite should be the case. As Bwilkins says, conduct that would result in an immediate suspension or similar in a real-life work environment should result in the same here – because Wikipedia too is a work environment, not a playground. (Though I should add that I much appreciate Saedon's, Ironholds's and Dennis Brown's measured and polite approach to our disagreement.)  Sandstein  20:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Awwwww, somebody's gwumpy. Here Sandy, this is something that is sure to cheer you up.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, the workplace analogy is a bunch of nonsense and always has been. What workplace allows people with aims that run counter to the company's goals to show up and undo/screw with the good work people who actually want to work for the company have done, and it takes months to get such people thrown out? None that I'm aware of, and if there is such a place, I'd wager there's a heck of a lot of swearing and name-calling there, too. That is exactly what Wikipedia does in allowing POV pushers and trolls to have their way with this site. It is unrealistic to expect this place to act like a workplace. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a reason not to do to anything about it. We are Wikipedia, and it is we who are responsible for allowing disruption by tolerating it.  Sandstein  07:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What should be done about it is to treat the disease, POV pushing and abuse of our content policies, rather than the symptom of incivility. Blocking people for incivility here makes about as much sense as firing the people who swear at the folks undermining the company goals rather than the people actually doing so. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Add me to the list. Bad block. Carrite (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your perspective here and in fact I agree with it - I don't think veteran editors should get away with more misconduct so let me elaborate my position. Suppose you have three editors, A, B, and C. Editor A signed up two weeks ago, made 3 innocuous minor edits and then on his 4th edit he went to Talk:Israel and accused all the editors of being Zionists trying to spread Jewish propaganda and he used racial slurs. Editor B has had an account for a year and has made 500 edits, while normally collegial she crosses the line one night and makes a comment that clearly falls within WP:NPA. Editor C started off a lot like editor B but as time passes he makes more and more disruptive, rude comments; administrators have tried talking, but talking has lead to no changes.

Now, one might argue that an offense is an offense and none of the cases above should be judged except on the merits of the case. Here's why I think that's wrong: editor A came to Wikipedia like a bull in a China shop: here to push an agenda and demonstrates almost immediately that he has trouble working in a collaborative environment. Blocking him immediately (though I don't even agree that all new editors should be blocked for policy violations, I used a rather harsh example here only to demonstrate my point)has both the effect of preventing further outbursts through technical means, and of sending a clear message that this is not how Wikipedia works - both of which I think are in line with blocking policy. Editor B, on the other hand, has demonstrated that they can and normally do work in a collaborative environment, but for what ever reason crossed the line on a particular occasion. A block here does not, in my estimation, accomplish the goal of preventing damage directly. It does, I think, accomplish the second goal - sending a message of what is and isn't acceptable - but blocking as the first means to dispute resolution can often have the effect of producing more heat than light. The reason that editor B should be given the benefit of the doubt is because editor B has already demonstrated she can be collaborative and so I think we should work under the assumption that a conversation can probably solve the problem. And if a conversation can solve the problem then a block is unnecessary.

The main difference between editors B and C is that editor C was given the benefit of the doubt but refused to either acknowledge or change his behavior, and when that happens there is a clear and present need to block both to prevent damage and to demonstrate what we can and cannot tolerate.

So it is not that veteran editors should be able to get away with more misconduct, it is that editors with a track record of collegiality should be assumed to be able to respond collegiality to other editor's concerns. When that is demonstrated not to be the case - whether the editor has 10 edits or 10,000 - then I think a block is wholly appropriate.

As an aside, I don't agree with the idea that faith is a specially protected position. The fact of the matter is I shouldn't have attacked an editor period, whether over his/her faith or anything else. N^oformation ^Talk 22:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The approach you describe certainly has merit, and I would agree with it, were it not for the following: Conduct enforcement on Wikipedia (especially towards established editors) is spotty and haphazard at best, simply because few administrators are willing to engage in it in their spare time, just to get nothing out of it except the certainty of loud criticism by their colleagues (as this case demonstrates). That being so, whenever it is undertaken, it should be done effectively and visibly, in order to produce a deterrent effect on others, even though that may not be perceived as fair by the user who is (somewhat randomly) affected.

Secondly, your approach focuses on what is best for the offender. That's understandable but, I think, mistaken. An effective anti-harrassment policy should focus on the victims of harrassment. A person who is being harrassed on Wikipedia, just to be told that "oh, he's a good guy really, just a little cranky today perhaps, I'll go have a word with him", will not feel that they are being taken seriously. They'll only see a clique of insiders protecting each other. And they'll leave. And retaining these many people (often women, I assume, based on our gender balance) who may be driven away by a culture of unmindful impoliteness is far more important to me than retaining the relatively few, but noisy, veteran editors who are not willing to conform to the necessary rules of a collaborative workspace. (Just to be clear, I don't mean you; as I said I much appreciate your approach to this situation.) For these reasons, in your example, I would block A, B and C, but only A and C indefinitely.

Incidentally, this discussion is similar to one ongoing in the (Anglosphere) SF/F fandom concerning harrassment policies at fan conventions, where there seems to be a similar cultural disconnect between male scene veterans and others, notably women, who demand effective protection from harrassment. See, for instance, this blog post by author John Scalzi – I couldn't help but think of Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am a strong supporter of significant blocks for chronic incivility. However, in this case, we appear to have only a moment of crankiness. Certainly nothing to warrant a block. Taroaldo ✉ 05:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The question of whether members of a particular group should be allowed to edit articles on that topic has come up before. For example the TM and Scientology groups come up for discussion in an arbcom discussion here. Neotarf (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Very Bad block. And it would have been just as bad a block for a new, inexperienced user who cannot be expected to know all policies on Wikipedia, and even less, where the excact line is drawn for different topics. I too want civility on Wikipedia, but we should not expect people to be perfect all the time. Friendly advices and then warning can go a long way. Most users want to follow the rules,when it is laid out for them. Blocks should only be used when a user indicates by his words and deeds that they more generally have no ability or wish to follow the policies; it should not be used because users as humans beings naturally make this or that mistake or misjudgement. We all do, also Sandstein. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Really bad block and shows a trend. A moderator is a better moderator if he can empathize with people (including the "criminal"). In particular emphasize with someone spouting off in a moment of frustration. Instead of lowering the hammer, try reaching out to the fellow or using a little humor or just doing something to put oil on the water. I think Sandstein has been acting the heavy so long (for years) that it has gone to his head.TCO (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment and support for the blocking admin: I'm not a pro-block kind of a person, and I'm not gloating about the block, I however feel that Sandstein's arguments that the user is experienced enough not to make mistakes etc. that newbees make are very sound. I had commented that Saedon's comments were simply unnecessary as they were about a belief system and Wikipedia editors have no right to badmouth belief systems. Having said that, Saedon has apologised for his comments here. "Absolutely ridiculous" is no way to start an unblock request. I'm sure if he had apologised for the same during his unblock appeal, the block would have been affected sooner and without unnecessary drama. All of us learn lessons and I hope the right lessons have been learnt here. Happy editing Saedon! Nothing personal and no hard feelings! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock for Zombie433

Well, it's time to move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Community banned Zombie433 (talk · contribs) is back, I've just found and tagged and reverted 25+ IPs used in the past 3 weeks; up to his usual tricks of mis-using sources on BLPs and related articles to vandalise. If you don't remember him then search the ANI archives or look at the SPI or Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433. He is editing from 79.214.xxx.xxx - any chance a more technical minded admin can place a rangeblock please? I've semi-protected the article I caught him at to prevent disruption in the short-term. GiantSnowman 16:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Blocked 79.214.192.0/19 (8192 IPs); 79.214.128.0/18 (16384 IPs) for two weeks. There might be some leakage so please collect IPs if you notice any further edits and we can try to lay down the tightest possible range blocks. The more IPs you can collect the easier it is to do blocks that don't involve good faith users. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks, much appreciated. GiantSnowman 09:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR and Anon7mous

In 2007, User:Anon7mous was edited by User:DIREKTOR - [41] and [42] to point visitors from the former to the latter. In 2010, at User talk:Anon7mous the two accounts had this discussion. The other day, another three years later, Anon7mous goes on to resurrect DIREKTOR's proposal on WT:YU#Scope_.233. If this is an actual case of sock/meatpuppetry, it's got to be the silliest ever. I doubt DIREKTOR would do such a thing, I think it's actually more likely that that they made this series of silly mistakes involving the account of a real-life friend of his. The end result is confusing at best. Would it be inappropriate if I insisted that Anon7mous makes a clean start under a new name? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this should make everything clear [[43]]. I must also say that Joy and I are currently opposed in a debate on the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia and this looks like some kind of "revenge". I am saddened to be so treated having only been editing for a few days. DIRECTOR and I do know each other and he is the user who invited me to join this amazing project. I did edit somewhat as an IP and I am eager now to contribute as much as I can about economics for example with my current account, because I use this nickname everwhere. Thank you Anon7mous (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: yes it would be inappropriate for you to insist Anon7mous make a clean start under a new name. It seems clear they have stated that they know each other outside of the project, and as long as they're not making inappropriate edits on each others behalf there's not a thing wrong here. Being friends with someone off-wiki isn't against the rules, and frankly asking Anon7mous to change his user name would only result in the same person making the same edits using a different user name. I'm not sure what the point of insisting on a name change/new account is, other than to make things more difficult for someone who has opposing views from yours. AniMate 02:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed one factoid: DIREKTOR edited Anon7mous's page to point to his own. As if it's his alter ego. This stood there for three years. Then they had this discussion explaining that they are friends. Yet the user page pointer remained in place until three days ago. The two of them have, explicitly or implicitly, been telling the world that they are the same person for six years on that page.

The accusation that I'm doing this out of a "revenge" for a content dispute is ludicrous. If I were doing that, I would have just applied my administrative powers, not asked other admins for advice.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think Anon7mous should use a new account, given that Direktor appears to initially have been this user - this surely violates the shared account policy? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is weird. Years ago I asked DIRECTOR why my username is red on wikipedia and asked him to fix it if he can, then he created my userpage and added the box that he had on his userpage at the time [44], copy-pasting he probably forgot to fix the link so it leads to my talk page.

