Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas

After [1] and then [2] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [3] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy's blog for this post/blog-article. Another was to this "article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activist clashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement--  Novus  Orator  01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support an enlarged list of topics. But again the continuing problem is that all edits of Terra Novus have to be checked for a variety of issues; that problem does not seem to have been solved by his repeated promises to adhere to a topic ban. I looked at the content and sourcing of Trinity#Judaism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Terra Novus has not so far understood the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support formally extending topic ban. This user has repeatedly (barely) escaped a community ban by making very clear and explicit promises that he has completely disregarded subsequently, both in this account and in his previous one. He has been one of our most problematic editors, cumulatively costing other editors literally hundreds of hours of time dealing with his violations. Now he's claiming here that his most recent broken agreement is subject to proof that requiring him to keep it isn't some "activist" conspiracy. ( I love it how that essay is most often quoted by the very type of editor it identifies, without their apparent awareness that it identifies them. )

This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making false promises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to disclose that I've posted notification of this present thread to the talk pages of the three other admins who commented in the previous AN/I thread where these promises were made. Because I consider this thread as essentially just a continuation of that one, I believe doing so constitutes an allowed notification in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: We currently have comments from three people who are very familiar with this user's past and present behavior, and who are in favor of formally recording the topic ban he informally agreed to in an attempt to avoid a block or community ban. Besides those having commented here so far, multiple editors previously, including Mann jess, Ncmvocalist, Hans Adler, Mackan79, ResidentAnthropologist, Torchiest, Beyond My Ken, and many others have said things like this editor's last chance came and went some time ago, that a community ban should be enacted, that any additional violations should trigger a community ban or at least a topic ban from all controversial subjects, etc, etc. I'm not aware of even a single editor who has ever disputed or opposed such statements. Apart from the editor himself, is there anyone who thinks that formally recording the topic ban against participation in controversial subjects that was previously agreed to would be unwarranted or unfair?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Terra Novus' behavior has improved for the most part since the topic ban and I was hoping we might even lift it in few months. This last AFD clearly indicates that Terra novus has not learned. Either Terra Novus' behavior needs to change quick or the way we treat his behavior needs to change. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify that, please? I'm not sure if you're in favor of vacating the topic ban that he's not abiding by anyway, or in favor of recording it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been taking a wikibreak due to personal issues, but I've read over the discussion here, and have worked closely with this user in the past, so I'll briefly comment. From his first edit, Terra's contributions have been problematic, almost universally being reverted by a broad array of users in an even broader selection of topics. At this point, it seems like he spends half his time at ANI (or elsewhere) rehashing the same points about the same editing patterns, with no indication whatsoever of improvement. The first time this issue appeared, I devoted months to walking him through policy, helping him work constructively. When that failed, I let others take over, hoping they'd give him the direction he needed. When that failed, I supported giving him another chance if he could simply demonstrate he understood why his editing was problematic. When that failed, I supported a topic ban, which achieved consensus but was never enacted. After 1 or 2 more ANI cases after that, a topic ban was finally enacted, and since then we've seen Terra at ANI unacceptably often, even still.

It's still the case that all his edits need to be scoured over by others, and I don't see any end to that problem. That is simply unreasonable. Extending Terra's topic ban is unlikely to help, since he's seen problems in every topic area he's touched, and furthermore, he's repeatedly breached the terms of his current ban at every apparent opportunity. With that in mind, I regret having to recommend a block or community ban. This user's edits are not a net gain to this project, and I see no way to remedy that. I would happily change my stance if someone could provide any reason to believe that Terra will eventually be able to edit wikipedia (anywhere) without constant supervision. I am, however, dubious that anyone will.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It should also go without saying that I support the current proposal, which is to extend his formal topic ban to include other areas. I think this step is unnecessary, and unlikely to resolve the problem, but if other editors feel differently, then I support giving it a try.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohio Standard, Terra Novus has shown this pattern of being unable to edit with out disruption in certain topic areas. I dont think widening the scope will have the desried affect in the long run. If he had'nt written a Good article in the mean time I would be up for banning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The last time I commented, I'd said "If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)". I think this is what Ohiostandard refers to when he mentions me above. I think my comment still applies today. Also, Jess's comments above are pretty compelling as to the emerging pattern here. Accordingly, I share Jess's support and reservations about the proposal if people think it will work, but I still see the ultimate resolution in this case being an indef or site ban, and it may just be time to cut our losses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• So far I'm getting the idea that Religion, Politics and Psuedoscience are areas that the community feels I should avoid. I agree. I hope that my recent editing behavior has been largely constructive, but I understand that these topics in particular are just not good for me to edit. If the community feels that my presence in Wikipedia is no longer warranted I will abide by their decision. I have unfortunately had a tendency for contentious editing, and I appreciate the efforts that the community has made to get me on the right path. I edited in good faith, but obviously not with good tact.--  Novus  Orator  06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• That ship sailed a long time ago. You agreed to avoid those areas, and all controversial areas entirely, and then utterly ignored your promise despite multiple requests to honor it. The only question at this juncture is whether to formally record a topic ban, or whether to proceed with an indef or site ban. The question is, in a nutshell, whether the community is willing to give you yet another last chance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposals (extended topic ban or community ban)

Extended topic ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed" and from all controversial articles and discussions including but not confined to those related to politics, religion, climate change and the environment.

• Support Although I am still concerned about his ability to avoid the problems that he has had in the past, his comments above persuade me to give him one last chance. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) and per Dougweller; one last chance. First choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wrote a well researched "Good Article" has potential but gets hopelessly unconstructive in other areas. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support subject to review. Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I support the idea here, but in a post to his talk page (link/permalink) I've asked Doug whether he'd make the language of this proposal more specific and explicit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A draconian solution which is not going to help Wikipedia, and would intrinsically set an extraordinarily bad precedent. I did not see him editing any articles reasonably under his restrictions, which means the restrictions worked. Extending it to all political, religious, environment and economic articles <g> is an absurd over-reach. Hit him idf he violates the actual restrictions - but extending them like this is improper. Collect (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the mildest of the available options at this point, since it merely records what TN agreed to previously, but did not abide by, when faced with a site ban previously. Unequivocally a last chance. (First choice.)  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal, at a minimum. I would like to see the user contribute constructively, and if other editors are willing to scour all his contributions, and he is willing to broadly avoid all controversial areas, then I'm willing to see him have another chance. Based on prior behavior, I have little confidence this method will work, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Site ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely site banned.

• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Second choice (to allow one last chance via extended topic ban). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I really cant support this at this time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If problems recur, then this alternative should be discussed. Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Even worse proposal than above. Collect (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as second choice.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. Previous topic bans haven't remedied the issue, nor has the user's behavior changed when confronted with them. Based on past behavior, I don't see another option likely to be effective; Lots of "last chances" have already been given. I'm equally supportive of the first two proposals.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

0RR restriction

• Support. You can just impose a 0RR restriction with the understanding that inappropriate talk page comments may also be removed. If you can't revert, you are likely to become more careful about what others will tolerate, thereby promoting good behavior. Topic bans can lead to the opposite dynamic, because the editor is then not confronted with the problem he has editing Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We need an actual reason to impose such onerous restrictions - ArbCom rarely goes below 1RR at worst -- making this more onerous because we do not like an editor makes zero sense. Collect (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any investigation into the history of this will demonstrate the need for a very decided response in this case, but based on what we've all seen in the past I would anticipate long arguments about what constitutes a revert were this alternative to be enacted. Since there have been numerous debates on the various boards over the exact definition of that term, and since they've all failed, I can't support this alternative.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see how this is going to be a problem in practice. If it is not clear that an edit by him is a revert, then others can just revert his edit and then that issue will be settled. He obviously can't then revert anymore. Also, I included the clause that editors are allowed to delete or archive his talk page comments. Reverting that would obviously be a violation of 0RR. If there is anything controversial about such a deletion, it can be discussed by other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Part of Terra's problem has been adding inappropriate content to articles, and then being "cordial" about working with others to refine it. In doing so, he contributes a large quantity of different content, and then spends exorbitant amounts of time discussing it on talk pages, all the while only superficially listening to input. This is not a case of edit warring, but instead, he's repeatedly hitting the same editing problem with different content across different articles. This proposal doesn't address that behavior. Terra's problem never was discussing changes. Largely, it's been listening to input, abiding by consensus and policy, and learning from mistakes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 Unblock request on her talk page

• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since it has been discussed here over the last few week I thought this page should be notified.

For the record I support her proposed unblocking, with one caveat, that the topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain should be included to avoid any doubt and her mentor should be allowed to add any more at his/hers discretion. Mtking (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Accept mentorship and support unblock per above conditions. Could Sarah possibly clarify whether she is seeking an immediate unblock (ie time served), or the month block she also mentions, which would be June 9 or thereabouts? --John (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have been uninvolved in this dispute entirely up until this point, but I am highly concerned about the statement in her unblock request which states "Given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists." Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the "English" as a monolithic, anti-Irish people is exactly what got her into trouble in the first place, and the fact that her unblock request contains a dig at the inability of anyone English to edit neutrally regarding Irish nationalism seems to me to show that she has no desire to change her ways. Indeed, if she can't avoid commenting on the English in negative ways even long enough to make a simple unblock request, I don't hold out hope for the change in her demeanor necessary for reintegration to the Wikipedia community. I'm not going to place a bold !vote here, but I am very concerned that she has not learned her lesson. --Jayron32 02:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I must comment here before this gets any further hyperbole added. I read the statement differently Jayron; to say it is difficult for an English person to be neutral about Irish nationalists in light of the implied reference to the Troubles and earlier conflicts is not prima facie as you wrote "treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" at all. It simply acknowledges that neutrality, one way or the other, is difficult to maintain in discussions regarding the two countries together among persons on either side. Your characterization of her calm observation of the situation as overly prejudiced and judgemental is exaggeration. Sswonk (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is difficult to maintain in articles about nationalist conflicts, on all sides. The fact that she singles out the English as being the problem is the issue here, and it is an issue because of her prior background. Every person does not get to start every day of their lives as a tabula rasa. She has a history that must be considered when trying to understand her statements. I'm an American of French Canadian and Blackfoot ancestry, I have no horse in this race, and I have never commented on nor been involved in any meaningful editing or discussion on the topic at hand. But she is not any random person making a random statement on the difficulty of editing in nationalist debates. She a specific person with a specific history of making specifically inflamatory statements about a specific group of people (the English) and that her unblock request itself makes another statement about "The English" specifically is a specific cause for specific concern in this specific case. The fact that she has a history of being unable to avoid making derogatory comments about the English means that statements she makes about the English needs to be understood in the history of her prior behavior here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In nearly all contexts past and current her beef has been with the acts of the British Empire, not with the current population of English people. That is why I mentioned that your reaction seems exaggerated, what you are writing is not what she meant. The statement that garnered the most attention before was about the application of the concept of being a "British Isle" in light of the history of famine, plantations and so on that is widely remembered in Ireland. She spoke specifically about the word "British" in that context, not about people. That situation is kind of like the fight against flying the Confederate battle flag over the SC state house that was fought by the NAACP and others, but not really comparable just reminiscent of the types of long held resentments that were evident in the US South where rebel symbols were used. The Anglo-Irish situation can and will be resolved, the visit by Queen Elizabeth certainly has been an encouraging sign of the prospects for reconciliation. At any rate, I still submit that you are misconstruing her words, I do not see anything like "she singles out the English as being the problem"; rather she acknowledges that as many others have here her block, described as "infinite" by the admin, has some issues when it is made by someone who prominently displays the English flag on his page. I don't see that as an indictment of or a "singling out of" all people English, but a statement in appeal to others to not judge her as she felt she was at the time the "infinite" block was made. I and others successfully argued that she was not to be characterized as a "racist" in the block log summary. Surely John has advised properly that she might consider NOTTHEM, I just hope to explain to you that again, she is being misunderstood and is not a one-dimesnsional bigotted, hateful person as that blocking statement seemed to say. Nothing like it, in fact. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah. You'll find that I already pre-agreed with you there; which is why I was the one who changed the blocking statement to remove the word "racism" from it. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#Sarah777_log_entry_reason for some background and check the block logs (Floquenbeam later changed my change accidentally, not because he disagreed with me but because he essentially edit conflicted with me). So don't tell me that I am treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person as noted in the first blocking statment since I was the one who changed it to remove the word. Before you tell me that I hold an opinion, could you let me know so I can actually hold it before you give it to me? That would be great. In the future, please become informed with the details before you accuse someone of the exact opposite of what they have actually done. --Jayron32 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is another example of what I am still concerned about, which is that you seem to make negative assumptions about people fairly quickly. Not only, Jayron, did I know that you had been the first to alter the statement, I also know the rest of what you are trying to lecture me about. Nevertheless, I am somehow ignorant and accusing? I need you to shout in bold letters at me that I don't know the history of this sorry case? Your change was from "racism" to "nationalism", please point out to me exactly how simply being nationalist is blockable. I am repeating, there is a distinct and important difference between "she singles out the English as being the problem" and what she wrote. "The English are the problem" is not what she wrote. To me, it was more like, "I don't think a block against me which used such hyperbolic terms as "racism" and "infinite" came from someone with a neutral stance, and given the history between the countries it is understandable this person is not demonstrating complete neutrality with those exaggerant words." Several other people have noticed the same disconcerting and obvious facts, and some implied that a block by a non-English person who wrote calmly would have held much more water. How you or anyone can write things like "Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" equals what Sarah777 wrote in her unblock request, and then in the same thread claim you are under attack by me when all I did was point out your characterization is a fairly substantial exaggeration of what she wrote, escapes me. I am not interested in making people lose their temper. If that is what the truth does to you, there is nothing more that can be said which would make me interested in discussing this with you Jayron. It is as kneejerk as the original block summary to paint me as accusing you of anything, I did not "tell (you) that (you are) treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person", but that I don't want anyone else to do that based on what you already misrepresented above. Please for your sake read and read and re-read what I wrote so you can see that I do not want exaggeration and misunderstanding of words to be accelerated here. Period. I will leave it to some of your colleagues to get you straight on that, I am done. Sswonk (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider myself highly sympathetic to Sarah's position, but I read her response exactly as Jayron32 and I agree with his assessment and share his concerns. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I take the point. I would argue that HJM's block gave an appearance of possible bias, but per NOTTHEM Sarah's unblock request should mainly concern her own behavior, something she has clearly made efforts to do. I think I would favor her serving the month's block then returning under mentorship and editing restrictions. I've made a request at her talk that she refactor the block request. --John (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) I agree as a non-involved user. If she's unblocked, the topic ban should be "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Let her write about African heads of state or cheese or automobiles; she's a very good writer and there are many topics that could use her talents. --NellieBly (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the topic ban would need to be more precisely delineated than "in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Otherwise, there will be arguments over whether particularly expansive interpretations are appropriate, such as the claim that the ban extends to the United States as a former British colony, or China because of the Opium Wars, or the Hong Kong situation. Chester Markel (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What of the proposed editing of automobile articles? I assume that fully British brands such as Jaguar or Rolls Royce would be covered by the ban. What of an article about an American or Japanese manufacturer that discusses its sales in the UK? Is the entire article off limits, or just the portion about that particular market? Chester Markel (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the article on Omega SA? While the company is Swiss, it mentions that Omega watches were worn by James Bond, a fictional British agent. Chester Markel (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a limit on "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed" would probably be to broad and over restrictive. Sarah777 should be free to edit on areas where any feelings she may have towards Britain will not be tested. Areas that should be off-limits imo should be "Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed" with the added restriction on the named pages (inc talk and project pages) above and any others that her mentor feels appropriate to add. Mtking (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also recommend that any unblock includes an undertaking to not comment (good, bad or indifferent) on the nationality of any editor or group of editors; nor to characterise any edit as being motivated or otherwise influenced by race. While she has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past, I think her main problem in this area is that she doesn't seem to understand which statements will cause offence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Sarah777 so I can't rule out that she has made "undeniably racist statements in the past". However, in the present situation there have been no such statements, and the accusation is a pretty damning one. Per WP:NPA#WHATIS ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.") I must ask you to provide diffs. Hans Adler 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of previous racist statements please see the large number of diffs discussed at length in the several previous discussions about Sarah777. Those comments are in the past and have all been dealt with at the time. I am explicitly not making any new allegations against her, because she has not made any recent racist comments that I have seen. This was the point I was making. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vague pointing to past discussions will not do in this case. I searched the AN archives for "Sarah777" and "racist", and could not find anything relevant. Given that in this case she has been accused of racism for the flimsiest of reasons, it appears necessary to be very careful. You may have noticed that I have not !voted below. It is important to me whether Sarah777 is actually a racist, or whether this is yet another case of British or Irish editors being unable to distinguish between nationalism in the Anglo-Irish conflict and racism. A racist is historically someone who believes there are distinct human "races"; in the modern sense the term also implies the belief that some such races are in some sense superior to others. Which "races" has Sarah777 distinguished, and which does she consider superior or inferior? Hans Adler 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While what you describe is definitely racism, as has was discussed recently (although not necessarily on this page), "racism" is also in modern usage applied to nationalities as well as just "races" and splitting the two was last time described as "wikilawyering" (although not by me, I agree with the sentiment). When one person engages in behaviour or speech that is excessively nationalist and denigrating to the Irish that is rightly described as racism, and so is the same when the target is any other nationality or race, including the British. If there is a term in common usage in contemporary British English that describes the same behaviours as racism against race as applied to nationality then I am not aware of it. It is this latter in which Sarah has previously engaged in. Relevant diffs are in previous discussions, where they were relevant. They are not relevant now as this discussion is regarding whether, and if so under what conditions, Sarah should be allowed to return to editing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously furious about this response. While I strongly disapprove of both nationalism and racism, there is still a huge fucking difference between them, and referring to over-the-top anti British rhetorics by an Irish editor as "undeniably racist statements" is not much better than the nationalist rhetorics itself. Yes, you are right about what this discussion should be about. Into this discussion you have introduced a serious accusation to which you declined to provide concrete evidence, and now you have admitted that you can't provide evidence because it's not actually true. The word undeniable was a lie, apparently, because most people would deny, and for good reasons, that anti-British sentiments by Irish people are a form of racism. It was seriously misleading: Up to this response I seriously considered the possibility that Sarah777 is actually a racist and I just missed it. I guess I could now call you a racist for considering British and Irish people to be different races (as Sarah777 denies that they are different races the idea must be yours)? And I guess it would be wikilawyering to insist that I stop? Hans Adler 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin. They all come under the heading of incitement to racial hatred or race discrimination, both of which can be translated from the legal to layman terms as "racism". The lack of distinction of the two is for many reasons, one of them being that the term "race" has no agreed meaning, and is often considered a discredited concept in itself. To disparage an entire nationality is racism in this sense. I suspect the U.S. has a different concept, and seems more concerned with defining "race". To describe Sarah's comments as racist is therefore reasonable, although I accept it is also reasonable to say they are not racist by other definitions. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This response is so stupid that it almost left me speechless. For discrimination laws in the UK, see List of anti-discrimination acts#United Kingdom. For hate speech laws in the UK, see Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom. If you actually follow the links, you will see that the latter are a subset of the former. Even if you meant "race discrimination" it's still two different though related things. And both of them are different from, though related to, nationalism and racism, so it's not even clear why you felt the need to bring them up. Here is a very simple exercise. Associate the example sentences with the correct characterisation:

(A) "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." (B) "According to your resume you grew up bilingually in English and Spanish. Unfortunately this does not fit into our company philosophy, which is to use the English language exclusively." (C) "I hate Canadians because they are all liberal atheist bastards with no respect for our flag." (D) "In terms of intelligence, the Jew is comparable to the Ukrainian, which makes him more dangerous than the nigger."

(1) Nationalism. (2) Racism. (3) Hate speech. (4) Discrimination.

Only a moron could get any of these associations wrong. This is as elementary as distinguishing between houses, tents and camping vans. Hans Adler 00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I could be annoyed by you calling me a moron but your post is so idiotic it's more funny than anything. The issue is not the consequence of the categorisation (discrimination, "hate speeach" etc) it's the lack of distinction between "race" and national identity prior considering the complained of act. I don't need to look up the WP articles you cite - it's my day job. Before touching the key board you need to get a better understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you really claiming you can't do this simple exercise? Presumably I must believe you now that the UK legal system is conflating these four different terms because you say you are an expert. But how far does this go? Suppose you got William Wolfe as a client because someone persistently called him a racist. Would you tell him he doesn't have much of a chance in court because everybody knows he is a member of a nationalist party? Here we are not in a British court of law, arguing highly technical legal points. (The Race Relations Act specifically defines the term "racial group" as "colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins". This is a legal definition and far broader than the natural language meaning of the term. It does not define "racist" and "racism", but instead uses less common word combinations such as "racial discrimination", to which it also gives unnaturally broad – from a natural language POV – definitions.) Here if someone writes that someone else is a racist, the majority of readers will understand it as saying that the person distinguishes between human "races" and discriminates or hates on that basis. I would not want to work in a project in which it is considered OK to label Irish nationalists individually as racists without making it clear that one is using hyperbole, in the same way that nobody should be allowed to label a specific editor as a Nazi for parading the English flag on his or her user page. And in the context of a ban discussion about a user who cannot defend herself because she is currently blocked this is particularly egregious. Hans Adler 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, I think you've only now just got my original point: "This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin." You don't like it; you think that's not what "people" think racism is. I don't agree and the evidence I gave is how this is treated in law in UK (and most of Europe). I'm done here. And next time you think to call another editor a moron make sure you've understood the point first. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to support your contention by quoting a dictionary? None of those I consulted, and I consulted a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias, even mentions a generally accepted use of "racism" for prejudice, hatred or discrimination of any kind other than that related to race. The term has come under attack as being hard to demarcate (from the Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology: "In recent international discussions, for example at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerances in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, it has become increasingly clear that 'racism' often includes extra-racial factors. In sociology, where the distinction between race and ethnicity is uncertain, it is best to limit “racism” to structures in which race is explicitly used to effect social domination."), but that doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to apply it to situations where it clearly doesn't fit. Hans Adler 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to argue over semantics on your own Talk pages. This bickering isn't helping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It would have been entirely sufficient if Thryduulf had simply withdrawn the baseless and surprising personal attack ("has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past") instead of trying to defend this lie as somehow justified because, apparently, robbery is just a normal synonym for theft arson is just a normal synonym for mischief racism is just a normal synonym for nationalism. If Thryduulf redacts the personal attack, then as far as I am concerned this digression can be removed or hatted. Hans Adler 06:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose her request. Her apology is limited to "the Nazi flag/union flag comparison" and "the pointy edits made on the contentious BI naming dispute". She doesn't apologize for her other crude anti-British remarks made at the time, which is what really got her into trouble in the first place. It seems to me this is either half-hearted or she's missed the point. She then adds "given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists", which confirms she's not going to change IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Rules for Sarah - WP:TL;DR on the rest of the commentary above (sorry; I've read other threads before) - but if the editor is unblocked, I stipulate that she must submit to ban on anything to do with The Troubles. The comments made by her were flatly unacceptable. She was entirely manic concerning the subject (I have Irish blood in me, but seriously, can we chill out a bit? The whole thing is bad enough to make Polandball cringe). Additionally, Sarah must not ever mention the citizenship/nationality of another editor if it is either British, Irish, or somehow related. She must not speak derisively of the citizenship of any subject whatsoever, broadly construed. She must not bring her battleground to Wikipedia, broadly construed, enforceable as a block by any non-involved admin (and not to be overturned without significant community consensus). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock Sarah has given assurances and has apologised for her transgression also the mentorship by John who is an admin in good standing can only be a plus to the project as Sarah has made thousands of good edits on articles not related to The Troubles. Mo ainm~Talk 09:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, with the restrictions already described, and a great mentor. I think Sarah is a productive editor with positive intentions, but is (justifiably) angry about the way her people were treated by Britain in the past, and sometimes that anger has spilled over in some places and some ways in which into Wikipedia editing, where it is not justified. Regarding the comment about it being difficult for the English to understand the way Irish nationalists feel be properly neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists, I did not read that as an attack on HJ himself. And though extending it to all English was too much of a generalization, I think it is at least in large part correct - most English, at least, most I've discussed the issue with, don't seem to me to really understand Irish nationalist feeling (and that's not any denigration of them - it's something that can't really be grokked unless you're close to it, and we did get decades of one-sided media coverage about "The Troubles" in England). As a disclaimer, I'm part English and part Irish, with family in N Ireland, and I have both unionists and republicans amongst my friends (though none is strongly in either camp - most just seem to want some kind of peaceful life) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (edited to correct my representation of Sarah's statement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC))(editied again, for clarity -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