Nobody "misused" this account, DIRECTOR certainly did not use it ("shared account"?), in fact this account was practically inactive from the moment it was created six years ago. I counted that I only did 4 edits (while logged in) before I seriously started editing a couple of days ago. I don't see why I would need to change my username, I already have some contributions linked to this account and I don't see why I should lose them? Considering Joy and I right now disagree about something, I can't help but see this as malicius somehow. Anon7mous (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit more in the course of the discussion at WT:YU#Scope_.233, and I think I should explicitly write it here, too: Anon7mous' first edits in 2010 were reverts on topics well-known to be DIREKTOR's favorites ([45][46]), and their first edits this year included an antagonistic discussion - saying someone else's edits made the article look "childish and pathetic" at Talk:Croats - and a salvo of talk page edits to add articles to this project twelve hours before DIREKTOR even added his proposed change: Talk:Croatia at 00:42 etc vs. WP:YU at 13:23. Even if the two of them aren't in collusion (violating e.g. WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK), this is hardly proper. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

On talk:Croats all I sad was that our infobox would look silly if we crammed in 28 people[47], and I still stand by that. As I already explained, concerning two 2010 reverts, DIRECTOR and I did know each other (we obviously share some interests). If I remember all he did was mention some articles on wikipedia and I had look when I came home. I did not know that people who know each other can not edit wikipedia together? Having explained that, I honestly don't see why I need to answer for two reverts three years ago? Anon7mous (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I joined this project to contribute to WikiProject Yugoslavia. Reading through the archives of past WikiProject discussions I noticed that the scope had been expanded by agreement and that DIRECTORs restriction seemed to have been lifted. Accordingly I added some of my favorite articles that I wanted to expand to the project. I did not realize that the scope had not been amended and that there was still some disagreement on this. I don't see what would be the point of me starting a different account? Anon7mous (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to accuse them of sockpuppetry, the best venue to do that would be WP:SPI. Asking Anon7mous to register a new account is probably without a doubt the stupidest thing you could ask for in this situation. Right now Anon7mous and DIREKTOR have clearly and unambiguously stated that they know each other outside of Wikipedia. If the two of them collude to violate 3rr or edit war, it is much easier to prove sock or meat puppetry with the connection already having been stated.

However, two people knowing each other and disagreeing with you isn't against the rules. They haven't violated 3rr and don't appear to edit war. Trying to get one or both of them blocked for disagreeing with you on talk pages and in a WikiProject is a pretty bad (and obvious) attempt to gain an advantage. Let this go and move on. AniMate 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been terribly dismissive of my questions for reasons that aren't really apparent to me. I do not want to accuse them of sockpuppetry; I'm saying their own actions made them look unnecessarily suspicious, to the point where the benefits of a clean start may well outweigh its downsides. I also don't want to get them blocked, and I certainly am not raising this problem here just because they disagree with me. Your repeated assertion that I'm just doing this out of spite is in itself a gross violation of WP:AGF - you should know better and you should know that I know better. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Problem"? What problem? How am I supposed to assume good faith (as you seem to like to repeat) when you are reporting me here on the noticeboard for no apparent reason? Then you ignore me and my questions (that also seem to puzzle others) with regard to why I should supposedly start a new account. How would that benefit me or Wikipedia? I assumed there is something I don't know but others also don't seem to get it. I also thought you "knew better", but now I'm starting to think you're just trying to intimidate me with this (because we don't agree at WikiProject). You say you're an administrator? Anon7mous (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Kindly read what I already wrote above twice. For six years, the two accounts were made largely indistinguishable through edits made by one to another. If it even needs saying, the discussion three years ago doesn't have to mean much because it was not confirmed to be true by a third party, and even after it happened, the earlier edits were not undone until this year. And, again, if I actually wanted to intimidate you, I could have simply done something to that effect, which I didn't. Sheesh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that you would not in fact, have been able to "do something to that effect" for no reason whatsoever? Otherwise Wikipedia has some problems. I ask again, what benefit would I or Wikipedia have from me abandoning my account. And what have I violated? When you deceptively say "associated for six years" you fail to mention that in those six years I have posted only 3 contributions while logged-in. Anon7mous (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-creation of Han-Nom

The merge discussion on the above was closed, after a long time, as merge. Since then, User:Kauffner has been edit-warring to re-create it. I just discussed it with him on his talk page, and he said "Go take it to AfD already". Is that necessary or correct? Could someone try and engage with Kauffner. I'm afraid I lose my patience with him rather easily. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For background, the merge discussion is here; all participants but Kauffner were in favour of a merge to Chữ nôm, which was done after further discussion here. (disclosure: Itsmejudith and I both participated in that discussion, and I performed the merge.) Kauffner asked about AFD here and was reminded of the difference between deletion and merging. Kanguole 23:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is no contradiction in copying my writing while condemning me for writing it. Anyway, if Team Harassment wasn't busy with this one, I'm sure it would be some other article I wrote, or something else. I have a dream in which certain editors put less effort into stalking me and trying to destroy my articles, and more effort into writing their own articles. Kauffner (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments - while one can sympathize with an editor with only a few article creations to see an article merged, the fact is that as Kanguole says above the article creation was largely duplicate of the existing Chữ nôm article.

(1) this issue has already been at ANI once to caution Kauffner for repeatedly removing User:BabelStone's original merge tag (a User who has no history with Kauffner and whose User page identifies himself a published academic authority on early Chinese), although it is difficult to find the specific ANI among all the other Kauffner ANIs.

(2) the root problem is partly WP:COMPETENCE in that Kauffner believes (to put into a parallel presented to Kauffner by vi.wp/en.wp editor User:Mxn) that "Graeco-Roman" refers to one subject with a script "Graeco-Roman" or a language "Greek-Latin". But this isn't the case; Vietnamese written with Vietnamese demotic characters (Nôm), and Chinese written with Chinese characters are two different languages with two different scripts.

(3) related to this root problem has been (i) creation of the Han-Nom article above, (ii) editing [within articles] of Template talk:Infobox Chinese to create [activate on articles] a category "Han-Nom" - ignoring the problem that many Vietnamese books, gods and places have both Vietnamese and Chinese names. (iii) creation of additional templates and insertion across the WikiProject Vietnam article corpus example (iv) moving and locking (as sockpuppet User:TenMuses for which Kauffner was just un-blocked) the article Institute of Hán-Nôm Studies (equivalent to a Department of Greek and Latin at western universities).

(4) And all this accompanied by the form of Talk page communication illustrated by the reply to Kanguole and Itsmejudith above. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ACTION: the problem is not just the duplicate article, but looking at this is assigning Kauffner a 1RR limit an option on all these "Han-Nom infobox" additions across the WikiProject Vietnamese article corpus? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed the title of this section, which is quite misleading. No, the page was never deleted. I was simply reverting. We did this same song-and-dance over at page protection just a few days ago. The descriptor "Han-Nom" had been on both Template:Infobox Chinese and Template:Infobox Vietnamese for years. I wrote the Han-Nom article so that this descriptor would have a place to link to. The article itself has a collection of references that use the term. Kauffner (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That was reasoning to use in the merge discussion, not here after Kanguole's closing of that discussion. Admins, if Kanguole was correct in closing with a decision to merge, the article shouldn't be re-created, am I correct? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a good thing that people here get to see the kind of lies I've had to put up with. No, nothing was ever closed. The discussion is at Talk:Chữ_nôm#Proposed_merge. Kauffner (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The (rather lengthy) merge discussion was actually here; your link is to a follow-up discussion about implementation. There was no formal close, but as I mentioned above, all participants in that discussion except you were in favour of a merge to Chữ nôm, and it was on that basis that Gaijin42 redirected the article and I performed the merge. Kanguole 16:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Could a completely uninvolved admin have a look at what has been going on? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-created again. What happens next? If the merge wasn't correctly closed - and it was open for months - what now? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• 08:07, 8 July 2013‎ Kauffner (31,546 bytes) (+31,522)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) to last revision by Kauffner. (TW)) (undo | thank)
• 07:37, 8 July 2013‎ Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24 bytes) (-31,522)‎ . . (Undid revision 563341741 by Kauffner (talk). Clearly against consensus.)
• 07:14, 8 July 2013‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,546 bytes) (+31,522)‎ . . (Undid revision 563317428 by Gaijin42 (talk)) (undo | thank)
• 02:28, 8 July 2013‎ Gaijin42 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24 bytes) (-31,522)‎ . . (redirecting per strong consensus.) (undo | thank)
• 16:40, 7 July 2013‎ Kauffner (31,546 bytes) (+31,294)‎ . . (revert blanking) (undo | thank)
• 23:32, 5 July 2013‎ User:Dominus Vobisdu (-31,294)‎ . . (Undid revision 563014358 by Kauffner (talk). Clearly against consensus.) (undo | thank)
• 19:39, 5 July 2013‎ Kauffner (31,546 bytes) (+31,294)‎ . . (Undid revision 562985382 by Cuchullain (talk)) (undo | thank)
• 15:18, 5 July 2013‎ User:Cuchullain (-31,294)‎ . . (Revert edit warring against clear consensus.) (undo | thank)
• 12:17, 5 July 2013‎ Kauffner (+31,294)‎ . . (revert blanking) (undo | thank)
• 02:20, 1 July 2013‎ User:Gaijin42 (-31,344)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 562326669 by In ictu oculi: afd not needed when consensus clear. . (TW)) (undo | thank)
• 01:57, 1 July 2013‎ Kauffner (+31,344)‎ . . (Undid revision 562326669 by In ictu oculi (talk) take it to AFD already) (undo | thank)
• 01:18, 1 July 2013‎ In ictu oculi (-31,344)‎ . . (Undid revision 562324043 by Kauffner there was a 6-1 support for this merge) (undo)
• 00:52, 1 July 2013‎ Kauffner (+31,344)‎ . . (Reverting vandalism) (undo | thank)
• 14:12, 19 June 2013‎ Gaijin42 (-31,340)‎ . . (redirecting to chu nom per merge discussion.) (undo | thank)
• merge performed by Kanguole

Note: User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:Cuchullain were not involved in the discussion to merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody man up and take this to AFD already. Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MERGE "mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions" - this was a merge discussion. No one denies the subject is notable, which is why there was already a large longstanding article. But can an uninvolved admin please look at the merge discussion and per Judith's question "If the merge wasn't correctly closed - and it was open for months - what now?" In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In the merger discussion, you argued that the idea of Han-Nom was original research. That's certainly a basis to go to AFD. Han-Nom is all my writing, with a lot of it based on Vietnamese-language sources. So the content at the time of the discussion was quite different than that of chu Nom or any other article. Stuff gets copy-and-pasted on Wiki all the time. I can't stop people from copying material I write, copying being the sincerest form of flattery and all. Kauffner (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner is now in violation of 3RR on this topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User constantly adding unreferenced material to a BLP