The pages and disputes that have got her into trouble recently are not about history, but about naming issues, that essentially revolve round COMMONNAME etc, and trying to balance worldwide naming in English with the particular concerns of some Irish Nationalsts. Encouraging her to bring her "anger" into these matters is not helpful at all, not that she needs any encouragement. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything remotely like that, I'm saying exactly the opposite - that bringing real-life anger to Wikipedia editing is *not* justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified, above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• What if any are the conditions of her unblock? they need to be clearly laid out here before users can comment - personally imo her presence in any English, Northern Ireland, Great Britain or United kingdom associated article only adds to the battlefield mentality and she should be edit restricted from any of those articles. note' - Irrespective of this discussion and any additional conditions imposed here. Sarah is already indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, including all its sub pages and talk pages, for this [4] (and surrounding sequence of edits), and from British Isles and its talk page for this [5][6], which was pure POV trolling and baiting. Additionally, for the persistent pattern of battleground rhetorics and hate speech displayed in edits like this - and blocked for one month[ from Template:British English for one month. diff. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Although the unblock request contains exactly the sort of attitude (albeit toned down) that got her blocked... topic ban & John as a mentor get the thumbs up from me. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the conditions - topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and John as a mentor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock but also agree that the conditions must specifically include the current indefinite bans as well as the specific areas mentioned by off2riorob (even if they overlap). Without that I don't agree to the unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not opposed to unblock as long as the topic bans are strictly enforced. (I'm not saying "support" because I'm unwilling to go that far, but this may be taken as a non-objecting opinion.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• As far as the fist unblock request goes, the backhanded attack on HJM shows she still doesn't get it. The broad brush attack on the 'the English' shows she still doesn't get it. Her personal/political prejudices are irrelevant, nobody here is interested in them and nobody has to be subjected to them. It's not her playground frankly. She needs to state clearly and without ambiguity that she accepts as a truism that on Wikipedia, having a particular nationality does not mean you are incapable of making neutral admin actions, or of writing neutrally about any topic. This has been her problem forever frankly - a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of 'writing from the NPOV'. Her beliefs would disqualify even Jimbo from contributing to an Irish article (he once said that if he hadn't been born American he would have liked to have been British). Also, on the whole issue of a topic ban - check, and double check, the proposed wording. Her suggestion of "anything that comes under the Troubles" is completely insufficient - she is the person who once even turned the issue of how we disambiguate Irish and British road articles into an alleged part of the anti-Irish Wikipedia conspiracy, flinging out all the usual attacks and smears. I suggest any restrictions be focused on simply the issues of undesirable behaviour, not just banning her from certain topic areas (although that also will clearly be necessary for several basic article sets). As she notes though, she doesn't tend to edit much outside of Irish geography, so a 'broadly contrued' topic ban on Irish topics would simply be a complete ban from Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would have supported an unblock under strict conditions (topic banned from everything to do with Britain, Ireland, British Isles, British Empire widely construed) but I cannot support unblocking a user whose own unblock request should've resulted in her talk page access being revoked. User:Sarah777 was blocked and topic banned from anti-British remarks. Her block was extended indefinitely because she made further personalized anti-British remarks. And now her original unblock request[7] repeats the same behaviour. Sarah777 has had years to learn how to communicate civilly and appropriately, and I see no benefit to community in unblocking Sarah777 until she recognizes that behaviour as unacceptable herself--Cailil ^talk 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think she has done, or else I would not have supported the conditional unblock (ie a return to the status quo before HJMitchell's inflammatory block). I also think it's a little disingenuous of you (or did you genuinely not notice?) to talk about Sarah's original unblock request with the adjective "now" when it was made at 01:38, 21 May 2011, your post was made at 21:02, 21 May 2011, and yet at 15:59 Sarah had responded to my request to refactor her unblock request. So, let me get it straight. You are opposing unblock because you didn't like a post that she has already refactored, thus implicitly recognizing that it was inappropriate, right? I would disagree with this, as blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If you feel that she deserves punishment nonetheless, perhaps this will be assuaged by her submitting to a month block, indefinite topic ban and mentorship? --John (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We are beyond the stage of implicit acknowledgement of her past failings and future obligations. She needs to be explicit on both. Even refactored, her current request leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, aswell as in the specifics like the boundaries of this topic ban which she seems to think would only be "anything that comes under the Troubles". As I said above, this leaves questions like for example does this prevent a recurrance of her past misbehaviour in completely tangential areas such as road article naming? The last thing we need is a situation where she starts making some edits in an area she sees as completely uncontroversial and nothing to do with her definition of the Troubles (and thus, not pausing to clear it with you as the proposed mentor), and someone else reports her. The ensuing 50 pages of wikilawyering and accusation/counter-accusation is the exact kind of Sarah777 centric nationalist drama we do not need frankly, and which is what HJM was trying to put a full stop on due to her past record showing that no, she's not going to change. He's not daft, he knows he cannot impose 'infinite' blocks, but he also deserves the basic respect of having his concerns properly, and crucially explicitly, addressed, before anyone else unblocks her. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • John don't mis-understand me, I am not outright 'opposing' but I cannot support an unblock request from Sarah777 that she needed to be told should be refactored. She has had 4 years to get the point about incivility in general and anti-British remarks specifically. Maybe I'm being a bit of a wonk here but in my view under the Fameine RfAr ruling on Sarah777's conduct her talk page access should have been revoked and the request declined because of that. But I'm not going to labour the point - I'm certain she will be been unblocked conditionally here, but I wont support requests from Sarah777 that are anything less than explicit (from their very first posting) in evidencing that she's 'got it'--Cailil ^talk 15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I have been reading Wikipedia a lot longer than I have editing it. In the early days one source of constant amusement were the low level hoaxes and "in-jokes" weaved into many articles on towns & villages in Ireland. I noted that it was User:Sarah777 dilligently clearing these up time after time. It would take a lot of convincing that this editor is not an asset to the project, although by the same token I'm sure she wont be missed on the handful of articles mentioned above (...sorry Sarah). Since User:Sarah777 made her comments, the Queen has laid a wreath and bowed her head at the Garden of Remembrance, a memorial garden in Dublin dedicated to the memory of "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom". I am sure everyone will lighten up in the future. MacStep (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

• Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
• Sarah is topic-banned from the following areas:
  • The Troubles
  • Ireland
  • United Kindgom
  • England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland
  • The history and politics of the aforementioned countries
  • All topics occurring in, on, or around the group of islands off the coast of Northwest Europe

    Note: Common sense applies; a violation of this particular restriction will be handled via a warning first, as it is somewhat open to interpretation.

  • The dispute regarding the geographic name of said islands
• Sarah makes changes to her own behavior to reduce the battleground environment
• Sarah ensures all her editing is conducted in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

Comments

• Proposed N419BH 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Needs tweaking in several areas. Topic banning her from "Ireland" broadly construed is, as has been pointed out above, effectively equal to banning her, and history isn't really where she's had the issues. See my alternative proposal below. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for Sarah777

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions

1. Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
   • Sarah is free to change mentors subject to the agreement of both mentors. Any change in mentor should be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page and on WP:AN/I.
2. Sarah is indefinitely topic banned the following articles pages: ["articles" changed to "pages" 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • British Isles
   • British Isles naming dispute
   • England
   • Great Britain
   • Ireland
   • Northern Ireland
   • Republic of Ireland [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • Scotland
   • The Troubles
   • Wales
   • United Kingdom
   • Template:British Isles [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
3. Sarah's mentor may add such pages to this list as they deem required. All such additions must be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
4. Sarah is also indefinitely banned from the following topics, broadly construed:
   • Anglo-Irish relations
   • The naming of the group of islands comprising the islands of Britain, Ireland and geographically and politically associated smaller islands.
   • The political status of the islands in the group collectively or individually
   • Irish nationalism
5. Sarah ensures all her editing is in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and explicitly agrees not to engage in battleground behaviour
6. Sarah agrees not to comment on the nationality or race of any other editor
7. Sarah agrees not to comment on any perceived national or nationalist motive for any edit.

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

All editors are reminded that the pages and topic areas listed above may become contentious and are cautioned that standards of civility and policies regarding assumptions of good faith and no personal attacks will be strongly enforced. All editors are further reminded that civility is a two-way street and any and all behaviours that are seen as "baiting" another user to break rules will be dealt with firmly, up to and including by long-term blocks in cases of repeat or egregious cases. [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]

Comments (alternative proposal for Sarah777)

• Proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd be more in favor of a broader restriction and then slowly chip away at it as she shows a willingness to edit in accordance with policy, but this one might work, as civility is the primary issue, and she seems to get into civility issues on the topics listed here. My concern with allowing her to edit such things as Irish roads is she'll use them as a platform to get in digs against the topic-banned areas, and additionally other editors might bait her into violating her restrictions, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hence I would prefer to remove her from the entire topic area. If she can focus on her own behavior she has a chance, if not I suspect she is close to exhausting community patience. N419BH 18:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I debated including something about the naming of articles where there were similarly or identically named articles in the UK and Ireland (which was the issue I saw with regards roads) but couldn't come up with any decent wording. I wouldn't object to adding that in if you can come up with something suitable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to see two changes before I could support :

• Republic of Ireland and Template:British Isles to be added to the band list of articles.
• The mentor could add any other articles they see fit to the list of band articles at any time.

Mtking (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with them and have added them above, making a couple of other minor consequential changes, all clearly marked. I've also added a paragraph at the bottom that is intended to incorporate the sentiments of the #Community context section below. It might be of benefit to develop a template (a specific version of the contentious topic template perhaps?) with a similar note and place it on the talk pages of the relevant articles? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Support Mtking (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Community context

We've been here done that with Sarah already. On 27 May 2008, Sarah was blocked indefinitely for similar issues. She was unblocked on that occasion (after a similar period to now) after after promising to undergo mentorship. Despite this, it was necessary for the community to employ topic ban restrictionsfor any article that Sarah "disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Now, there we have the latest fuss. Her behavior means that she has lost the confidence of the community. For this reason, she should be indefinitely topic-banned from areas where is cannot collaborate with others.

For those reasons, I propose the following for Sarah:

• Two-month block (from the date of the original block);
• Indefinite civility mentorship;
• Indefinite topic-ban from British-Irish and Troubles-related articles

However, Sarah's behaviour is not unique. There is a common thread of incivility and nationalist name calling on British- and Irish-related article. Addressing Sarah alone demonises her but does not address the wider culture of incivility and of dividing editors in to nationalist camps. It is that culture that escalates to the kind of behavior we have seen from Sarah. The community needs to take action on that culture and a decision on Sarah needs to address that context in order to genuinely address the problem.

Therefore, in addition, I propose that the community make a statement against incivilility and all forms of nationalist labelling and name calling on Troubles-, British- and Irish-related articles. Editors who engage in repeated incivility on these articles or who engage in nationalist labeling or name calling should receive similar escalating blocks, civility mentorship and topic bans.

We need to make it clear that this kind of behavior is a serious breach of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Civility is not optional. Maintaining and developing collegiate relationships between editors is essential to the project. Sarah's behavior damaged that. However, she is not alone and this behavior needs to end. --RA (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing is a community-enacted 'zone' (for want of a better term) of zero-tolerance of incivility, with this zone extending to all topics in the field of British-Irish relations, specifically including the The Troubles, broadly construed. Am I correct? Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In effect, yes. This is an area of heightened tension (but not the only one). It is crucial that editors maintain civility in this area because otherwise things can quickly get out of hand. I have seen editors become increasingly lax towards civility on these topics. In fact, some editors strike me as not even trying to be civil anymore. Eventually, this blows up into mayhem as tension builds up and ill-feelings fester.

It is also extremely off-putting to editors who want to contribute to these areas of the project but are put off by the combative nature of the area (even on sometimes the most innocuous of things).

I propose the following community sanction:

It's a big long-winded and I'm not precious about the precise sanction or the wording. It is the enforcement of a spirit of collegialism and civility in the wider community context that I am interested in. --RA (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the justification for an arbitration case and has many things that sound like arbitration remedies and procedures, just without the case having happened. I see absolutely no plausible benefit of this community sanction, given it doesn't contain anything that isn't already basic policy, and isn't already actionable after being reported to ANI or having been properly passed through other DR venues. I personally have seen many such reports just shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action, or even no substantive independent comment at all, save the usual meat puppets turning up to say the usual unsurprising things. The one such area of specific community sanction recently, BI naming, has had a very distinct game/lawyer-tastic flavour to it, while doing absolutely nothing to further the goals of ensuring a quality & respectful editing environment about which you speak of, let alone ensuring basic NPOV is respected. I simply don't see how this is going to change that, or focus people's minds any further than they already should be. It's not news to anyone, not least the admin corps, that the area of this topic is an ongoing source of dispute & policy violation. I for one agree that certain editors have been guilty of most or all of the above in this topic area, but you'd probably be flabbergasted to learn that I think one of them is you. I'm having a hard time getting you to acknowledge basic things like how un-"cooperative" it is for you to be making a proposal, recieving valid & detailed objections, and not responding to those in anything but the most policy lite personal opinion assertive or accusatory terms, and then simply returning to make the same proposal 6 months later to see if the 'consensus has changed'. The only way forward is either increased admin oversight in the areas, or an arbitration case, which if it found evidence for any of the above as a general theme, would punt violations into the field of arbitration enforcement, which is shall we say, a rather less volunteer driven process as regards getting someone to actually say yes that's a violation, or no, go away. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On your point that none of the above isn't actionable already, I wholly agree. Unfortunately, like you say, "reports just [get] shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action". At this stage I, personally, wouldn't even consider reporting some of the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith that I (and everyone else) receive. Nothing would come of it. If anyone did respond, I think I'd just get told to grow a thicker skin and stop coming to ANI with drama. And that's the problem: incivillity goes unchecked and consequently it is rampant and endemic.

That is the point of what I am proposing: no more shuffling off into the archive in the sky. Civility matters and these issues need to be addressed. I'm not precious about how it happens and at least the two of us agree that something has to happen — whether it is increased admin supervision or (another) ArbCom case as you suggest, or something else. --RA (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an incredibly wide ranging proposal - there are probably thousands of articles that are in some way connected to the UK and Ireland - 99.9% of which will never see any sign of Troubles or British Isles naming nonsense - to wave a vague threat of sanction over all these articles and all the editors who edit them is not helpful - are you going to ban someone for making an edit to say The Goodies (TV series)? The behaviour of the few editors who cause this problem should be dealt with by normal admin means - not by punishing everybody else.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nigel Ish. And furthermore this is veering off topic. Consensus above is to unblock per the conditions laided out by Mting.
RA, proposals like the above are not going to fly. The vast majority of users on wikipedia understand and abide by WP:5 and need nothing else. The minority who can't need to learn how to, but if they can't it's their problem--Cailil ^talk 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool enough. But in that case, can we start spelling it out to the minority so that they might learn? Incivility is a terribly incedious thing. It only takes a clutch of editors, who think naming calling, aggression and poor faith are par for the course, to drain morale and turn people off contributing to the project.

We need a healthy, respectful working environment where we can collaborate construtively (and keep focus on our work, and not the drama). I, personally, have tuned out twice in the last six months because I just don't want to contribute anymore in an environment where everything runs the gauntlet of combative editors and nothing is taken at face value. And yes, they are a minority - but they seem to be the only one's left on some pages. --RA (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, these sectors are uninviting for new users and also any users that are not willing to involve themselves in an opinionated POV battlefield situation. We all know who the ringleaders are and we need to remove them using edit restrictions, they create a toxic environment and by their example encourage other contributors to join in and create gangs of tag teaming meatpuppets. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to make it specifically illegal for me to call you up on your nationalistic views when I feel you are being unreasonable due to them RA, it's not going to work(!) Appeal per WP:AGF if you feel people are being out of line with you – it's a law Wikipedia already has, and it's made to measure. You are blessed with the knack of always being calm an passive outwardly (though occasionally hurt when under criticism) when you offer your own personal views/demands in all these UK/IRE issues, but not everyone has the ability to be controlled at all times – an ability of course that can get people past these laws you propose.

Your proposal also effectively reinforces the various UK/IRE schisms, which is a criticism I always have of you - because I don't think it's right, and that is simply my opinion. UK/IRE should be such a 'special case' – Wikipedia should be able to deal with it completely, as it is in no way the bloody 'real word' battle people claim it is on here. All the UK/IRE issues on Wikipedia would pretty-much end with two simple guidelines so much more productive than the endlessly-punitive 'policing' ones: WP:BRITISH ISLES (Wikipedia chooses archipelago-only) and WP:SOVEREIGNTY (sovereignty is of greater weight to nationalism) is honestly all it will take. A number of 'reliably sourced' polemics will immediately lose their exaggerated power, and issues like Londonderry/Derry, British Isles and the UK-country 'naming disputes' will all be effectively resolved - and decent explanatory editing can then take place over the limitless space within Wikipedia (and there is plenty of it already – it's always that fight for the premium space). Admin will finally have something to go by when people contravene these guidelines. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, can we try and keep this about Sarah - and about existing policy too? If we make it an actual offence to point out nationalist bias, we may as well close the doors and switch off the lights in terms of NPOV. "The significance of words and symbolism in describing them"? This isn't the place RA. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Who will bell the cat?

We may think we are getting somewhere by refining the items on Sarah777's edit restrictions, but there is one detail which I feel has been overlooked. All of this depends on a mentor for this user; who is willing to take on this responsibility? With the right person, we won't need to worry much about the details of these restrictions, because the mentor's judgment will more than make up for shortcomings in this area. Lastly, what should be done if no one does take it on? Or the mentor either clearly fails at the job -- or throws it up because she/he can't keep Sarah777 from reverting to her bad habits? (Not that I'm volunteering for this. I have too little time for Wikipedia at the moment as it is.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a mentor is the best thing for Sarah tbh - she is experienced and knows when her blood is up - she just has to curb it now. No more chances. I know she asked for one (which does show her genuine contrition I believe), but I think it's moot, and could be a needless extra responsibility for someone too. I'm writing a proposal for her that will hopefully explain. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it John (talk · contribs) has agreed to be Sarah's mentor. They are not someone I've had any interaction with but nobody has commented about their unsuitability anywhere, so I'm happy with them taking the responsibility if the community agrees to her return with a mentor (in any other circumstance it's irrelevant of course). Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am still open to doing this. I must say it's nice that nobody has any problems with my being Sarah's mentor, I wasn't expecting that. I guess we should move to close this soon, once we have an agreement on exactly where her restrictions should be. I'm in favor of not being too legalistic about it as I think Sarah is intelligent enough to know when she is crossing the line, but just sometimes lacks the ability to think before posting or editing. I am hoping that I will be able to coach her in this area and allow her to make the many useful edits she has been making without the troublesome ones. --John (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting up a proposal directly below in a very short while, which you might want to consider, even just in part. If Sarah really wants a mentor, and you are happy to do it, then it's hard to say otherwise - but I wonder if what she asked for was not out of her desire simply to be back? A mentor combined with a Troubles topic ban does seem rather daft to me - I'll ask her to clarify on her talk page now. Perhaps she genuinely feels she may too-easily transgress, so would rather edit in other areas instead. The Troubles though is a hard 'area' to completely (or completely adequately) define, esp in the light of nationalist quibbling over things like British Isles, country status, and matters to do with Northern Ireland in general. I'd like to See Sarah in those areas when she wants to be (and wherever she wants to edit), but with a couple of "do nots" in place (supposing she can accept them - she doesn't have to return at all of course). BTW, if anyone wants to say that her chances have all gone again at this point - please don't bother - I'm just expressing my views, and I think its ott. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Less punitive but more to-the-point proposal

I respect many of the comments above, but I'm worried about a few things happening here that will lead to an unfair decision. Sorry if this is a bit rushed in appearance - I saw the ANI a bit late and since lost my draft, but I've made some points below that I wanted to make first, and followed it with the proposal:

1. Please don't assume that Sarah is worse than she is, and it's worth noting here that she had a long gap between offenses too. She's a decent time served editor.
2. Sarah seems to harbour an opinion that British people are somehow interconnected with the British past – but please do not be tempted to factor that into your judgement on the terms on the unblock – only her past and likely future actions. Sarah may feel as she does partly through her negative opinion of UK foreign policy, but people's harboured opinions (and many are much worse than this on Wikipedia) simply cannot be actioned-on by Wikipedia, Only their behaviour can, and policy should normally be able to cover that.
3. I think that sanctions etc can be used to do the job of policy, rather than just add a few requirements to policy. As this is about unblocking from an indefinite block, and something of a “last chance” too, a couple of specific requirements additional to policy do clearly need to be made here – but policy (and whether Sarah is likely to meet it) must be central.
4. Please don't fall in the trap of thinking that nobody can be neutral on UK/IRE issues: this is not at all true. Many people are neutral on even the most controversial of these related matters, and this idea is imo rather against the ethos of Wikipedia, which is to behave neutrally via policy. I've always thought that it is achievable in this area, and the addition of some specific guidelines (if they ever do happen) would go as far as to pretty-much neutralise it on WP. Guidelines are infinitely better than various sanctions.
5. Try not to knock people who speak their mind. Obviously people should not be offensive (hence all this), but with Sarah you always know where she stands, and that can be a real bonus in a place where it can pay so-much to use all-manner of less-open approaches.
6. Don't knock someone who's willing to accept they've erred either. A couple of slips perhaps, but Sarah is seeing and understanding the issue.
7. Try not to think in terms on indef blocks for cases like Sarah– they are drastic things and more for trolls and the like. Sarah is a decent and long-standing editor, albeit a passionate one.
8. RE topic banning – I think it's a hard thing to pull off in cases like this, esp regarding user's talk pages. Sarah's talk pages are often quite communal, and a number of editors will be expressing all kinds of things there, and it's not so easy to stop them from doing that. It's also worth saying I think that it's impossible to remove people from Wikipedia altogether, although I don't think this applies to Sarah. I think that it's best to look at the minimum first, and work upwards with these things, and try not to be punitive for the sake of it. (I think that may actually be an admin guideline, though I could be wrong). Also, the Troubles are very wide-ranging, and can blend into a number of UK/IRE areas. Why do something potentially awkward and problematic when something else (see below) will suffice? Try not to think punitively as I say, especially after the time block involved. It's really about Sarah's future editing.
9. Mentoring is surely not always ideal for experienced editors. It takes an admin's time up reading ahead of things, and there have been at least one case of an editor who seemed to me a little more powerful than he should have been, after he was punished with a sympathetic mentor who apologised on his behalf! Why put two people in the mix? I prefer to have faith in policy, and keeping things as simple as possible so people know where they stand. But if mentoring (or even a topic ban) is what Sarah genuinely wants... I've asked her on her talk about this, but she hasn't replied yet (it's late where she is).
10. Finally, listen to Sarah – it's about her. Why not? She's not a criminal don't forget, just a Wikipedian.

The proposal:

I personally don't see any purpose in topic banning Sarah, or even blocking her any longer. She does need something specific though.

So - per an arbcom ruling, Sarah must,

• Acknowledge that it is against Wikipedia policy to claim that there is a propensity for inherent bias amongst British editors on Wikipedia. This is unprovable, and potentially offensive to contributing editors who simply happen to be British. It is also damaging to Wikipedia because it spreads bad faith. Any further indiscretions by her in this regard will now result in an immediate indefinite block, with a topic ban likely at any future appeal.

• Understand that universally and broadly labelling "the British", by name or clear inference, with language likely to be considered offensive, is also against Wikipedia policy. Any further indiscretions by her in this regard will now result in an immediate indefinite block, with a topic ban likely at any future appeal.

Note: I've appended "with a topic ban likely at any future appeal", as topic bans really are almost as serious as it gets on Wikipedia, and I honestly think this has escalated just a little too quickly.

These cover the two issues, and the phrasing can be worked if necessary. There is no need to mention Ireland, and you could even use more general words for "British", but there is really no point as the British (or various aspects of British history in reality) have been the actual problem with Sarah, and she seems to be quite socialistic otherwise. I'm sure that as long as she ceases to express her strong feelings over the 'bloodier' aspects of British history in terms of British people, her editing on Wikipedia will surely remain as productive as it normally is. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Thanks you Matt for the work you have put in over this, and your well made points, however her Block Log would seem to indicate a history of (to be polite) getting into battles that end up needing admin attention. An editor with such a contribution count should be given another chance, but for her sake she needs to avoid given topics that push her buttons, it is for that reason I think she should avoid (with threat of an block) the pages listed in the sections above, and the only way I see that working is with a ban. I do however agree with your point about the usefulness of a mentor. So at this time I, regrettably have to Oppose this proposal Mtking (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the log isn't great, but she's got in ruts in the past that shouldn't be able to happen in the future now. She is also genuinely contrite. Perhaps we could think of this in stages? Should there be another instance with Sarah regarding these matters (and hopefully there won't ever be), then a topic ban is the next stop. I'm very uncomfortable with the drastic escalation of Sarah's case here (a lot of people would be really angry if the indef block remained for example), because I don't think it helps find a actual workable solution for Sarah - which we have a real duty to do I think. I'm going to add this to the bottom of each of the two bullets if you don't mind. Sorry to do that to you after you replied, but at least only two people have so far! Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work Matt, I believe it is a fresh look at things. I've a clarification question. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand if Sarah genuinely has a problem with "the British" (meaning all people who are British), or "the British" (meaning the ruling establishment). Should Sarah modify her language to, for example, compare the "policies of an historic British establishment or government" with (the policies of) Nazi Germany - is this opinion that is allowable, or offensive? --HighKing (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was playing around with the second paragraph till the early hours, but needed to get something up obviously. I agree that a little more clarification wouldn't hurt it - though I think Sarah777 (and others) know what the wording entails. I'll actually put it to Sarah too I think. To be sober about this (and this relates to the comment to MtKing above), Sarah will need to try this out (ie work out what is reasonable 'wiggle room', as someone mentioned) - but any more offensive stuff (and people are pretty clear when it's happened) should lead to proper topic bans I think. I don't think you can get much more serious action than topic bans. But yes - we could perhaps improve the language to specifically say that ambiguous attacks are likely to cause offence given her past. She needs to be careful HK, but she can be. It's not rocket science. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think now? As just two of you have commented, I've adjusted it slightly. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, the reason I asked the question is because commenting on "the British", as a people, is racist. End of. And shouldn't be tolerated. Commenting on "the British" as a ruling body with policies and responsibilities, while not racist, *may* be deeply offensive. Sarah ... has a way with words. She can certainly learn. I think the proposal has merit and I support it. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Specific article topic bans are justified with her record on them, such as BI, ROI. I also personally have my doubts she would agree to this wording. I'm not really seeing where you get the idea that "Sarah is seeing and understanding the issue". Frankly, for Sarah, there is no indefinite block and appeal 'next time'; it would be a straight up community ban proposal, and it would sail through imho, even if her next infraction was completely minor. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think to say Sarah would "sail through a community ban" is totally inapt, and who are you to say prejudge what will happen? Isn't a 'community ban' the complete ban for totally disruptive people? I find that really OTT - and I'm getting a bit concerned over the level of punitive people commenting here. It would depend entirely how it's all portrayed for a start, esp with a "minor infraction"! But there can't be a minor infraction with this proposal - that's the whole point of it. If she causes offense in this area again, then she's looking at an indef block followed by topic bans upon a successful apeal. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