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

---

Totalrecall999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been constantly adding unreferenced controversial information to Joshua Sridhar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - see here, for example. I have warned him twice, but he continues to add the material back in. StAnselm (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute where one party claims the information is in the references, and another does not. Please try the dispute resolution noticeboard and this one to confirm the reliability of sources (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Have you looked at the article? There are no references. StAnselm (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Bwilkins takes another look at what was being added - per WP:BLP policy, there is no way that such material can be added without cited in-line references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I meant WP:BLPN? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Totalrecall999 and an IP - presumably the same user - are still edit-warring with multiple editors over this, and as a clear violation of WP:BLP policy this needs to be stopped. This isn't remotely a content dispute, and foisting it off to WP:BLPN isn't going to solve it. Totalrecall999 has however posted on the help desk - maybe my response might finally get the message accross. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Bwilkins' reading of the issue here and have blocked the relevant account and semi-protected the page. I would have revision-deleted the problematic revisions but the material is too mixed up in the page history. CIreland (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I managed to rev-delete the most egregious part of the BLP violation from the article history.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have gutted the article. Not sure if he's even notable. GiantSnowman 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, people. StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

User: Amaury

(The following is copied and pasted from User talk:Beeblebrox)

Amaury is abusing Huggle again. I know that your away, but I don't know where else to put this. 71.255.81.232 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) The links you added were not appropriate wiki material. Additionally, if you had a problem with my revert, why did you not come to my talk page like the message on your talk page said and ask about it? And no, the comment you inserted in a random place does not count. - Amaury (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not my edits were good is besides the point. The point is that my edits were not spam. I went to your talk page and saw that someone else was also complaining about you making false accusations. You said that this edit edit by 96.246.214.161 appeared "to constitute vandalism". The user was simply reorganizing the article in a way that made sense, possibly because incognito mode is a feature that has nothing to do with privacy from external sources, which is what privacy usually refers to regarding browsers, and Google has been criticized for user tracking. Regardless of whether you agree with the change, it was wrong to accuse the user of vandalism. I looked at your history and searched your many usernames in the administrators' noticeboard and saw that you have made false accusations many times and have been informed and told to stop many times. Examples [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89][90] [91][92] [93][94] [95][96] [97][98] [99][100] [101][102] [103][104] [105][106] [107][108] [109][110] [111][112] [113][114] [115][116] [117] 71.251.46.57 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(End paste)

I am willing to wait for Beeblebrox to come back from his vacation. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Amaury does one revert which includes removing blog and Youtube links and you're dragging him to ANI and providing diffs from 2009? Why? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not about removing blog and Youtube links. As you can see, he has been informed of his actions and told to stop many times. I am concerned that his behavior is driving other editors away. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have diffs from the last year that indicates this is still an issue? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is about false accusations, such as those of vandalism and spam. Recently, he used his edit summary to accuse me of spamming and accused 96.246.214.161 of vandalism, which I described above. 96.246.214.161 wrote about it on Amaury's talk page[118]. I also commented, but Amaury removed my comment. The diffs that go back to 2009 are to show that Amaury has already been informed of the issue many times. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

More from this year (not included above) [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] 71.251.46.57 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

He just recently deleted messages intended for other users[128][129] without initial permission[130] and gave high level vandalism warnings for the messages[131][132]. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But it does seem that you were spamming Wikipedia with links to blogs and youtube ... so their actions towards your edits and the associated warnings do appear correct (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Um no, I don't know what you were looking at, but I was not spamming external links[133] as he said, so his accusation in his edit summary was incorrect. I used one blog source and one Youtube source in addition to 2 mainstream news sources in an attempt to contribute to an article. The blog and Youtube source could be considered using unreliable sources. It was not spamming external links[134] to the article[135].11:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here[136] he gives a user a level 2 vandalism warning for trying to insert an image into an article missing an image instead of fixing the formatting or explaining what was wrong. The image did appear to be relevant to the article. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But they tried to insert a picture 332 pixels by 332 pixels ... which is not kosher (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not vandalism though. It was an attempt from the user to insert an image of the article subject. Amaury could have gave a proper explanation instead of making a vandalism accusation. Whether the edits made by other users were good for the articles is not the point, although he has called a lot of good edits vandalism. The point is that the edits were not vandalism, spam, personal attacks, or whatever other false accusations he makes them to be. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It could easily be argued that your links to a blog and youtube were spam. It could easily be argued that inserting such a large image was intentional disruption, and therefore vandalism. Yes, I agree that Amaury needs to be more careful with their use of automated tools, but I'm not sure you're painting a picture where some form of direct blocking is required (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I seriously do not know what you are talking about. He accused me of adding external links. External links are the links at the bottom of the article under the section labeled "External Links"[137]. The image added was not that large and is in fact the same image that is currently in the article[138]. And even if you can argue it, you are supposed to assume good faith. This[139] editor also explains the importance of the issue. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what an external link is, and I know what WP:AGF is...you might actually want to learn to practice it yourself :-) So, seeing as you cannot see the opposite point of view, even when provided by a neutral third party supported by policy, I'll ask you a question: what do you expect to come out of this filing? A block? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that Bwilkins and the IP are referring to different edits here - the IP seems to be referring to this [140], which contains no URL or other link. It looks to me to be a mistake in image formatting syntax, rather than anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate instances being referred to by Bwilkins. The first is when a paragraph was newly written that contained 4 citations. One source was from a blog, another was from a Youtube video, and the other two were from mainstream news sources. Some of the sources could be considered unreliable sources, not spamming links to external sites (exact wikilink Amaury used) like Amaury accused[141]. The second incident was what Andy put, which was not vandalism. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as clicking a youtube link to a video increases the view-count on that video thus increasing its popularity rating, it most certainly can be called spam (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Youtube links can be used as sources. It was one Youtube link in one article and was relevant to the sentence that it was being used for as a citation. In this case, it could be considered unreliable as a source, but can hardly be considered spam, especially if considering good faith, and it wasn't in the external links section. I guess any content can be considered to be spam if you assume some sort of ulterior motive, but to make the accusation and include a wikilink to external links would be wrong. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I do expect some sort of measures to be taken, considering that he has already had automated tools revoked from him at least 3 times already and he has been warned numerous times on this issue. I am not sure how much of his behavior is due to automated tools, but he has full responsibility. A block seems necessary as people telling him over and over again has not worked. 71.251.46.57 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What would a block of x hours achieve? He already knows his edits are under greater scrutiny. As it seems he's greatly improved from 2009/2010, a reminder to use the correct warnings (as Bwilkins as done) should be enough. Should problematic reverts continue, deal with them then. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Greatly improved? He's had a bunch of reminders/complaints in the past month! 71.251.47.138 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...I posted hours ago, but it's gone missing. First: the IP does not appear to have taken the time to discuss this (not template) with Amury - that's job #1 before coming to ANI. Second, nothing blockable here ... the IP needs to learn that AGF applies to them, as well as everyone else. Finally, Amury's post here recognizing his errors, and identifying his way forward is positive. Your next complaint mechanism is WP:RFC/U and not ANI, should it come to that ... however, you will NEED to try and resolve this with the editor FIRST next time - no exceptions. We all need the occasional remidner to slow down every now and then ... when you revert 1000 pieces of vandalism a day, 5 "wrong" is not a horrid ratio (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the many other users telling him about his behavior counted.

Another "reminder" today[142]. Amaury reverted the edit and gave a level 2 vandalism warning when the editor made a good-faith attempt to add content to an article. Amaury claimed that he was unfamiliar with the content. If he knows nothing about the content, then why is he calling it vandalism? Who is he to be an authority on something he knows nothing about? Even if the edit were not good for the article, the edit was not vandalism and a different message should have been used. 71.251.47.138 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. YOU are required to try and resolve the issue directly with the editor. "Others" only count when certifying an RFC/U ... which, as you have already been told, is your next step. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/Original research on Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823) & Ottoman–Persian Wars

I started adding references to Ottoman Persian Wars & Ottoman Persian War (1821-1823)[143], making the result of Ottoman Persian War(1821-1823) war Treaty of Erzurum and "status quo antebellum" per ("A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East", Vol.III, ed. Spencer C. Tucker, (ABC-CLIO, 2010), 1140), when User:Someguy1122 starts adding "Tactical Persian victory".

I posted on the talk page asking for source(s) for this "Tactical Persian victory".[144] User:Someguy1122 responded with a link to the Battle of Erzurum stating, "As i wrote in the edit box, please read the article itself. The major battle of that war was the battle of Erzurum, which Persia won outnumbered. The treaty itself was based on that battle, hence the name treaty of Erzurum. Read the article itself for the sources:". Someguy1122 posted no published sources for his opinion.

After waiting a week and with no published sources to support his opinion, I removed "Tactical Persian victory". Someguy1122 returned to edit war his opinion back into the article. After I tagged both articles and added citations to his opinion, Someguy1122 is now using a reference(quoted;"The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo.") to force his POV.[145]

So now Someguy1122 is falsely using a source to push his original research. What can be done about this disruptive editor? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep talking and follow other steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like a classic content dispute, only KB has the advantage of marginally more solid sources. SG1122 needs to find better sources, or should stop trying to re-add. Both editors seem to be using relatively weak google-searched sources; I imagine better ones exist but could require some effort to excavate. A strategic (not tactical) Persian victory seems a credible result to the entire conflict, as the sources I can find suggest Persia succeeded in winning concessions with few or no substantial losses. But without WP:RS which actually make that synthesis, its of no use to this article. --R.S. Peale (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So it is perfectly acceptable for this editor to misrepresent a reference to support his OR? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If an editor misrepresents references, and add improperly cited OR, the appropriate remedy would be to proceed through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also invite him to this discussion. If you're expecting immediate, draconian sanctions to be applied, it's really a bit too soon for that. --R.S. Peale (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Someguy1122 has been notified of this. I wanted more input from the community at large, no draconian measures. If an editor can simply write "whatever" and use any source to support it, then why was Wikipedia:Original research even implemented as a policy? What is wrong with my sources?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tucker's Chronology isn't a a bad source, but on the subject it's thin. The entire conflict gets two paragraphs, which only cover a few brief highlights. Not enough meat to inspire much confidence. However, it is a valid citation, cited properly, with no reason not to consider it a RS. If another editor were to dispute it, they would need to provide better sources with different conclusions. Someguy1122 attempted, but failed. (your diffs should stand, his should go) --R.S. Peale (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes in case my post wasn't clear, it's way too soon for administrative action and there's rarely much point bringing a content dispute to ANI if that isn"t needed. Note that if you have concerns with an editors behaviour but don't have very good reason to think they are not acting in good faith, you should nearly always speak to them first. And no posting at ANI and inviting them as required doesn't count as talking to them. Even an RFC/U can't be opened without having talked to the person first. (And do remember to WP:AGF, saying someone misrepresented a reference is can be quite a serious allegation as it can carry the implication it's intentional and this would generally need more evidence then a single incidence. Remember that there are many possible reasons why a source may be added to support something when it doesn't seem to actually support it, such as differing interpretations of a source, misremembering what the source said, misremembering which source or accidently citing the wrong source, in some cases although obviously not here the source may have changed, etc. All of which while not good, are not quite the same thing as using a source fully aware it doesn't support what you claim it supports hoping no one will notice.)

And if you need further input to resolve a dispute, there are plenty of ways to ask for that but ANI is rarely one of them (mostly only cases when it involves administrative actions).

All this and more is described in the dispute resolution and associated pages.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Guess you haven't taken the time to view the talk page then.[146],[147],[148],[149],[150],[151]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Kansas Bear is simply lying about the source. The source I put was not provided by me, it was provided by Kansas Bear himself in the Battle of Erzurum (1821) entry [152]. The article on the Battle of Erzurum, the major battle of that war, was previously sourced before Kansas put another. The article states that the battle of Erzurum 1821 was clearly won by the Persians. The only major battle won in a war is a tactical victory for the victor is it not? Thus I added the source which Kansas Bear had put in the battle of Erzurum entry, in the entries on the Ottoman-Persian conflicts. Furthermore I suggested twice in the talk page to Kansas bear that we should get an arbiter to settle it. He instead made a provocative and baiting post in talk page and reported me. He lied here about the source, he never mentioned that it's his own source and claimed it was something I made up, as visible in his post above. Moreover, he is still reverting sourced information in the very same article but made by other users: [153] SomeGuy1122 (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio issues from Vlad4

Today, I found that Vlad4 (talk · contribs) had copied and pasted some episode summaries onto List of The Venture Bros. episodes. I know this for certain because one of the summaries he pasted has a misspelling of one of the characters' names. I then perused some of his edits to find that this is fairly common for him. His talk page is full of bot notices that have gone unheeded, showing that his problematic editing practices have gone unnoticed for quite some time. And he's made all of 3 edits to any of the talk spaces in his 5 years on the project. His tendency to plagiarize and WP:COPYVIO is something that needs to be addressed immediately.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There may be hundreds of missed copyvios in this guy's contributions, why has no one taken note of it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Vlad4 clearly needs to stop this (and thanks Ryulong for working on this). Vlad is not here every day, so not coming to ANI right now is somewhat understandable. I will request him to stop editing, and join this discussion so we can find out what needs cleanup and deleteion. I support a block if that doesn't happen to prevent further damage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Old Time Music Fan

I ran across Old Time Music Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) via the Recent Deaths page, where he had created a stub article for a recently deceased 12-year-old climber with no sourceable notability I could locate. Having perused OTMF's user talk and contribs page, he has a pattern of creating articles on the same day as the obit entries, and often with only one source (and one line). I can supply diffs, but it is readily apparent on brief perusal of either page.

For that reason, many of his articles are AfDed and speedied. Some of his choices are likely future articles, many of them are not, and as the choice seems arbitrary and not dependent on OTMF knowing anything about the topic, I do not believe that his pattern of behavior is contributory to the encyclopedia, as we are not here to simply generate pages, but to create informative work. We have had issues with poor stub articles in the past (even to the level of a part of an ArbCom case), and therefore I am not sure if this is a mentoring issue or an enforcement issue. Could somebody clarify this as needed and take the appropriate action? MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's as MSJapan says. I've rescued one or two of his articles, and deleted one or two. He seems to be creating them on the basis of brief news articles, often articles recording someone's death. Sometimes the person is notable, sometimes not; however, except by accident, the information he includes does not go far enough to show it. I support viable stubs, but a viable stub is one that indicates there is likely to be enough material to show notability, even if the stub itself does not fully demonstrate it. Some of his article subjects have articles in other WPs, and he makes the links (or they're made automatically), but he does not use the material, thee, even to the extent of copying over the references. I have the impression than some of the article subjects are in fields he isn't knowledgable about,; this can be done, if one realises it is still necessary to at least find substantial references; I have the impression he doesn't really know what are standards are. Keeping track of news reports is not a bad way to build WP, but he needs to show some degree of selectivity, and do more work himself and leave it so much of the work for others. I'll try to explain to him. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No apparent effect, given Solomon Oboh. MSJapan (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated reverting at Asiana Airlines Flight 214

I know I'm supposed to go to WP:AN3, but things move at a glacial pace over there and conversation over there tends to begin and end with whether a particular party should be blocked.

The issue is in regards to Kennvido (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly been removing passenger and crew numbers from Asiana Airlines Flight 214, insisting that they cannot or should not be put into the article until the FAA confirms the numbers. It has been pointed out that several reliable news sources, citing Asiana Airlines, have reported the number of passengers and crew members on the flight. On the talk page, there appears to be a consensus that their inclusion is fine; at Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214#Passenger and crew numbers, I count at least five editors, including myself, acceding to including these numbers, with Kennvido being the lone dissenter.

Still, Kennvido has repeatedly, violating the three-revert rule (both in spirit and intent letter and spirit [-- tariqabjotu 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)]), reverted this information (often provided with in-line sources) out of the article, insisting that only FAA sources are acceptable (23:02, 22:59, 22:54, 22:14, 22:04, 21:44, 21:44, 21:36, 21:30, 21:13). Can I get some more input or perhaps action on this? -- tariqabjotu 23:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am done on the article. I thought Wikipedia members would want 'correct' and 'official' info on the numbers, but evidently not. Let them go with 'unofficial' info. News conference 'officially' stated numbers still fluid and NOTHING EXACT. So, do what you want with the article. I certainly hope you note the others as well as myself taking down unofficial info from the article and tell those who insisted of putting unofficial info in, that Wikipedia wants true numbers and not guessed numbers, even if four or more sources are just guessing. Look at ALL TALK regarding this article as well please. Initially, I was WITH the putting in of the 'unofficial' info, due the media sources, but thought a tragic event like this should not be guessed with as far human lives when readers could know someone on this flight. This article should have been locked for ALL. Kennvido (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this requires immediate intervention anymore, since it's calmed down as sources get updated on this issue. However, it would be nice to get an uninvolved admin to weigh in on the handling of the dispute by Kennvido. This issue was being discussed on the Talk page otherwise in a civil debate, which he probably should have engaged in when people brought it to his attention, rather than continue to revert. Frankly, he's been around long enough to know better. Steven Walling • talk 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I've pointed out before, with 'breaking news' stories like these, WP:3RR has to be rapidly ditched if we are to avoid handing over articles to the mob who seem to fail to understand the need for even the basics of sourcing, and who insist on filling articles with trivia, disinformation and copyright violations. I'm sure I've broken WP:3RR there - probably WP:10RR - but I'll stand by what I did in the article, on the basis that if I hadn't, the article would have been a whole lot worse. I think that all things considered, we managed between us to keep the article in a reasonable state, and if tempers got frayed, it is unsurprising. I suggest we put it down to experience, and all try to remember that we are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia - where adding something an hour late shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but getting it right does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think immediate action is necessary anymore either. Indeed, this is what I was talking about with AN3; at AN3, this would have ended with a "No action" and we'd be done.

Anyway, yes, I realize that 3RR becomes fluid on breaking news articles (I wouldn't be surprised if I reverted more than three times on that article). But that's just a violation of the letter of the law. As I said, I believe(d) his actions violated the rule not just in letter, but also in spirit. It was obvious he was reverting the same content repeatedly, despite and even after the remarks on the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between reverting more than three times to combat random IPs or brand new accounts adding misinformation, and revert wars between established community members with thousands of edits. When you know that, even if you disagree, there is a consensus developing on the Talk page, it's your duty to quit reverting for a bit and discuss the matter of contention. Otherwise it's just going to stay at an impasse and we get nowhere. So it's not about obeying the letter of 3RR and sacrificing WP:V, but rather about abiding by basic principles of collaboration. For the record: I don't think a block for violating 3RR is merited here, because it would clearly be punitive and not preventative. Steven Walling • talk 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here either. I was trying, among other members, to not publish erroneous info or info that was 'thought' to be correct. I have a radio and television background for over 40 years... I know it's difficult not to try to put something out immediately to make sure everything is up to date. I realize that at times during this event, multiple sources were saying the same thing, but it is still not official. In the future, I will do better in the area of deleted unofficial info when dealing with a current event. During past current event articles, I have never run into this. Maybe a rule should be added regarding an event like this, when info changes minute to minute. Something like when three separate sources are reporting the same info, but nothing has been given out officially, the author is required to put all three sources. Just trying to make things easier for everyone here, because we that are serious here are all striving to reach the same goal. Kennvido (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I support Kennvido's reverts, but only before we had Reuters (and others) saying that they got the numbers straight from the airline. We didn't have to wait for an FAA or NTSB or I-don't-know-whose press release. Anyway, I think this is very minor. — Lfdder (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Hyacinth

Hello all. I'm not sure what else I can do... so I am bringing this here. Hyacinth (talk · contribs), an administrator here on the English Wikipedia, added a new field to Template:Infobox single. I asked him, polietely, what was up with the addition, as the template is "permanently protected from editing since it is a heavily used and/or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, if the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus." and I saw none of the sort on the template's talk. I made a mistake in my comment, stating that the edit was done to Template:Infobox album, instead of Template:Infobox single, but I believe I was pretty specific to make this comment unnecessary. I corrected myself, and got an unsatisfactory response. I expressed my feelings of confusion over a conversation with an admin that I thought would be pretty clean; his responses came off rather cold and angry sounding to me.

I then decided to take this discussion to the template's talk page, to which another user, Adabow (talk · contribs), agreed with me. Throughout this, Hyacinth continued to add the new field he created to hundreds of articles, ignoring the two users on the talk page expressing dismay to its addition with consensus, as required. After Hyacinth broke the template, Kww (talk · contribs) reverts to the previous revision. Prior to this, Two editors noticed these issues and let Hyacinth know about them. Hyacinth declares that "If there is no opposition, hasn't consensus been reached?" and adds the field again. And continues adding the field to more articles.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "After breaking the template, Kww ..." seems to imply that I broke the template. In fact, Hyacinth broke the template twice today (both here and here), damaging every article that uses {{infobox single}}. That's a lot of articles. There's no sign in his edit history that he tests his changes at all.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Corrected my statement.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of this mess could have been avoided if Status would have written what he intended and so shown respect for Hyacinth's time, the way Hyacinth shows respect for the intelligence and time of others (by writing precisely and concisely).