With her record, if she made just one more error, a ban proposal would sail through. That's a stone cold fact. MickMacNee (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as working to be honest. This is already Sarah's last chance, and several people believe that this is more than she deserves. Even if Sarah were the model contributor from this point forward, her past actions mean that there is no way that her presence on pages like British Isles will be seen as uncontroversial for a good few years at least, and topic banning her from them is as much about preventing the encyclopaedia from drama as it is about protecting it from biased editing. Accordingly I must oppose any proposal that does not include topic bans for those areas where Sarah has previously shown not to be able to put aside her beliefs and work collegiately. It's not having these beliefs that is a problem, it is not being able to work with editors who don't share them. Topic bans allow her to contribute positively to the encyclopaedia in areas where she is able to work without drama. To borrow an analogy made by someone else in a different context, if Hitler were alive today he would be welcomed as a Wikipedia editor if he stayed clear of articles related to Judaism and homosexuality and spent time writing high quality articles about vegetarianism (and before anyone misunderstand the analogy, this is not comparing Sarah to Hitler nor her actions with his). Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For me, that Hitler analogy fails on each level - and I'm afraid there is a comparison with Sarah here too - if a rather clumsy one. Unlike Sarah (and the many like her), no-one would want to be near Hitler at all. Clearly ultra-extreme people require immediate community proposals to see if other Wikipedians can edit with them around. Supposing Hitler did survive that, policy alone should handle any biased Jewish-related edits - Wikipedia should never pre-censor (ie topic ban) someone just due to their known opinion.

Also (as it happens), many of Hitler's numerous health problems were probably down to the fact that he ate little else but meat! He was severely flatuent, and was told by his doctor to lay off the red stuff and see if it helped. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

After the early 1930s, Hitler generally followed a vegetarian diet, although he ate meat on occasion. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A small point (but an important one) Thryduulf and MickMacNee, but Sarah hasn't edited on British Isles for ... yonks and yonks. What is the "biased editing" you speak of in that area? I believe the main problem we are trying to address is *not* that Sarah has "biased editing" in general, but that she on occasion has a big brain fart, and lashes out at "the British" in a seemingly out-of-control fashion. (Ideally, it'd be great if there was one of those great big red "Emergency Stop" buttons on her web page where a potentially destructive rampage can be halted *before* it spirals out of control) 99% of the time, she is a valuable and net positive contributor here. She is not a vandal. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We gotta view Sarah777, as a George Patton type. Out on the fields of the 'pedia, she's great - there's no vandalism & no socking. However, she's prone to gaffes & being a tad too honest. Come on, ease up on the indef-block stuff. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, Mick, Rklawton (and any actual admin/arb who are reading, please) - this is important. Sarah has not been a constantly disruptive editor (or even editor) on the British Isles article, or disruptive anywhere else normally. Re BI, do you realise people like Gold Heart are still editing there? Please, don't even go there. Let's have some perspective here please.

There is half a case for just topic banning Sarah on BI and nothing else because she does not actually want Wikipedia to keep using the term (but only half a case). BI covers the Troubles in an implicit way, but it's also sufficiently contained. But topic banning her on anything more that covers UK/IRE, aside from being simply OTT, is just going to cause all manor of talk-page and general 'boundary' issues. Please - lets make this purely a behaviour thing.

I can see now that there is also a case for using my proposal and giving her a mentor too, which she and John might both be happy with. A mentor might be able to protect her too - and it looks like she might need it, thinking about that from another angle. I have to say that I'm really uncomfortable with the level of punitive judgement I've been reading on her talk page and on her. I'd like someone to take note of that - others may feel it too. IMO, Sarah is being over-chastised by a smallish group of people who are often describing themselves as 'the community speaking'. The community must be bigger than this. I'm mainly interested in admin and the arbs in terms of judgement, to be perfectly honest (and I don't often say things like that!). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's of any use at all, I'd be happy to throw the occasional helpful mentor's-sidekick helping-hand in. Though I'm British, I'm as neutral as a very neutral thing on vast numbers of issues (including the GB/Ireland thing); also 50+ real-life years and various accumulated insights / wisdoms / wossnames. I understand passionate people. Happy to be called-upon for input from time to time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I could care less if Sarah hasn't editted articles like BI for years, we know what happens when she does. That's why a topic ban in those areas where she is known to have absolutely no self control is the absolute minimum, whether her visits are daily or yearly. That's precisely because we don't have 'emergency stop' buttons, just blocks. And I've already spoken on the futility of such broad bans like all things Irish. MickMacNee (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about your well-known temper? You know Mick, I remember (all too well) when I completely lost it with an admin over the 'wheel warring' that happened after Ireland was a 'disam page' for a couple of days. He blocked me for 2 weeks then shortly-after unblocked me so I could defend myself. Who was it who was urging him to change it to an 'indef' to remove me (a "disruptive editor") from the project? Simply because I was fighting to maintain the admin's decision to create the disam page, and in doing so ultimately pushing for the opposing stance of yours (as was Sarah). That's both of us you've tried to remove from the area isn't it?

The problem I have is that too many over-punitive people are chipping-in at the moment. It needs to be taken into account. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't even recall the incident, so while it might be relevant to your comments, it certainly hasn't been to mine. This isn't an issue of temper with Sarah, it's an issue of her complete inability to accept some very basic principles about what Wikipedia is and how people are expected to interact here. I've not said anything more punitive than has been applied to other editors with similar records and with similar issues. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I've declined the still-open unblock request on the following grounds: "This request has now been open for almost a week. In the meantime, a very long discussion at ANI has not come to a clear conclusion. Many people there support your unblock, but only subject to a more or less comprehensive topic ban. It is not clear from the discussion what exactly the scope of the ban should be. Since at any rate you say that you propose a one month block, which has not yet elapsed, I am at this time declining the request without prejudice. You can make another request after consensus has been reached at ANI about the conditions for your return to editing, or you can try to negotiate the conditions of an unblock with WP:BASC."  Sandstein  16:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 - can we move towards a conclusion?

I don't completely understand the ramifications of the above statement from Sandstein (I hope it doesn't pre-judge a topic ban), but I've been working solidly towards facilitating a conclusion here - which some people could perhaps be following and waiting on? I've come to the point anyway, and have this to say:

Sarah is happy for John to be her mentor (which is important for it to work), and accepts my above proposal. It basically says "another indiscretion and there will be a minimum of a topic ban". Given Sarah's normally harmless productivity, anything more is quite wrong imo, and pandering to some people in here and on her talk-page who (for whatever reason) are simply going too far. It's even been quite ugly at times - in my opinion.

As Sarah's only problems have occurred - very sporadically - in a couple of UK/IRE crossover areas, so it surely should be regarded as a pointless waste of resources to topic-ban and give her a mentor too? Sarah clearly isn't going suddenly stop harbouring an opinion on the British state (and that's not in Wikipedia's remit), but she MUST express it less ambiguously/stupidly from now on, and is perhaps advised not to express an actual opinion here on it at all. Nor will she cease to have the odd opinion on adminship (who doesn't?). Nor will she suddenly cease to be provoked by people, some who mean well and some who don't. I think a mentor could be of assistance with that last fact (simply in dis-encouraging possible provocation through his presence), and so I would add mentoring by John to my proposal.

• Does anyone here accept my above proposal, or want to build from it?

I came here to ask if we could move to a conclusion, but have been taken by surprise by Sandstein's comment (I hope I'm not just a couple of hours too late). Does anyone recommend where I/we can go from here? An admin or arb please - ie someone who is neutral about Sarah: I've got a bit tired of the repeated negative comments made by just a few users. Everyone negative about Sarah has surely had their say now.

If the 1 month is to elapse, perhaps a decision can still be made soon? I'd know I would appreciate that, and I think think this ANI could really outstay its welcome if only the same few people stay involved. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Matt Lewis that this needs to move to a conclusion if for no other reason than this is just wasting time. As I see it there are three options we have :

• Option A : (Based Matt Lewis proposal above) Unblock with John as mentor, no topic ban at this time.
• Option B : (Based Thryduulf proposal above) Unblock with John as mentor, with a topic and page ban on the areas that push Sarah's buttons.
• Option C : Block stays in place and Sarah needs to take the matter up with the Arbitration Committee.

I agree with a number of the points made by Matt in his reasoning for why he feels why we must unblock Sarah, but I feel that with a topic and page ban on those pages would be doing both the project and her a service. Thryduulf makes a very good point on Sarah's talk page here when talking about editors in what he calls "the third category" that have "strongly and passionately [held] believes". It is for that reason I think Option B is the way forward. Mtking (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out the options here. The only thing I'd say to your preference is that A) Sarah mainly edits in Irish areas, and there is obvious crossover (esp in talk pages and via people she knows), and B) what's the point of her having a mentor if she's not editing in the problem places? It seems very resource wasteful. I also find it too punitive to be honest - the people who edit in these areas can be too-passionate admittedly, but they can also curb it, esp with things like my above proposal and the threat of an immediate article block in place. Why jump the gun when we have this stage to try? I think arbs have a responsibility to try positive solutions, and look for positive results. Sarah has shown that she could be fine for year-long periods: it's not all the time she does things like this! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said here I agree with you on the mentor point, as it was Sarah's idea I see no harm in having one, would equally be happy if Option B did not have one. Mtking (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just can't fathom why you people don't want to give her another chance before dealing her immediate topic-bans. I really feel that people are jumping a natural level here, and that it is totally unwarranted in this case. I just don't see it as representative of a/the 'community'. Surely there must be some reasonably supportive people out there? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I like the "you people" comment - but will gloss over that to say that I do feel Sarah should return, and should never find herself blocked again, that is why I think it is good for her and the project to have areas of the project she does go to, namely those areas she has very strong views on and are likely to get her buttons pushed. What is wrong with that ? Mtking (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, by "you people" I simply mean the small amount of contributors here who I view as being over-punitive: yes I'm find this frustrating.

You are simply jumping the gun by forbidding her particular areas at this juncture. And as I keep saying (and many non-contributors here will know), there is simply too much crossover on these issues: it will be too problematic from a technical point of view - and we need clarity here. Ireland is Sarah's main editing field: she's Irish, she lives there, it's her country. She's been a major Irish contributor in fact. Her wiki-friends will crossover too. You may as well just keep her indefinitely blocked.

Can I ask yourself this: What is wrong with Sarah having a mentor combined with the threat of an immediate topic ban if she should transgress again? That's not been done before, so why jump the gun? Sarah actually thought about it all for a few days before making the unblock request, just to make sure that she could comply: then she came back and said she could. I see no reason why she can't, esp with this proposal and a mentor. AGF has not been obliterated by her at all - she's not been anywhere near as bad as people seem to think.

And I'm going to say one last thing (and try and leave it here): Underneath the specific issues where things have actually got fraught with Sarah (and others, obviously), there have been real issues that Wikipedia has failed to deal with. That's not Sarah's fault, despite flare-ups over the years where she's commented irresponsibly (presumptuously really, in terms of her implicit qualities, and without seeing that she needs to apply explicit consideration in how other's may feel - some people are a bit airy like that, and she needs to properly address it). Wikipedia itself has to be positive about sorting out a few nationality-related problems, and that simple fact underscores all of this. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I Don't want to continue this either as it is clear neither of us is going to be persuaded so will try and keep this short, I do think that Thryduulf's proposal is workable, it consists of a hand full of pages to keep clear of and some specialist subject areas relating to Anglo-Irish relations. I don't think this is a case of jumping the gun, look again at her block log. In answer to "What is wrong with .... threat of an immediate topic ban if she should transgress again" again look at her block log. Under Thryduulf's proposal she would be be able to work on nearly all of the articles relating to Ireland. I sincerely hoped that both sides of the debate could come together and find a solution that would see Sarah editing again, however I am resigned to the fact that this is going to probably end here, with no unblock, leaving Sarah having to go to the Arbitration Committee which does know one any good.Mtking (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with putting off the topic ban is that this is not a first offence, and the threat of a topic ban didn't work last time. If she is unblocked now then it will be her last chance, no "we'll topic ban you next time" as (1) we've said it before and (2) there wont be a next time. Whether a community ban would "sail through" after a minor offence as someone else suggested I don't know, but for anything other than a minor technical infraction then I wouldn't bet on her being unblocked again in less than a year. Regarding the specifics of a topic ban, yes Ireland is her main area of interest which is why in my proposal you will note that I explicitly rejected a broad ban on Ireland related topics, and while she would be banned from the Republic of Ireland article she could edit County Cork, Ballinasloe and Larne (to pick places at random), as long as she steered clear of editing those articles in relation to the naming of the British Isles, Anglo-Irish relations or The Troubles (which should be possible). There is also no interaction ban proposed, so as long as she remains civil then there will be no problem with who else edits the articles - if other editors try and 'bait' her (or anyone else) or indeed are disruptive in any other way they will be dealt with separately. If you think that any one (or more) of the topic bans in my proposal is too broad/too narrow/otherwise unworkable, please comment (in the section provided) with specifics that can be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. This really, really is my last comment until Sarah talks to HJMitchell at least. Thryduulf, I know you think it's workable - but I don't. And neither do people like MickMacNee, who has argued (though not very well) to keep the indef block for this reason. It's not that so-specific topic-bans make things fraught with "danger" - as I don't personally think that Sarah is going to transgress again - it's that it creates a situation with likely tiresome problems. Why create the drama? I don't think that any element of ambiguity helps.