There are other places to receive and offer "I feel" messages. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The other issue here is that he refused to stop adding unsourced director information to articles after multiple demands to stop and an explicit block warning, as well as refusing to discuss the fact that he was making untested changes to widely used templates. I've blocked him for that. Since he's an admin, that needs to be discussed here as well.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It does? I hereby Support admins being blocked if their actions are detrimental to the encyclopedia or to the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Oh, also the length of such blocks should be doubled, pour encourager les autres. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I've had a similar experience, though Hyacinth did eventually back off - but dinner's calling, I'll look in a bit. --Rschen7754 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Horrific block by an involved administrator who had no business leaving a "block warning" in the first place. Hyacinth explained that he incorporated information in the infobox that was already present in the category information of the articles. Thus, in the cases discussed on the talk page, Hyacinth did not add information to the article. The indefinite length of the block and the false charge are additional reasons that Kww should be desyssopped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Real life intrudes, and I will be away for about two hours. Other admins, please watch and be liberal: if Hyacinth shows any signs of actually being willing to discuss things as opposed to plowing ahead, unblock him and let him discuss them.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Found it, where he made a controversial edit to Template:Did you know, and gave a less-than-satisfactory response: User talk:Hyacinth/February 5 2012 - January 6 2013#DYK. --Rschen7754 02:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth appears to have accepted Kww's conditions, and I have unblocked.-gadfium 02:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Another bad block by Kww. He was involved in a content dispute and misused his block button.

Kww was also bullshitting Hyacinth, raising BLP concerns about a video director being credited. Such a credit is hardly contentious or liable to be considered liable or slanderous. Kww's block threat was improper.

But threats, bs, and bad blocks from Kww are nothing new. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If User:Kww simply failed to realized the information was already in the article, and then wasn't removed by User:Kww, then the conflict is explained as a misunderstanding on that user's part (and my inability to inform the user). Hyacinth (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What about where you used your sysop tools to make controversial edits to protected pages? --Rschen7754 02:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Or where you made changes without testing them? Or continued to add unsourced information to the articles? You keep acting like the fact that someone had already invalidly categorized the articles in question gave you the right to continue to build on that unsourced foundation.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You could check Breathe (Blu Cantrell song) and Satisfy You and see if I am willing to collaborate with you. Perhaps you didn't notice that I asked you what to do about those pages and similar pages, since I have received no answer. Hyacinth (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What I primarily noticed was that you continued to make the same change over and over to multiple articles that had the same problem. Why didn't you stop? When are you going to address the question of why you made changes to the template when you knew other editors objected、and why you continued to make changes to the template without testing them?—Kww(talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww makes ultimatums, and when the sense in his ultimatums is addressed, Kww changes the subject (refusing to respond to Hyacinth's discussion) and makes new demands. Hyacinth is right to stop wasting his time with further bad faith discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the outcome or goal desired by the users commenting above? Do you wish me to defend myself or not? Do you wish to punish me somehow or not? Do you simply wish for me to say sorry or not? Hyacinth (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care whether you are sorry. I want you to understand that you cannot continue to edit widely-used templates without testing those changes first. I want you to understand that you cannot add fields to the infobox template when other editors have objected before you get a consensus to do so. I want you to understand that if an article makes an unsourced claim about a living person, you can't simply keep repeating and expanding that unsourced claim without a source. I want you to understand that all of those things are a form of misbehaviour that will likely result in you being blocked again.—Kww(talk) 03:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Or more likely, get sent to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 03:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the goal is for you to realize that you changed a template without having consensus on your side, and that you reinstated the changes against consensus even when another admin reverted you. So, the problem is 1) You need to better listen when somebody objects, 2) Don't use your tools to gain advantage (the users objecting were unable to edit the protected page), 3) be more careful in the future when editing highly-visible pages. I think that if you aknowledge those things, nothing else would be needed. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying "why is the sky blue" is not the same as asking "can we make the sky yellow again?". To expect a user to understand that you meant the later while saying the former is unreasonable. Hyacinth (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The template was full protected; you edited that template without discussion. That you see no problem doing so is concerning. That you did not stop and discuss your controversial editing when approached is concerning. That you demonstrate surprise at the result of your action is not concerning, it's the path to ArbCom. Tiderolls 04:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the same with the DYK edits you made earlier. Administrators are accountable to the community; it's not like 2004 where you can do whatever the heck you want. The community needs to be reassured that you will not misuse the tools. --Rschen7754 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think that people have been specific enough, here are the questions, numbered. Please answer each one.

1. After you broke every instance of {{infobox single}} twice in one day and two separate editors had complained about it on your talk page, why did you make another change without testing it?
2. When you were aware that other editors objected to you adding the parameter, why did you continue to add it?
3. Do you understand that you aren't allowed to edit protected articles and templates without consensus?
4. After I had objected multiple times to your expanding unsourced information without providing a source, why did you continue to do so?

—Kww(talk) 04:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second. Two things:

1. You keep saying he "broke" the template. That sounds as if he introduced some technical error that made it appear messed up or something. If that was the case, I must have missed where somebody pointed that out. So far, I'm only seeing that he added support to a parameter that some people think shouldn't be there. That's a different thing.
2. There are different situations about editing protected pages. Templates that are long-term protected as a matter of routine merely as a security measure against vandalism are quite different from, for instance, pages that are temporarily protected against edit-wars. With edit-war protections, it is indeed true that nobody, including administrators, ought to be making substantial edits without prior consensus. With routine-protected templates, my understanding of policy is that there is no such limitation in principle. Just as the fact that a page is semiprotected against vandalism doesn't prevent an autoconfirmed user to apply WP:BOLD editing it, the fact that a page is routine-protected should not prevent those who technically have that ability from applying WP:BOLD editing it. As long as a user does so responsibly (i.e. has taken due care to avoid technical mistakes that would break pages, and has no reason to expect his edit will be against consensus), I see no problem with such edits. The only caveat is that if such a bold edit meets with opposition afterwards, the admin who has made the edit ought to be prepared to reverse it pending discussion and consensus, to avoid the effect of imbalance of power. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he "broke" the template. It was broken both here and here. What drew my attention in the first place was that the article I was looking at had an infobox that was displaying as a mutilated pile of wikicode and I couldn't see any error in the syntax. The those two diffs are at ANI and the topic of my very first message to Hyacinth. I'll agree that there are three or four issues here. The only reason why the sourcing issue (admittedly the weakest) keeps rising is because that is the only one he will talk about. He has not addressed his template editing anywhere.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As Hyacinth has continued editing elsewhere without responding here, I've requested that they clarify the situation. I'm seeking consensus for reblock if their reponse is not timely and direct. Tiderolls 05:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom Indefinitely blocking an admin is pointless since they can undo the block. --Rschen7754 05:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that they break more templates or edit BLPs without sufficient regard for that policy. I've seen the term "emergency desysoping" before; is there a mechanism in place for that possibility? Tiderolls 05:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• sigh* I haven't thought through all the ramifications yet... Well, ArbCom can always vote on a motion once the case is brought to them, or initiate L1 or L2 desysopping. Now if consensus at ANI was to block him, I don't know what ArbCom would do, if they would just go ahead and desysop him, or whatever. If he did unblock himself, that would qualify for L1, and may qualify for emergency desysopping by a steward. --Rschen7754 05:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Page is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures. --Rschen7754 05:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping by a steward would be very controversial, and I doubt any stewie would be willing to do that. This is not that urgent to warrant an emergency desysop. Also, a desysop would not solve all of the issue. Desysop would only mean that 1) He won't be able to edit the protected template again; and 2) He could not unblock himself, although I doubt he'd do that. Also, this may not warrant a case unless we can prove that this behaviour has been sighted in the past. What we can do is contact an arb ASAP. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Noting that I do support a reblock only as a stopgap measure. --Rschen7754 05:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Admins can be blocked just like anyone else. I've both done it and had it done to me. Unblocking yourself is grounds for an emergency desysop. I'm having a very hard time persuading myself that Hyacinth understands the limitations upon himself either as an admin or an editor. Given his refusal to answer direct questions at all, much less answer them in a way that reassures me that he is no danger to templates, I'd favor a reblock followed by an Arbcom case. As long as he didn't unblock himself, there's no emergency need to desysop him.—Kww(talk) 05:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• I support a reblock of Hyacinth. He clearly does not understand his actions and refuses to respond to them not just here, but on other talk pages as well. He was unblocked to discuss his actions here, which he has not done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Might I add that I realize it could be late for him and he could have gone to bed, but even if that's the case, he didn't say so, so either way, it is avoiding the discussion.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Newyorkbrad requesting input. It's late and he may not see the e-mail until tomorrow but another Arb may happen along. Tiderolls 05:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) Note that editing a protected template is essentially 1RR, because both Hyacinth and Kww violated WP:WHEEL on the redo and re-revert respectively. If past history is any guide, Arbcom will do nothing with this, but realize that you both may be desysop'ed for that. Best wishes on a sensible outcome for all involved. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:WHEEL? I will point out that this version wasn't reverted because of any dispute over consensus or methodology. It was reverted because every article in Wikipedia that used {{infobox single}} was broken. Hyancinth had inserted syntax error in the template. Note my initial comment, made before I was aware of any dispute regarding the template contents.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:WHEEL references administrative actions; every administrator editing through protection makes one each time they save the work. There's no exception built in for breaking Wiki-code, but IAR might well apply, although ArbCom could always decide it did not. If I had been in your shoes, I would have fired up IRC (I don't stay logged in much anymore), and gotten a hold of another admin to do the second revert, just to avoid putting myself at risk. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Putting on my arbitrator hat (something I generally avoid doing on noticeboards) I suggest that the community consider two courses of action: whether to initiate a discussion specifically about Hyacinth being restricted from editing any protected templates or starting a request for arbitration/desysop at the appropriate page. Editing of protected pages without discussion and testing, and/or against consensus, particularly when it causes widespread damage to many articles, is usually considered a serious lapse on the part of any administrator. Hyacinth, on your part, I suggest that you consider formally undertaking to *always* initiate discussion before editing protected templates (or any other protected pages, for that matter), and to thoroughly test any proposed edits to protected templates. Risker (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Four hours ago I would've accepted such a commitment from Hyacinth. Based on their less than forthcoming responses above, and edits elsewhere during this period, I have no confidence that they have sufficient grasp of the circumstances to make such a commitment. Tiderolls 06:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much ditto. He's engaged in discussion on the addition of the parameter he was adding, and he's been willing to at least talk about why he thinks expanding unsourced information is OK, but he has not once responded to a single question about the lack of testing his changes to an extremely widely used template.—Kww(talk) 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I initially felt Kww's block was a bit WP:INVOLVED, but after reading his explanation above I am satisfied by his rationale. If indeed hundreds of thousands of articles were broken, then a block, imposed ASAP, would be necessary to prevent disruption. As for Hyacinth: 1) If a page is fully protection, it must be for a good reason. Don't change it unless you have consensus. 2) For widely used templates, always test first before deploying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  Your falsehood "hundreds of thousands of articles were broken" does not change Kww's involvement and consequent misuse of the block button. Kww should have asked for a competent uninvolved administrator to help resolve the dispute rather than misusing his tools to gain advantage in a content dispute.