It is simple to me: Sarah CANNOT repeat what she has done, and if she doesn't then it doesn't matter where she edits, does it? If she does transgress, then she will no-doubt be lucky to actually even get a topic ban: a long-term or indef block could well be more likely (and she really does accept this). That, combined with a mentor, seems to me the reasonable, logical and sensible route, and I don't believe that WP should be anything other too. Arbcom simply has a duty to look positively towards workable solutions. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I still resolutely oppose unblocking Sarah777 without a topic ban in place. She's done enough constant battleground editing; if she is allowed to edit again, she should not have the chance edit those areas again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If she is allowed to edit again? What's with this place? Let me tell you this: those areas are stuffed full of socks and nasty IP's - stuffed with them. You should see the things I've been called. Sarah is absolutely nothing compared to those people. We should actually respect the fact that she only has one account. And we can't go after Sarah for the crimes of others (ie the general disruption within an area) either. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "if". As she is currently indefinitely blocked, that's a perfectly logical conjunction here. Your "she's not as bad as others" argument is hardly convincing. It does nothing to show why she should be permitted to edit. It only helps to give insight concerning why she's been allowed to poison the well for so long without being banned. As for "what's with this place", well, that would take several dissertations to go into, but trying to stop a battleground mentality from dominating Wikipedia is not one of the things that's wrong with it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given plenty of justification for pete's sake: 90% of the time Sarah is very productive and completely normal: she is just not the 'rogue editor' you are gunning for. How dare you damn her in such condemning terms, and leave such a nasty trail? Who are you to place 'the project' before it's workers, and reasonable stages of justice (don't even think it approaches the developed world in that - with it's little-mob justice, and religiously-ordained chiefs)? The encyclopedia is one thing, and it may not quite be about 'truth' (all the tough-stuff etc), but this side of the coin is all about the editing community - it's about human beings. Wikimedia has a duty of care to them (whatever the did, and Sarah is just not that bad for heaven's sake) - esp the time-served ones.

I'm a committed Wikipedian, but I'd rather see the whole project stop tomorrow if it started openly de-valuing its contributors right to fair and unprejudiced proceeding in situations like this. It's not that important to the world. Wikipedia cannot come before its people, and the generally-understood principles of simple human rights. It if did it may as well be compiled by a computer randomly-searching for verified sources (and some areas I've seen here would probably be no worse if it did - there's a lot of work to do before WP can fly any flags imo). Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have said many times, Sarah is indeed a productive editor in many (and indeed probably most) areas, however she is not a productive editor in all areas. The point of the topic bans in my proposal, which I still stand by as believing to be the best way forward, is to allow her to contribute to those areas where she is productive, which she cannot do while blocked, while at the same time preventing the drama associated with her contributions from those areas that have proven troublesome in the past. I cannot support any proposal that doesn't include topic bans for this reason. Indeed it is preferable that she remain blocked to being allowed to resume editing in those areas she has proven herself incapable of remaining civil with regards to; although this obviously less preferable than her being allowed to resume editing on areas where she is a valuable contributor.

If you believe that other users are also causing problems then please excercise the dispute resolution process regarding them. If it takes the removal of one disruptive party to identify other disruptive parties that is unfortunate but not a reason to allow the removed party to continue being disruptive.

Human rights are not relevant to Wikipedia, it is an internet site that we all contribute to voluntarily. The only rights any of us have are (1) the right to have our edits attributed and shared according to the creative commons attribution share alike license and the GNU Free Documentation License; and (2) the right to leave (either through a simple cessation of editing or by exercising the right to vanish). That is it. There is no right to proceedings, let alone fair and balanced ones - that we have them in some cases is simply because it often works best to have them, and does not guarantee the right to them. See the related Wikipedia:Free speech. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa: unless you are also Heimstern you can't begin "As I have said many times" - I'm responding to him, not you. Don't gang up as a block - it's not suitable for ANI. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom has a duty of care, and that is partly why they are voted for. To wikilawyer around that really isn't clever at all imho, and it leaves a bad taste. You have a clear position on Sarah, as do I - but you are only one admin: a number of others who know of Sarah and the issues (many invisible it seems) have a better idea of the 'areas' involved here, how pointless it is to just start ANI proceedings on people all the time, and how easily some of the issues can blend into other 'areas' too.

Sarah will hopefully be talking 1:1 to the admin who blocked her soon - which is a sensible thing ot happen I think. I do personally want to sign out of here now though, as it's just gone on too long and (though I'm no soft touch) I'm genuinely finding this demoralising. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, you could be a little less condescending. "How dare you" is not an appropriate tone to take when talking to people. You are not my dad, thanks very much (and frankly, I don't let my dad talk to me like that anymore). You seem to have lost all realization that people can be rational human beings and still disagree with you. Whether Sarah's work outside of nationalist hotspots I cannot say, but I can say that her behaviour within the Ireland-Britain hotspot was completely unacceptable. If indeed her work outside that is of good quality, then allow it, but forbid the unacceptable behaviour, which is to say have her topic banned from the Britain-Ireland disputes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as for your accusation of "over-the-top nastiness", that is absolute rubbish. I am characterizing Sarah777's behaviour, not attacking her person, and my characterizations are entirely accurate. I have described her as treating Wikipedia as a battleground. And so she does. If you don't think comparing the British flag to the Nazi swastika is battleground behaviour, I can't do anything for you. If you're fine with all that, OK, but it's still against Wikipedia policy. I've got nothing against Sarah personally, and as I've said, I've nothing against unblocking her if the topic ban is in place to stop the battleground editing. So please, enough with accusing me of "nastiness". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The goal is to reduce drama. If Sarah's problems relate to a specific area (and it seems they do) then it's an easy choice to see the best option to eliminate problems is a topic ban. Also, the comments about ones rights above is plain silly. You have precisely three rights. Right of Attribution, Right to Fork and Right to Vanish, and when it boils down to it two of those are imposed by our license. This is not a government body, it is a private entity and as such is not bound by the First Amendment or (insert local equivalent here). -- ۩ Mask 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing to avoid a totally unfair boomerang. Regardless of the history, this particular request for clarification was reasonable, given an admin's redaction of what, in context, was unambiguously an argumentum ad absurdum and not a personal attack. Enacting a topic ban based on a misconception so obvious is unacceptable. TreasuryTag: let this be a lesson to you - you've "cried wolf" too often and people aren't willing to take your complaints seriously any more. You'd better bite your tongue for a good long while and not make any, even if you're in the right. Rd232 ^talk 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Can someone clarify (a) whether or not this is a personal attack – ie. who is it attacking, or is it just an analogy used to make the point that people usually evaluate advice based on its source? – (b) whether or not it is appropriate for it to be removed as per WP:TPO and (c) whether or not it is appropriate that the people removing it are the person who considers themselves to be being attacked and an admin who has previously declared themselves INVOLVED with regards to myself? I am particularly concerned because the only uninvolved admin to have looked seems not to have been too concerned.
I would like to clarify that I am not drawing comparisons between Edokter and a terrorist. I was simply using an analogous situation.
If the conclusion is that it should not be removed, I would appreciate it being restored, since it is currently deleted. If the conclusion is that it should be removed, I would genuinely appreciate advice on what is wrong with it, and how WP:INVOLVED does not apply, so that I am aware for the future. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Implying that someone would like to take advice from bin Laden is a personal attack in most situations, yes. Can you explain how this isn't an exception?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment (obviously) doesn't address the issues I raised in point (c). ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see how it would be construed as suggesting one would take or value advise from bin Laden. Personally, I wouldn't have zapped your post, but that's because very little offends me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have further added an apology if my remark was mis-interpreted, but as I have stated, it was only intended to be an analogy. Interestingly, Sarek seems to be treating it differently to Edokter, who says he thought I was comparing him to Bin Laden. Neither was my intention, I assure you. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• My God, Treasury Tag, could you just please not argue and fight and complain and wikilawyer and snipe and push the boundaries all the fucking time about everything? When you're fighting and arguing with everyone you come across, and finding the need to start ANI threads about everything, eventually it should occur to you that maybe it isn't always everyone else's fault. Even when you're right, you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  If you don't actually comment on the issue I've raised, it's quite difficult for me to tell whether or not to take you seriously... ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 19:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't much care whether you take me seriously or not; that's your choice, and doesn't affect me. You might find it is to your advantage to take me seriously, however, because I have a gut feeling that I am less inclined than many others around here to severely limit your ability to continue to disrupt everything you touch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for TreasuryTag

- Sub-heading added. Fences&Windows 22:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please have a complete topic ban on TT starting these incessant 'requests for clarification' sections on ANI which, shock horror, always turn out to be anything but. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Oh yes. The recurrent drama achieves nothing - apart from consuming other editors' time, which is a valuable resource on this project. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's either an attack or terminally uncivil, take your pick. It should never have been said, and certainly not re-added. In any case, I agree with Floquenbeam and Mick above. Incessantly arguing about disruption is even more tedious than merely disrupting. Dayewalker (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support any measure that would reduce the amount of drama-laden threads Treasury Tag starts in order to air their Grievance of the Day against [insert random editor's name here]. My patience, which I used to believe was nearly infinite, has finally warn out with regard to TT's near incessant complaints. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban on me starting ANI threads. I am not aware of any other editor subject to such a restriction, probably because it's a ludicrous idea which prevents the free and fair exchange of views and can only cause more trouble. If people object to me starting threads complaining about the stupid behaviour of some other editors, then they would probably waste less time by (a) not reading them, and/or (b) not typing long comments complaining about drama. Paragraphs such as those which Mick produce do not reduce drama. They increase it. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  "It's everyone's fault but mine". There is indeed a reason that there's no other editor "subject to such a restriction". Can't you even get the slightest hint from all the adverse coments against you every time you open one of these threads? Unbelievable. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attack? No. Incivil? Perhaps. Stupid? Yup. Fortunately, for me certainly, we don't block/ban for stupid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• If it's not a personal attack, it's definitely uncivil and inappropriate, and I don't much care who redacts it as such. Banning TreasuryTag from ANI is an overreaction in my opinion. I'd suggest a WP:TROUT instead. N419BH 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• A more adult way to express a dislike of the frequency with which any editor complains about things, is to ignore him, as you would in real life. You don't tape over someone's mouth, you walk away and he either shuts up, changes his behaviour or goes and complains to someone else. It doesn't consume anyone's time if they just ignore it. Note that I am not making any comment on TT personally, I am talking generally. It works for me - I ignore a number of editors that p**s me off and they just go away. If we're going to block idiots, then it's going to be a long job. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your mistake of course is to comment on the general case, whereas all the people commenting here about TT, already know through experience that none of what you said applies to him, or the drama threads he starts here. Even you commented in the thread, to tell everyone to ignore it. If that's not wasting everybody's time, I don't know what is. And while everyone else gets to ignore this nonsense, that's not the case for the 3 people he specifically notified of the important thread he started that involved them. That's not the case for people monitoring this board for replies in threads which do actually matter. This is an admin's noticeboard for dealing with specific incidents. It doesn't exist to simply host an endless stream of pointless crap where TT seeks feedback about an issue he's never ever going to accept anyone else's interpretation of except his own in the first place, and will only make sarcastic reply after sarcastic reply, lawyer point after lawyer point, until yet again someone finally comes to put a bullet in its head and forcibly archive it (often having to close it two or three times as TT won't accept the conclusion). Even if everybody ignored it, that's still a hell of a stupid way to use the Foundation's server space. If you stopped ignoring him and started watching him, you'd see how hilarious it is to suggest that either his behaviour will change or he will just shut up, if we all just pretended he doesn't exist. It's nonsense. The guy is addicted to this sort of timewasting self-centred drama. A topic ban would be like an intervention frankly, a way to save him from himself, rather than ensuring this board remains an efficient incidents needing action board. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• A bit snippy, and hence a bit uncivil; but not a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• What "incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators" does this question refer to? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably the inappropriate reversion of another editor's comments, on the dubious grounds that they constitute a "personal attack". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I only see a request for clarification, which seems inappropriate here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bringing things here inappropriately as a way of continuing to express insults is so totally inappropriate, that I think a block might be in order. In my view this certainly counted as a personal attack, and I certainly am willing to block for personal attacks when they become disruptive. This one was. It's appropriate to stop continuations of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• It wasn't a personal attack at all. It was just a potentially (I didn't examine the full context) valid point explained with a drastic example. TreasuryTag is one of those editors who are definitely causing more trouble than they are worth, and starting this section was a bad idea. But as the TT's complaint is basically justified, this is not the occasion for proposing an ANI ban. Hans Adler 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• God, not another one from TT. Per Floquenbeam and MickMacNee et al., TT should be topic banned from An, AN/I, WQA etc. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban from AN, AN/I, WQA, etc. Much too quick on the draw that way; it's just disruptive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban on TreasuryTag opening AN/I, AN and WQA threads, support block the next time he makes uncivil comments like the one he's advertising here. Fences&Windows 22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure opening is enough. He seems to horribly escalate threads opened by others, especially on WQA. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• TreasuryTag, telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack. That you came here to argue about it tells me you should take a long break from the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Once again I see a number of normally quite intelligent people claim incivility by completely misreading a harmless contribution to a debate. (Not just you but also several people above.) It is pretty obvious that TT was merely arguing that to some extent it does matter who advice comes from. Using an extreme example to drive the point home is hardly criminal. This is one of the few things about which I agree with TT: I am quite unlikely to take any advice from TT seriously, ever.
    I wouldn't mind an ANI ban for TT, but I don't understand why this can't wait for a better occasion when it doesn't have to be justified with a pedantic, anti-intellectual civility extremism argument. Hans Adler 23:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are ignoring the context of the discussion. I certainly recognize and acknowledge that one can argue both sides; that TT's comments are or are not personal attacks based on this and that is of course debatable. However, TT's comments were taken as a personal attack by Edokter who expressed his displeasure. TT's comments were made just after telling Edokter, "I don't value your advice in the slightest, nor do I trust your judgement". After this comment, Edokter reminded TT to stick to comments about content not persons, at which point TT told Edokter that he probably valued advice from Osama bin Laden, ignoring the fact that Edokter was simply restating NPA, and it didn't matter who repeated it. Hence, the conclusion this is a personal attack. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment re "telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack". TT did NOT tell an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, he did, and he did it in the context of ignoring the advice of someone reminding him to avoid personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Quotation please? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
        • It's the very first diff in the beginning of this entire thread. I encourage you to read the entire discussion in its original context. The irony, is that it shows TT saying he won't abide by Edokter's advice to adhere to NPA. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, I read that, but "I am assuming, perhaps unfairly, that you would not value advice from Osama bin Laden," does NOT say that the person in question DOES value advice from bin Laden, and I have read and (I think) understood the context (the "perhaps unfairly" clause may be a little provocative, but it does not necessarily imply your conclusion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Did you read the next sentence, which read "But I guess that would be wrong"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