I am curious when your "block first" policy will be applied to the administrators responsible for the latest WMF debacle, visual editor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I will politely ask you to back off, Kiefer. If you have any grievances with the users above and below, I'll understand, but the mater at hand is very delicate and using a battleground behaviour is not going to solve it. We are not following (or at least I'm not) any punishments against Hyacinth; we just want him to aknowledge the situation, learn from it and move on. Otherwise, he will be at ArbCom's door sooner than later, which under my perspective is highly undesirable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm discussing the matter at hand, which is closed. Hyacinth made a mistake, acknowledged it, and

Hyacinth needs to explain himself to neither you (particularly given how your RfA failed), nor Status ("how do you have the nerve?"), nor Kww. Your triumverate is not the victorious Roman Army, to the best of my knowledge, and in any event you don't have a yoke erected on the battleground under which you can force your victims to march. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to be nice, but seems like your cluelesness is between my efforts to actually be nice and a productive discussion between the two of us. Whatever, I prefer to have a failed RfA than a block log like yours. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close. Hyacinth has already addressed the substantive issues and apologized for his mistake on the talk page of the template. The hysteria here, the bad-faith escalations of demands, the emotive posturing of Status ("the nerve", etc.), and the aggression on Hyacinth's talk page are grossly inappropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth has made no statement demonstrating understanding the inappropriate nature of their actions nor the consequences of their actions. As a matter of fact, they have avoided making any such startement after many requests. Tiderolls 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth is a he, not a they.

Hyacinth has responded several times. The problem is that the hysteria and cluelessnes make it unlikely that Hyacinth will waste further time.

Hyacinth has epilepsy and has requested time to sleep, repeatedly. So back off.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz is referring here to lack of sleep being a trigger for seizures, and thus sleep being a requirement. Hyacinth (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll employ the personal pronouns I choose. Hyacinth has responded several times without addressing the concerns that prompted the original report. As for hysteria, I'll present this post responding to a post of mine where I inquired if Hyacinth required more time to craft a response. Perhaps you should consider backing off. Tiderolls 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would not see anything particular in blocking of an edit warrior if it were not an indefinite block. But Kww specified a condition of unblocking, and in any case the block is removed now, hence there is no point to argue about Kww’s actions. On the other hand, if Hyacinth appears to understand poorly WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus, then certainly there should be a motion to strip his sysop privilege, but I can’t evaluate this matter from one isolated case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good block - sometimes admins do have to be prevented from breaking things when they're doing so carelessly or intentionally. Removing their own block would likely have been clear grounds for desysop. Time for a little re-training it seems. Yes, we could take this to ArbComm, but it would probably be dealt with by a slap-on-the-wrist motion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A clarification to something that people seem confused about. Yes, he broke the template. It was broken both here and here. When those two versions of the template were active, every invocation of {{infobox single}} displayed as a block of broken wikicode. I did not become aware of the issue regarding consensus for a parameter until researching Hyacinth's contributions: what brought me to his talk page was seeing that the article I was looking at had a pile of broken wikicode instead of an infobox.—Kww(talk) 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for the clarification; this had not been entirely clear from the initial posting of this thread. So, what it boils down to, for me, is not that Hyacinth edited the template "without prior consensus" (that, I would say, has been a bit of a red herring in this thread). The issue is also not about "verifiability" – modifying a template so that it can support a new parameter is one thing; filling that parameter with unverified values in articles is quite another. The real issue appears to be that he showed a lack of due care, in fiddling live with a high-use template when he evidently lacked some of the technical experience in coding these kinds of conditional parameters and ought to have done it in a sandbox first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if people only made one mistake at a time so that we could keep better sorted discussions. I agree that the biggest problem is that he makes untested changes to high-volume templates and refuses to discuss that, which would normally indicate that he doesn't see it as a problem. As for "without prior consensus", it's a little stronger than that: he made the changes after he had received objections from multiple editors and support from none. The sourcing issue is minor in comparison to those two.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss his changes. He made an error, which has been fixed. (Compare the policy on deleting others messages on your talk page, which implies that you have read the message.) Hyacinth doesn't need to waste his time addressing Status's questions "why Hyacinth has the nerve..." or your false accusations that he's adding unsourced content by adding a field in an infobox. The indefinite block may be your worst block so far.

In the future, you could just use the coding in my regular tunings infobox, which allows optional sections and items. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You neglect to discuss that after he broke the template twice in one day, he made another substantial change to the template, apparently without testing. It appears to be recklessness and willful disregard, not a mistake. He's been asked multiple times where he tested that change, and has made no reply to that issue whatsoever. He is required to answer questions about his use of tools.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my actions. I should have tested my edits to the template, even the last one which fixed it. I should have started a discussion before adding the parameter to the template, as it was protected. Hyacinth (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm satisfied with this, personally, and see no need to bring it to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I follow the page of one of the admins involved (we work on the same wiki projects often) I found myself reading over this bit of wikidrama and just wanted to make an observation that I find a bit troubling. I don't edit music articles pretty much ever but I get why you guys were so concerned about Hyacinth's originally disputed edits given how it seems you set up that template to function. I totally understand all of that. My concern is that when Hyacinth backed off the edits and started to try to propose his rationale for why he thought they were good edits, things got downright hostile on the template page real quick. It wasn't all of the involved editors but there was a definite gang up on the guy feeling to it with a slew of ad hominen attacks (and some use of words that aren't actually words that make me want to mock people, but that's not the issue here). I get that folks wanted to make sure Hyacinth recognized why his original round of edits were problematic; that's totally cool. It's just that... well for us non-admin types it was a little disheartening to see people going ballistic in quite that way. I won't be following the rest of this conversation as I have no actual stake in it. I just wanted to let you know that meeting problem edits with incivility looked, frankly, really piss poor and it made it hard to sort out what was going on. I hope you guys get it all worked out. Millahnna (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit war—FAC instructions

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

---

There's a heated discussion here and related edit-war on the FAC instructions—I count 10 contentious back-and-forths in the past 15 hours, by arbs, ex-arbs, admins, normal people.

Could this page be locked for a couple of days as a cooling off measure? Tony (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Protected for three days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Closing a requested move

Talk:South_Robertson,_Los_Angeles#Requested_move. Only one "weak oppose" there. No response to the main argument that "South Robertson" and "Pico-Robertson" are two different places. Los Angeles Times uses "Pico-Robertson, " and that is what the article should be named. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a backlog at Requested move (WP:RM#Backlog); it will be closed in time, in turn. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User who previously admitted to sock-puppetry now renouncing their admission

Can an uninvolved editor review Leoesb1032 (talk · contribs)? The related sock-puppetry case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leoesb1032/Archive.

I had opened the sock-puppetry case; they first denied having a sock, then admitted to it. Now they are denying it again, claiming that they were intimidated into giving a false confession. Note: the reason I know about their change is due to their using 68.84.125.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to post about it on my talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The username is a huge match. However, allowing for the possibility that the master is telling the truth, I suspect this may be an impersonation attempt by a troll (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djapa84/Archive). I would recommend a CheckUser be run. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

One way or the other, the IP is evading the block, so I've blocked it for 10 days (the remainder of Loesb1032's block). If someone decides to unblock Loesb1032, he should undo the IP block as well.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. A new SPI case is now opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leoesb1032. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The case came back positive. I left a note on Leoesb's talkpage requesting clarification. I'm not immediately inclined to increase the block length, but I want to hear what they have to say first. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was effective. So, what to do now? holding their head under until they say uncle or go away is the only option I can think off, and that is a very bad option. Does anyone have an alternative? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is that a bad option? It seems that he can't be honest about his edits, so why would we want to keep him around?—Kww(talk) 18:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The user already has over a week remaining from their second block. I do have concerns with the user's ability to become a constructive member of a collaborative community, given their repeated pattern of deception and misrepresentation.

Normally, I would suggest giving them one last chance once their current block runs out. But, given their continued denial of socking despite the positive technical results from the SPI case, I'm forced to doubt the benefit of any more chances. Not sure where that leaves us - but I would not be opposed to an indefinite block at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions enforcement requested

On Purewal, User:Kironbd07 Karan Purewal (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted unsourced information about the caste, reverting to preserve the information, including after I both explained the issue with unsourced edits and warned the user of the sanctions on all South Asian caste articles (see WP:CASTE). As the sanctions were community imposed rather than Arbcom imposed, I've brought the further violations here to request a block or other sanction. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not the correct username. You mean Karan Purewal (talk · contribs) i presume. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you; I had too many tabs open. OMG, and I just realized I failed to notify the user. Doing so now. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

He has stopped editing for the moment; perhaps your template re: sanctions has been read and understood. It was received on his talk page the same minute during which he made his last edit. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:HashtagGags

This is the third time I've been here concerning User:HashtagGags (previously User:GagsGagsGags), I filed my first report here and my second here, of which the consequence of the latter was to be indefinitely blocked. The user appears to have come back again and re-created the hoax live album The Mrs. Carter Show... Live in Antwerp for what is perhaps the third time (I think another variation is "The Mrs. Carter Show: Live in Antwerp"). I know the usual process is to warn, and I've left a lengthy talk page note trying to encourage the user to be involved in the project in more constructive ways, but I was unsure whether this was the correct way to proceed considering the user's history and the fact that even indefinite restrictions don't seem to disparage him/her. —JennKR | ☎ 13:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

_{I hope you don't mind, but I corrected the link to User:HashtagGags. S.G.^(GH) ping! 13:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)}

_{Of course not! Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 13:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)}

User:John seems to have done the honors. I don't think there is anything else here to do. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Harassment over Sri Chinmoy article

The users Richard Reinhardt (talk · contribs) and Bipula Langosh (talk · contribs) have both been removing the Controversy section, or large portions of it, from the Sri Chinmoy article without reason. Another user reverted Richard Reinhardt's edits, and I reverted Bipula Langosh's edits. After doing this, Bipula Langosh created my user page (since deleted) with a paragraph berating me for restoring the removed content. Richard Reinhardt then posted a borderline personal attack to my talk page (diff) also regarding the same content. Also, given the similarities of the edits and the newness of the account, it wouldn't surprise me if Bipula Langosh were a sock of Richard Reinhardt. Can this be looked into? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: Bipula Langosh has posted a message to his talk page (diff) about this issue. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple promotional accounts

• Fact reporter (talk · contribs)
• Fact reporter1 (talk · contribs)

Both accounts are being used for promotional purposes by same user or group of users, as admitted here [154]. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to very obviously be the case. However, it is more pertinent to note that the account is being used by someone being paid to edit on behalf of two individuals to produce Wikipedia articles, and this firm may have done the same in the past. I've created a sockpuppet case to dig deeper. I am also trying to inform the individual of the problems their edits have caused.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well noted--thank you. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fact reporter1 has written Yes I work for the individuals in order to create blogs, web pages and wiki page upkeep. They are television celebrities and have hired my group to oversee all. [155]. Additionally, they are persistently accusing those cleaning up after them of vandalism. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarity, these are the claimed vandal IPs:

• User:204.602.032.27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:151.164.129.3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:204.602.03227 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:151.164.129.2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:151.164.112.18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:151.164.129 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:151.164.61 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Auric talk 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Only the second, fourth, and fifth of those are actually valid IPv4 addresses, and those have no contributions. The first and third, if punctuated differently, might be interpreted as 204.60.203.227, which is a valid address, but which also has no contributions. The sixth and seventh addresses have only three octets and are thus not valid. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Those are the IPs claimed to be vandals by the accused party in this case, which I've already dismissed for the reasons JanetteDoe points out. And I had somehow inserted a period into one of the IPs when trying to figure out what this guy was talking about so I've modified it in Auric's comment above, showing that this person we're working with is full of malarkey.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User will not understand original research

Could we have some OR-experienced eyes over at Talk:Manor of Molland, please? Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have reached a clear impasse there, and one of us must be completely in the wrong. Either he has been adding original research to many articles for a year or more, or I am obsessing about nothing at all. I'm asking here, rather than taking the dispute resolution route, because if I'm right he ought to be stopped quickly before he can damage WP any further. That he does not understand the significance of OR is indicated by this statement he made on 3 July: "I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations."[156]

The discussion that led up to the impasse is on CaroleHenson's talk page here, though that was just the latest round of discussions that have taken place on several talk pages from earlier in June. Other relevant messages were posted on his talk page, from this one of 21 June onwards.

Other problems include incivility (some of which I summarised in para 2 here), and less importantly his failure to provide clear references (see 2nd collapsed list here, for example) and non-compliance with WP:MOS. I can provide more examples etc., if requested. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of removal or flagging of OR that was added by Lobsterthermidor: [157], [158], [159], [160] (see under Tardrew), [161] (removal by Lobsterthermidor), [162] (see bottom), [163], [164] (interpretation of primary source), [165].  —SMALLJIM  23:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations" the purpose of which was so that I could add proper in-line citations to provide sources for text tagged OR! The context of that comment was during a very recent whirlwind series of edits to an article created by me (Annery, Monkleigh) by a third editor (auto-confirmed user) who changed all my citation styles to one preferred by her and gave me the impression that I had to follow that style. That I was determined to do, relying on her experience and authority, hence I decided to make no more edits, including supplying sources to OR tags, until I had learned the new style. (See my talk page 29 June 2013: "Thanks Carole, I think you'll like my citations better in future. It was a bit of a rough lesson, but if that's how it's got to be done, I'm willing to do it"). During that self re-education process, I learned to my surprise that I was perfectly OK to use my existing cite style (which doesn't use cite templates) per WP:CITEVAR.

There is no question as to my great goodwill to every aspect of the WP project or of my total good faith. To read that I am accused of "damaging WP" is a great surprise to me and wholly inaccurate. I think the good quality of any article I have created will support that. I don't claim any is perfect or error free, but I'm proud of all my work contributed and believe it improves Wikipedia.

I would estimate that over 95% of all my challenges in 3 years editing have come from this one editor above, (as my archived talk page will evidence) whose demands for sources are becoming in my opinion increasingly unreasonable, obsessive and hysterical. My article contributed on Manor of Molland already had over 100 line-refs provided and is well sourced, albeit not perfect. I'm trying to improve it and my other articles all the time. Why is no one else demanding sources from me all the time? Where are the OR and cn tags on all my other articles contributed which this editor hasn't critically reviewed? I draw the conclusion from lack of cn tags elsewhere that the community and readers are generally happy with my work.

See the latest exchanges on Talk:Manor of Molland between this editor and myself. Even when I have supplied a clear-cut source, most recently for example the simple and totally non-controversial fact stated by me in Manor of Molland "that the estate of Wonwell was in the parish of Kingston, Devon", (I replied: "My source given was Risdon, p. 182, which under the paragraph heading "KINGSTON" (in capitals), states 8 lines below "In this parish is Wonwell") he continues to challenge this simple point to an absurd quasi-forensic level. I have expressed my opinion to him on that article's talk page - in the most civil terms - that his behaviour has become unreasonable and is in my opinion bordering on the obsessive and that I will not be drawn into endless argument about a challenge I have sourced to the standard required by a reasonable person. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

Staying on topic of original research: I have yet to see sources provided where there are questions of original research or uncited information.

There seems to be a new tactic to cover up original research / uncited information of Prust family members by putting in notes instead of true citations, which makes it look on the surface that there's a citation: fifth paragraph of the Coffin section. I had researched Hugh Prust for the Annery, Monkleigh article to address the original research tag and not found sources for Hugh Prust at [166]--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am confident that the matter can be resolved by reference to the will of Hugh Prust, which should qualify as a source under publicly available archival material in WP:Verify (in footnote 6). This is a source I am aware of, thus not OR, but which is difficult to obtain. I will order it by credit card and share the results with you. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Will now consulted [167] and does not support my text. I was in error to mention Hugh Prust (d.1651) as "of Annery", I should have mentioned instead his brother Joseph Prust (d.1677) of Annery, where this fact is clearly stated on a verifiable source, namely his ledger stone in the Annery Chapel of Monkleigh Church, which I have myself transcribed as follows: "Here lieth interred Joseph Prust of Annerie gent...obiit (he died) Oct 1677...". I am able and willing to supply a photograph of this ledger-stone with inscription in evidence if required. This was careless with regard to proper sourcing, and would thus qualify as OR. I regret this error of mine and any similar I might have made in not following with adequate care WP guidelines in this area. I undertake to continue my editing activity with much greater regard to meeting this OR guideline. I trust this matter may now be adjudicated. Many thanks, and my apologies to the wider Wikipedia community for any breaches I have made. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

At this late stage let me try a different tack, Lobsterthermidor, because I still can't see that you understand. I hope you'll listen to me in this venue, because if I'm wrong I will be quickly corrected.

As the OR policy (not guideline) states in its nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."

So the error you mention above regarding Hugh Prust is indeed technically OR, because there was no reliable, published source for it; but is of the very simplest sort – a mere mistake. OR goes far beyond this. It covers matters such as:

• making comments on sources: [168] (in reference), [169]
• personal observation: [170] (at bottom), [171]
• drawing inferences that the source does not state: example 4 on Talk:Manor of Molland and here under Tardrew
• interpretation of primary sources: [172]
• the expansion of text in an inscription: [173]
• and the addition of content that looks as if it's part of the source, but which is not: [174] (I've seen more examples of this, but can't locate at present).

This last example is potentially the worst because it also misrepresents the source and can mislead readers who don't (or can't) check.

Even if all of these additions are valid and correct, we cannot include them because WP does not publish material for which there is no reliable source.

Does that make it any clearer?  —SMALLJIM  13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Renamed account

Someone explain, please: why would User:Juanpa Grondona redirect to what appears to be their old account, User:Jpgfuru, talk page and all? Thank you. (Not an "incident" per se, but something that someone might shed light on. Will notify.) Mindy Dirt (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's weird. However, I see no reason for sanctions/warnings/other intervention, except for the redirecting of the user talk page; see what I said to the user, plus the fact that this can result in people editing the other talk page without Juanpa noticing. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nyttend. I wasn't even sure on which page to notify them. Mindy Dirt (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for immediate desysopping user:Tariqabjotu for failure to abide by civility, assuming good faith, making paranoid accusations, abrogating discussion, removing pertinent evidence, and behaving in a way incongruent with being an administrator

Please note that Tariqabjotu has summarily foreclosed the discussion and repeatedly removed the evidence from his talk page. This is after he misunderstood and entirely failed to address the content of my initial message to him.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tariqabjotu&action=history

-- Mareklug ^talk 03:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tariq is allowed to remove your edits from his talk page without providing any explanation at all and you are likely to be blocked for edit warring and harassment if you continue to return them to his talk page. --Jayron32 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You all right, Marek? You of all people should know that even if all of what you said were true, you can't just take someone to ANI and expect them to get desysopped. —Soap— 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Just two people annoyed at each other. Time to kiss and make up. — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Case

I was surprised with Daniel Case (talk · contribs) would not act on a blatant username policy violation reported to UAA but really surprised when he chose to taunt on my talk page here when I questioned the decision. Is this the kind of behavior that other admins expected when he was granted admin privileges? This is not something expected of such an experienced editor. Some additional admin perspective on both the UAA decision and Case's comments on my talk page would be appreciated here.--RadioFan (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to comment on that, but one thing most people expect whether you're an admin or not is that you will notify people when you start AN/I threads on them and not leave it up to the notifications system. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I did precisely that on your talk page here. You must have missed it since you posted the above 5 minutes after I added the ANI notice to your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• The UAA decision was sound. Blocks are not enacted on editors that are not actively editing, period. If someone isn't editing Wikipedia, there's no need for any blocks. --Jayron32 03:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• My perspective is that the username was editing AFC pages for the same name (as its username) as seen by the history, this is promotional and should be blocked under WP:SPAMNAME, (Though this is admin discretion most times if they notice other aspects around it). This other than violating username policies is also a promotion only account dealing with edits with a promotional intent. As for the conversation issue brought here, WP is an area with a wide variety of admins and editors, from different regions and age groups. The kind of language some editors regard as cool or hip is sometimes termed as rude by others, I do see some issues with rudeness here but nothing to bring it to an ANI.  A m i t  ❤  05:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I concur with Jayron32. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure where the taunting is... you were snarky to Daniel, and he was snarky right back at you... I would suggest dropping the WP:STICK. Crazynas ^t 06:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• There was no snark intended in my reply to the UAA or question posted on his talk page. Intention was to question the decision. --RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"the page is reliable you (censored)!"