              I have stated – and apologised for that matter, though everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that – that I did not mean to compare Edokter to Bin Laden (which is the offense he took from it) nor to say that he took advice from Bin Laden (which is the offense Sarek took from it on his behalf). I intended to make a very simple point, in response to Edokter's bizarre suggestion that one should not evaluate advice based on its source. My comment has obviously been misinterpreted, which is unfortunate, and I have apologised, but since I am guaranteeing that its intention was not to be a personal attack, I'm not sure why such linguistic analaysis of it as is being done just above is necessary! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

              • (non-admin) Perhaps in part because you apologised after you opened this discussion? The words horse and stable door may be appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

                If memory serves, I apologised immediately after opening this discussion but before anyone commented (so it wasn't really a discusssion...!) because I was drafting both comments at the same time. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 07:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban on starting or commenting on WP:AN/I, WP:AN and WP:WQA. TreasuryTag's uncanny talent for escalating non-issues into dramalanches is disrupting the project by wasting people's time. Reyk _YO! 00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, this ban obviously would not apply is TT is the subject of a thread started by someone else. He would clearly have the right to speak in his own defense. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure if this is in TT's defense or not, but I would not call his comments attacks. Then again, that is simply because TT takes great care in adding a level of ambiguity to his comments in order to be able to claim his statements are not attacks. Kind of like if I were to say "I'd say you're an idiot, but of course, that can't be possible" (not nearly as refined as his efforts in this regard, but you get the point). On that note, TT, when having not gotten his way and run afoul of others, has, on at least one occasion, admitted to being willing and planning on "WikiStalking" (note the parens, TT) at least one other editor[8]. There is definitely some pattern of behavior here, which I've seen numerous times throughout ANI and TT's TP edits or edit summaries, but I would be hard pressed to define them. With hopes this doesn't add me to his "stalking" list... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I said that I would be carefully checking that Sarek didn't abuse rollback (which is a violation of policy) or make inappropriate blocks (which are in violation of policy). Tracking an editor's contributions for policy violations is not wiki-stalking, as clearly specified at WP:AOHA, where it is also noted that false allegations in that regard are a serious personal attack. And don't worry, you're not going to get onto my stalking list for the comment above. You'd have to do something far worse ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would support a one-year ban on TreasuryTag's participation on AN or ANI, except in threads started by others in which he or his actions are directly involved, or if he wishes to draw attention to an undeniable emergency situation. I do not believe I have ever supported a similar action against anyone, but TreasuryTag's overall pattern of participation on the noticeboards renders them significantly less useful for their intended purposes. (I will note that I have probably had more than my share of disagreements with TreasuryTag on here over the years, so my view can be discounted appropriately.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban from AN, ANI, WQA unless they are named in the thread. Reyk words it well just abovr, these "dramalanche"s are tiresome to wade through. As to the original post, it's wrong anyway, 'cause if you intended to commit a crime against humanity, you would definitely want to think about asking Osama bin Laden for advice, of course you would. Oh wait now, so the analogy being drawn is between TT accepting Edokter's advice and Edokter accepting bin Laden's advice? Which Edokter would only do if he intended to commit what crime? That is an extremely offensive nnalogy and as such constitutes a personal attack. If such continue, then blocks should follow. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The number of TT's ANI threads and the tenacity with which he prosecutes them contributes to the unnecessary overhead here, and have become in essence disruptive. I can't recall one of them ending with a compromise acceptable to all parties, a good indication that it's TT's intransigence -- the only factor they have in common -- which prevents any kind of amicable resolution from being achieved. (When there is an actual issue, that is.) Instead, TT just rails away until everyone gets tired and leaves. TT himself realizes that his ANI complaints never achieve what he started out to do, since he's begun complaining that (paraphrasing) "I don't know why I post at ANI since it always becomes about me." Well, I don't know why he posts either, but it would sure be nice if he was stopped from doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban of TeasuryTag from ANI, AN and WQA (with the exceptions mentioned above). There is too much unhelpful and needless drama. Mathsci (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support; it would prevent much drama, freeing up TreasuryTag and other editors to spend more time doing something useful, like working on articles. bobrayner (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support'; I've never interacted with TT before but I have read a vary large number of threads on ANI and wherever he goes, he tends to be accompanied by a fanfare of drama, explosions, borderline attacks and general unpleasantness. --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Summary of conclusions and proposed resolution

There are few editors whose judgment I esteem as much as Rd232's, but I have to say that I think he made an uncalled for decision in his action above. Shortly after six consecutive "support" !votes were posted that moved the discussion sharply toward an outcome he disapproved of, he closed the discussion to prevent that outcome, as he said. He also provided a "summary of conclusions reached" that wasn't really a summary at all, but rather an argument against what appeared to be the emerging consensus.

Because "hatting" or otherwise "closing" a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring, any editor would be justified to revert the closure. Here's what our guide to refactoring says:

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. (emphasis added)

Instead of explicitly reverting at this point, though, I'd like to provide an actual summary of the discussion:

Detail of !vote count through 10:12, 23 May 2011 UTC: Support=16, Oppose=7, Neutral=4

Notes: A few of the !votes counted on either side below were judgment calls since some editors expressed a marked preference without necessarily having explicitly stated "support" or "oppose". This especially applies to those I counted as "neutral". If you find one that seems debatable in one direction, please review all !votes for yourself before you take umbrage. If you do so you'll almost certainly find one that's equally debatable in the opposite direction. After doing that, if you still take exception to how I've counted anyone's opinion, please contact that editor and ask him to edit the represented count to correctly register his or her preference. If anyone does so, I'd appreciate it if he'd do so in a discrete edit, using the edit summary "Change of !vote count" to make that easier to find in page history. Of the seven editors who opposed a prohibition at this time, four expressed concern about overuse of boards. Counted as Support: 16 Floquenbeam, Bobrayner, Dayewalker, Ponyo, MickMacNee, DeCausa, Ohiostandard, Fences&Windows, Mathsci, DGG, Blackmane, Viriditas, Reyk, Beyond My Ken, Newyorkbrad, Franamax Counted as Oppose: 7 Hans Adler, Boing! said Zebedee, Baseball Bugs, N419BH, LessHeard vanU, Bretonbanquet, Rd232 Counted as Neutral: 4 GoodDay, RobertMfromLI, Sitush, Sergeant Cribb Not Counted: TreasuryTag, SarekOfVulcan

As an alternative to a lengthy continued discussion, it's my own opinion that the consensus in the preceding thread was in favor of prohibiting Treasury Tag from initiating or joining threads at AN, AN/I, and WQA for at least six months. I also understood the community to favor an exception that would permit him to defend himself should anyone explicitly initiate a complaint about him on any of those boards. As I see it, any admin who recognizes the same consensus in the preceding discussion could appropriately log that as an enforceable outcome at this time.

I understand that opinions differ in all good faith here, i.e. that some wanted a one-year ban and some none at all. But based on the !voting, I see no reason why the community should have to have this discussion again, perhaps on one of the other boards, in two or three months. My hope is that based on the !votes we have so far, we can agree to six months without having to draw this out any further or revisit it again in the very near future.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised that Rd232 archived the discussion. Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As was I, since the discussion seemed to be reaching a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a very good reason why the community should have this discussion again at a later point: We must not allow WP:ABF to become a policy. A ban of Treasury Tag is probably overdue, but here TT just made a harmless reductio ad absurdum argument, clearly recognisable as such and with no disruptive overtones but only a touch of sarcasm expressing irritation with an unreasonable demand. Replacing it by "[Personal attack redacted]" was itself a personal attack. While it wasn't wise of TT to open another thread about this under the circumstances, defending against such a personal attack cannot be held against the user. Then the first comment on this thread was from a leading member of the civility police (SarekOfVulcan) who chose to concentrate on TT's purported incivility rather than Edokter's and thus started the bandwagon.

This incident shows why civility extremism is evil: Because a lot of editors only notice incivility when it occurs on one side of a conflict, it's a tool of mob rule. Hans Adler 07:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The vote does not constitute consensus and also the proposal for a topic ban contained insufficient information for editors unfamiliar with the editor to comment. The specific edit complained of by the editor could be seen as a personal attack and no details were provided about previous misuse of ANI or other dispute resolution noticeboards. TFD (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm biased, but tend to agree that there wasn't a particularly strong consensus in favour of a ban. However, in light of the fact that there may nevertheless be a ban taking place, I have started one final ANI thread below ("Demonstrable case of wiki-hounding by 'clean start' account"). Perhaps people could review it, its tone and its seriousness, and consider whether it fits the general 'TreasuryTag pattern of drama' or is in fact appropriate and sensible. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 07:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sadly (as it means, for or against, this debate will rage on), I too must concur that no consensus has been reached. At least assuming my understanding of such is sound, which is a "win by # of votes is not equal to a consensus". Now, as there are people who disagree the "win percentage" constitutes a wide enough margin to agree it's a consensus... well, one sees the problem. Me particularly, due to the nature of the sanctions, counts !Support against !Oppose+!Neutral, as I suspect is fair, since the idea is to have all or a very decent majority "supporting" the decision, as opposed to a decent minority not opposing.