No need for elaboration. Spacecowboi is throwing out stuff like this left and right. I'm surprised nobody actually came here - I posit that this requires immediate administrative action per the edit summaries alone on Then Jerico:

• the page is reliable you f******* n*****! F*** off back to pakistan you w**
• f*** off c***

This guy was already blocked for two weeks after this sockpuppet investigation. This, however, is totally different. I really don't think it requires any elaboration. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you just chose the most eye catching title possible to get more eyes on this report. —Soap— 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you had reported earlier, it's a certain block for both edit warring and incivility. However, it's been over a day since they last edited and I'm not sure how much of a block would actually be WP:PREVENTATIVE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My intent was simply to get swift attention, not necessarily a lot of attention. I apologize if it was a bit too much, though, and have deleted the bad words. If the guy has already been previously blocked for sockpuppetry though, and this is the sort of behavior he displays when challenged, then what else is there to do? His edits are still the last on the article and it's possible that involved editors could decide to revert given the content disagreement. Is it really acceptable behavior that a person is allowed to behave this way on the encyclopedia? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, tried to post this earlier and my computer decided to act up on me; not having seen your message, I went ahead and blocked. Until Spacecowboi can explain what the hell was going through his mind when he wrote those edit summaries, he doesn't need to be editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham87 (talk · contribs)

Sorry for the bother, but I've tried to work this out to no avail. I created a new article Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) and Graham87 (talk · contribs) moved the page to Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and then undeleted redirects and wiped out my credit for having created the page. In the first place, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome is known by the title I gave it in the article. He claims it's not allowed per Wiki policy. There are several pulmonary syndromes, in the medical literature it is referred to as Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) which is why I gave it that title.

He did not attempt any talk page discussion or come to my talk page to ask me about it. Instead, he simply moved the page. When I mentioned the bit about losing the credit for creating the article, he said he doesn't care about that. I care, in the same way I'm sure other volunteer editors would care. His comments:[175]. My comments on his talk page: [176].

WP:COMMONNAME

• [177]
• [178]
• [179]
• [180]
• [181]

I'd like my credit restored for having created the article and I'd like to be able to title the article as it should be. In addition, I'd like to restore the taxbox. It is important for it to be there as HPS is caused by several strains of Hantavirus and the taxbox sorts that quite well. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Most articles in Wikipedia are linked to from some other article and therefore the article title that is most natural to use in ordinary writing is the preferred title. In a medical report it's good to introduce an unfamiliar term by using an acronym or alternate name in the beginning, as you've done with Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), but you wouldn't keep on using the double name throughout the entire article, would you? —Soap— 04:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. I would refer to it as HPS. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding credit, I've checked the edit history, and all your edits are there. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

But in the list of articles I've created, it's no longer there. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding article titles, it would be highly unusual to include an abbreviation in the title as a parenthetical. For example, the article is titled Federal Bureau of Investigation, and not "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)". The use of a parenthetical after the name of something is used frequently in texts to indicate that further referrals to the concept will be by the abbreviation. So, when you see "Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS)" written somewhere, that just means the author is saying "Look, I'm going to use this abbreviation from now on, so I want you to know up front what that abbreviation means". The title is correct as it is now, we don't need to include the abbreviation in parentheticals in the title. It's fine to do so in the article text, just to alert the reader of what the abbreviation means later. But that's not something we do in the title. --Jayron32 04:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He also undeleted the redirects and wiped out my article creation credit. He says, The only thing I did that was slightly irregular was undeleting the redirects – but that sort of thing is also generally uncontroversial. (A couple of articles of mine are in a similar situation). I think you should sleep on this issue and contact me again tomorrow your time. Graham87 03:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Malke 2010 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He could easily fix the situation he's made. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What's broken? --Jayron32 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've said above, I'd like my credit for creating the article to be restored. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Malke, So basically you are saying because the actual content you created has been moved to a page (which was initially a redirect page created by azhyd, this did not count as your new article and is being counted under azhyd's created articles? atleast as per the history here. This is a very unlucky scenario at-least as per me, That's how the move works. And also the page doesn't seem to be having severe issues that need to be resolved. As for the credit - I don't think that you could get back the article created count anymore. Is that article count really such a serious thing to worry about to bring it to ANI? Other than the page creation count - is there any other issue?  A m i t  ❤  04:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Per Amit, if that's what this is all about, I'm not sure we have anything to do here. Every edit you made is properly attributed insofar as they contain your name next to the edit in the article history. The fact that some utility isn't incrementing some counter the way you want it to doesn't seem like a problem that needs fixing, really. --Jayron32 05:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I came here because the admin is taking advantage with the tools. He didn't engage in any discussion. He could have simply given me a notice that the title needed changing. There was no need to undelete the redirects. He had to know what that would do, or if he didn't then perhaps he shouldn't have the tools. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And I note he doesn't respect the process enough to even comment here. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please lets not show haste, its been just an hour or two since you logged the ANI, it is usually good to wait a day or even two in most circumstances due to timezone differences.  A m i t  ❤  05:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was listening to a radio program when you brought forward the ANI; I've only just noticed it. I knew what undeleting the redirects would do, but I didn't think there would be a problem with it. I believe it's important to preserve the history of redirects (there was a redirect at that title in *2004*, and there's no reason for that fact to be only verifiable by admins). We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to inflate people's egos. Graham87 05:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks are inappropriate. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Malke, you still get credit for creating the article. It is clear from the edit history that you created the article from a redirect. Graham edited the article exactly the way I would have edited it.

@Graham, we are not here to inflate people's egos, and equally we are not here to deflate them. Writing an article can be hard work, not really valued by many other editors on Wikipedia. Editors who do write articles should not be marginalised and put down to the extent that they all too often are. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently he makes a lot of page moves. Does he routinely undelete all the redirects for those pages? Malke 2010 (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant bit of ABF. The move was uncontroversial. Graham summed it up when he said The fact that it deprives you of credit for creating the article according to tools like the "Articles created" program is unfortunate, but not a big deal as far as I'm concerned;Wikipedia is far bigger than you and me, and I very strongly believe that all edits should be visible to everyone where possible (my emphasis). Your edits are preserved in the history so demanding to be "able to title the article as it should be" smacks of ownership. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It makes zero sense to keep a redirect from the original title in this case ... someone would find the actual article before they got to the misguided "(HPS)". Feel free to create a redirect from HPS (or at least add it to a disambig list if one exists there). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bwilkins et al here. While the OP should get credit for their contributions, they already do by the attribution history. If anyone ever disputes the OP's contributions the OP is welcome to show the attribution history to them. If the OP has a complaint about some tool not acknowledging their work, they should speak to the author of the tool or make a suggestion somewhere appropriate like WP:VPT or WP:VPP to change the tool, either way it's not an ANI issue nor does it concern Graham87. I don't even understand why the OP cares so much about the older redirect creation. No one is going to think someone creating a redirect was the major contribution to the article. It's far better for the OP that they get the attribution for the work they actually did in writing the article, not for creating the older redirect. In the event someone writes an article over an existing redirect which likely happens a resonable amount, people are going to acknowledge the person who did this made the bigger contribution in regards to the article then the person who created the redirect. (And of course even though this didn't happen here remember it's inappropriate to use a different name instead of a redirect if that's the best location just to be the one who 'created' the article. Similarly we're not going to delete a redirect just so someone can create a new article and be said to be the one who 'created' it. Amongst other things, creating useful redirects is still part of creating the encyclopaedia we call wikiedia even if a single redirect is not generally a big achievement, so we should not destroy that attribution history either.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP is placing far too much emphasis on receiving "credit" as opposed to appropriate attribution in the article history, and is assuming bad faith about Graham87, who's probably done more than anybody else on Wikipedia to ensure that the full histories of articles extending back to 2001 are visible and attributed. Wikipedia isn't about receiving credit. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really understand BWilkin's comment. It makes zero sense to keep a redirect from the original title in this case. What does that mean exactly? I created an article because there wasn't one. I titled it as I believed it should be titled. Graham87 came along, and without any discussion copied the content, deleted the title I'd given, and put the content to a 9 year old redirect. He could have simply moved the article to the title he says is the more appropriate one per wikipedia rules. His insistence that the history of the redirect must be preserved seems disingenuous, as he even admits it was "irregular." It's a 9 year old redirect that nobody, including the creator of the redirect, turned into an article. It could easily have gone back to being a red link. And sorry, but this admin has behaved badly. He's shown no consideration, has been dismissive, and violated WP:PA. He's abused the tools and his position. And I don't see him here addressing his behaviours, instead, I see his only comment being an abuse of the editor. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Malke, this is the second time I am aware of you coming to a dispute resolution forum with an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and statements that do not appear to engage WP:AGF. As I reminded you last time (here responding to your allegations here), please take time to familiarize yourself with WP:MEDMOS and other Wikipedia editing guidelines, and please take care to assume good faith when viewing the actions of other editors. Perhaps you are unaware of the quality of Graham87's work here, or the knowledge that he brings to every edit he donates here; you might also be unaware that he reads Wikipedia with a screenreader and the time you have taken with this unnecessary complaint takes away his (indeed all of our) valuable editing time. I encourage you to better understand Wikipedia and its editing guidelines before coming to dispute resolution fora. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) From what I can tell, the OP wants the article to show in X!'s page creation tool. However, since the OP is no longer listed as the first person in the edit history due to a history merge (I can't tell for sure since I don't have the admin tools to see what exactly the history merge did), this causes the page to NOT show in the external tool. Is this correct? If that is the problem, then can the 1st 4 edits in the edit history be deleted since they are of zero content (only redirecting and fixing dbl rdr)? Is that a workable solution per our attribution licensing? I believe that will satisfy the OP's request. Rgrds. --64.85.214.103 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Tony1 (talk · contribs) to gain the advantage of a favored position, with any objections to the way he went about matters, which included email canvassing, for a proposal at WT:FAC, has three times moved edits which were properly put where they are, to a place where editors' eyes will not see the objections readily. In other words, he is edit warring. I would ask an admin to revert and to render a preventative sanction to Tony1 which is justified by his past record, which is not small. The reverts are here and here and [182]. The canvassing included this. Notice to him--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that his initial statement there is far longer than fifty words. Why should he be entitled to set rules which he is not prepared to abide by?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it relatively commonplace to do this in RfCs? The initial proposal would obviously be longer than fifty words; I'm baffled as to why you think that's an issue, or why you're starting a storm in a teacup over this point... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think one person can fairly be both an advocate and a judge.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin Qwyrxian

Admin User:Qwyrxian declined my this edit request to fully protected article 2002 Gujarat violence. He made edit to the article as per another user's request and tagged article as 'disputed'. He acknowledge dispute and now he claim that he is commenting as uninvolved non-admin user in the dispute. Then he removed my Rfc tag in this thread claiming non-neutral drafting and he threatned me with something like topic ban in his admin capacity. I request you to tell admin Qwyrxian to stay away from the dispute. neo (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your links seem to show that he was indeed acting as a thoughtful admin. What is the incident that you are bringing to everyone's attention? What's your point? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like he did everything right there; there was no way he was going to revert a protected page to your preferred version (see this page for details) and your RfC was not neutrally phrased so it got removed. No problems with that. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have let the very naughty admin know that you have dragged him here, can you take the time to it it yourself in future. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)