I also do not think this was the ANI to do this in. Those with concerns should probably start a new ANI, with refs/diffs, if they wish to institute community review for the situation everyone voted on (which was not the topic of this ANI). My position on that is, regardless of the merit or lack thereof of TT's ANI request, it should have been dealt with for the issue presented... ie: no issue, an issue the community needs to be involved in, etc. In that respect, this probably should have proceeded along different tangential lines, specifically whether there was merit to his ANI filing (and then community proposals and actions) or no merit (at which point it should have been closed). Following the conclusion of either route, anyone here was/is able to address this issue separately. I kinda think that's actually procedure (similar to how ArbCom deals with things) - but I could be wrong (havent read up on everything ANI related). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• No sanction at this time, as I don't think a clear consensus was reached. I have no comment on the wider issue, since I am not sufficiently aware of it, but if any sanction is needed against an editor then a misunderstanding should not be the event to trigger it. The comment starting all this was reductio ad absurdum, not a personal attack. (That's still my opinion after having read the discussion above and considered the various arguments, and I shall not be replying further or going round the same arguments again) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• No sanction To the extent TT is now on notice that some would ban him, that is done. Enacting a ban on the case in hand is, however, substantially improper, and seems to bring out "I don't like him" !votes. In point of fact, it is imperative that admins always discuout such !votes, as they are seldom based on the facts in hand. Also note that I generally find Draconian solutions to be unwise in any event, and this extraordinarily weak case reinforces that position here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Sanction or at least keep this open longer. Even in the midst of all this, TT has opened yet another ANI below. Depending on how that pans out I think it will have a bearing on how consensus develops hee. I have to say that it's mind-boggling how TT's brain works: that he thought it was a good idea to open a new AN/I thread here (whatever the complaint. If the wikihounding is clear-cut enough couldn't he have just diectly asked an admin to intervene?) DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Point of order. Editors just joining the thread should of course feel free to state their wishes in whatever format they see fit, but I wasn't exactly trying to call for a re-vote or even necessarily restart that process. If that's what people want to do it's certainly fine, but I'd actually hoped that those who'd already expressed a desire for a year-long prohibition could compromise with those who wanted none, i.e. that both sides could grudgingly accept a compromise of six months. But however new or previous participants want to use this thread, I'd like to suggest that if your preference was already recorded properly above then you might want to refrain from just reiterating your previous !vote with a new bullet-boldface pair, however worded. That'll make any final tallying up much easier, if we're headed back in that direction of !voting. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• It is difficult, but I feel you cannot debar an active editor from initiating or participating in admin noticeboards discussions - this is where the community decides on whether there is a concern raised that requires resolving, and there appears no other option if a contributor feels they need to refer an issue to the community. Any individual whose posts here become vexatious are going to be ignored or at least given short shrift, and where they have exhausted the communities patience in regard to a particular matter they may be required to cease posting but... No, I cannot agree to banning a contributor from these pages - it is an invitation for unobstructed harrasment of any editor so banned (and once we ban one editor, then a slew of "difficult" accounts are likely to have this access denied). If anyone really cannot stand the thought of reading through another post by Treasury Tag or another editor held in similar regard, then it is they who should forego having a presence here; it is in these places that we earn our salaries... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment IMO this drama may have been prevented if the proposed interaction ban between TT and Sarek had gone through. Sarek redacting anything TT has posted, as he did in this incident, will clearly lead to a drama filled time suck on AN/I. Maybe TT has exhausted the community's patience with his AN/I posts, but do people he doesn't get along with really have to poke him until he is community banned for it? I don't see that as positive either. Should we revisit the interaction ban idea? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In view of Sarek's contribution to this mess, that might be worth considering. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The thread started with a genuine complaint from TreasuryTag. This complaint was not taken seriously, and it rapidly devolved into a discussion of banning TT from using important means of dispute resolution. Such a measure is not unprecedented, but it should be used with extreme caution. In addition, ANI is always vulnerable to "piling on" and borderline mob rule, which makes it particularly important to remember that consensus does not trump policy, and that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I judged that it was better to sweep this whole mess under the carpet than to examine in detail the errors of all involved, given the general lack of willingness to do so fairly. For example, Edokter was wrong to redact TT's comment directed at him (even if he did understand it as personal attack), and even more wrong to use rollback to revert TT's response. SarekofVulcan, who has a history with TT which nearly led to an interaction ban, got involved with the edit war as well, and then was the first commenter at the ANI thread. This is a mess, and sometimes the best thing to do with a mess is to pick it all up and put it in the bin [=trash for you Americans :)], which is what I did with the thread closure. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is no inalienable right in policy to be able to use the ANI board. There is certainly no right to ignore a consensus formed on it and make such unilateral judgements as you just did, which did nothing to address the valid concerns of a good many editors. As we are even reminded right now, TT is the guy who can even template Brad as an 'inexperienced user' (or rather an experienced one who nonetheless deserved a template as he was in TT's eyes displaying inexperience, waranting a template). I mean, WTF? Are you really saying that TT has an inalienable right to start yet another ANI thread if Brad didn't happen to take kindly to that sort of clueless nonsense and told him quite right to just fuck off? Or if he didn't (which he wouldn't), and expressed it in more compliant terms such as telling him it was not civil, that we should then have 20 more pages on ANI with TT seeking 'clarification' as to whether Brad had in his reply sufficiently AGF'd over whether he really meant to offend Brad, or where on the line of clueless disrespect his actions do actually fall, or indeed once the inevitable happens and the thread boomerangs on him, whether we are all sufficiently taking into account any past history between TT and Brad so as to ignore the elephant in the room. It's this sort of utter never-ending hypocritical wikilawyering bullshit from TT at ANI that was the issue at hand, not the specific incident. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  We want people to use ANI appropriately, including TT. Since the original thread here was appropriate, responding to it with a sanction is just all kinds of wrong, regardless of the history. Failing to properly address TT's complaint whilst closing down the inappropriate sanction discussion seemed a fair compromise, given that community's patience is clearly near exhaustion. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Like OhioStandard, I have a great deal of respect for Rd232's judgement, but in this case I think that hatting was inappropriate. WP:BOOMERANG is arguably a positive outcome of threads, in that a root cause of a problem might be addressed rather than the initially reported problem (where the two differ) so I really don't like the idea that threads should be closed down because we can see the boomerang flying back. However, we can't turn back time; the previous discussion was derailed and now I'm not sure whether sanctioning TT would be the best outcome as it could cause even more drama, which is the opposite of my desired outcome. However, if TT were to provoke more drama in future, and if somebody else responded proposing sanctions, I'd almost certainly hit the "support" button. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought it was clear enough from my closure (perhaps I should have been explicit) that any future misuses of ANI by TreasuryTag might reasonably lead to a discussion about appropriate sanction. The boomerang is generally a useful feature of ANI - it was just wrong to apply it here - check out the actual text of WP:BOOMERANG. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We might have to disagree on this one; I think that a real boomerang yesterday would have been appropriate and well earned, not just a promised boomerang if/when TT provokes more drama in the future. A number of others seem to have held a similar position. However, the direction of the discussion was changed; now, moving back in the old direction would probably provoke more drama. So, setting aside the old thread, I think we have a fairly similar view on what might happen in future... bobrayner (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• No sanction per my original comment. I did not reply to MickMacNee's response to my comment because I did not accept any of his argument. Ignoring this guy works for me, I couldn't care less if he emails me on a daily basis and wastes three-quarters of the total cyberspace with his guff - ignoring him is beyond easy. Thus it should be so for anyone else. If he breaks a rule, act on it - if he's just being a pain, get over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Whatever you might think, 'get over it' does not solve the problem that already exists and is not going away just because you shut your eyes and make believe. The idea that it does, or even comes close to doing so, where TT is concerned, is pure fantasy. I'd wager that the reality is you've never even interacted with the guy, and more importantly, you've never needed to, so you're not going to be best placed to say what is and is not easy when dealing with him. Other have and others do, so kindly do not pretend that what works for you works for them. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  OK, well the "reality" is that I've had a good look at what TT gets up to, and I've interacted with editors a damn sight more irritating than that. I think you exaggerate the trouble TT causes - there is never a "need" to interact with anyone here, it's all done by choice. Nobody forces you to use your keyboard. As I say, I've worked with people who make TT look like a model editor, so "kindly" don't suggest I'm talking out of my 'arris. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yeh, great choice. You can either try and save your article/image from deletion or defend yourself at ANI, or you can leave. Because you aren't 'forced' to interact with anyone here. I remain totally unconvinced that you know anything about this editor or have personally experienced anything remotely similar. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  As I say, if the guy breaks rules, then he can be dealt with accordingly. I honestly don't care in the slightest what you remain totally unconvinced of, and if you think you know more about my experiences than I do, that arrogance speaks volumes for you. Or maybe you just think your Wikipedia experiences are by far the most troublesome that can possibly be imagined. I've said what I think, and it really doesn't matter how much bad faith you see in it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Don't accuse me of bad faith for simply criticising your logic. You've said your piece, if you can't justify it, it's no skin off my nose. I'm here to deal with the specific issue, not talk in pointless genericisms, or trade life stories. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  It wasn't any criticism of my logic, rather the refusal to accept that I might have encountered any similar editors, which implies that I am a liar. If by justification you're looking for a list of names or some kind of proof, you're obviously out of luck. I'll accept your reasoning for being here, and assume the same for some other editors, whatever I might otherwise suspect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Rd232's unfortunate closure of the original discussion has muddied the waters sufficiently that it's very unlikley that a consensus can be reached at this time. In the light of this, and considering the comments from people who might be supportive of a topic ban, but not as a result of this particular case, I believe that closing this post-discussion discussion is the best course of action now. Should TT's behavior not change as a result of taking the lesson here to heart, there will inevitably be another discussion at a future time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The threat of a ban, if it is credible, may be effective. Clearly a credible threat has been demonstrated above, but the door remains open for TT for necessary/constructive contributions to ANI etc (like the one today about Sergeant Cribb). It was with this in mind that I closed the thread as I did. Let's give the "credible threat" approach a chance to work (especially as the interaction ban discussed below may well help - Sarek had a role in quite a few of these ANI kerfuffles, including this one). Rd232 ^talk 22:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I admire your optimism, even if I cannot subscribe to it -- and TT's been a problem for a long time, well before and problems between him and Sarek. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• I thought Rd232's close was one of the most artful actions on AN/I for a while and it should have been left as it was. The pile on, my !vote included, wasn't really warranted for the actual incident that provoked it, and the close was bang on - TreasuryTag has become the boy who cried wolf and others are getting fed up of it. Perhaps he'll learn from this, or perhaps he'll be given enough rope to hang himself (metaphorically speaking, of course). Fences&Windows 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Describing the !voting process that was shut down as "a pile on" is rather disrespectful, in my view. I think most of us would call it something like "the development of consensus"; several have, actually. Think about the likely result if we each took it upon ourselves to say to fellow editors, "You can !vote, but only if you decide what I want." Rd232 said above that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Just so, but it's not an anarchy either: None of us gets to "super-vote" in such a context, and none of us has the right to short-circuit one of the most fundamental processes by which we develop consensus, simply because we disapprove of the likely outcome.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, yes. But the discussion rested fundamentally on a flawed understanding of the incident, and "pile on" is hardly an unfair characterisation given the nature of it (and I've not even gone into the bizarre evolution of the initially limited ban proposal). In addition, the perpetuation of the flawed misunderstanding rested substantially with an editor (Sarek) who had been in previous disputes with TT (to the point of an interaction ban, see below), and was involved in the incident but didn't disclose that (making his judgement seem a neutral third party. All of this, and other things I've already said, amount to quite exceptional circumstances, and I'm satisfied that I made the right decision, as an uninvolved administrator, in minimising the mess from that situation. And I'm a tad disappointed you didn't see fit to approach me before reopening the thread. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, you already made clear your belief that others' views were flawed and yours was not. I dare say most of the !voters felt the same way you did toward the contrary side, as I did myself. That would have been fine grounds for posting a comment, or expressing your confidence in your belief by a !vote, just as we all did. But it's distressing to me that you still think you were entitled to essentially tell 27 people that they had no right to express their own judgment, that yours was superior, and it was the only opinion that mattered. If you see nothing wrong with that then, as Bobrayner wrote above, I think we're going to have to disagree on this one.

Re not consulting you after you effectively told the rest of us to be quiet, please note that I didn't explicitly revert you or restart the !vote, although in retrospect I think I probably should have done. I took that middle ground following after Alison's actions in a previous thread that you also marked as closed. But apart from that, you had asked no one's permission to close the !vote, and I simply don't accept that a single person has the unilateral right to silence 16 opponents, clearly in the majority, and nullify their opinions. Nor do I think that those who have been treated thus are then obliged to ask his permission to speak after he makes the attempt.

I know you thought you were right to act as you did, but given the many objections that has caused here, I'd just ask that you be more cautious about doing so in the future. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh, OK. 1. Yes, as an uninvolved administrator at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, my view sometimes does matter more than those of involved administrators (especially when they fail to disclose that involvement) and of people who are evidently relying heavily on the (clearly erroneous) interpretation of such an administrator, and of people motivated by prior unrelated disputes with an editor sufficiently not to give the complaint a fair hearing. 2. the 27 people had a right to express their judgement, and they did, and many, particularly earlier on, called it right. In this context, the "topic ban" subheader was extremely prejudicial to an appropriate handling of TT's complaint, and it surely influenced the progress of responses, where the initial ones looked at the actual issue, and later ones (particularly after the subhead was added) largely didn't address it, assuming it invalid by looking at the very first responses to the thread, above the subhead. That is how discussions always go - as they get longer, later editors joining rely more heavily on the initial judgements and comments, and don't read the full discussion properly (WP:TLDR effect). This is particularly problematic here given point 1 (Sarek's above-subhead first response). Plus a subhead like that, whilst no doubt added with the best of intentions, will always act as a red flag for editors with prior disagreements. 3. Given that closing a thread like that is clearly very unusual, it would have been wise, at least, to ask for clarification from me. There being no requirement to do so, don't bother drawing false parallels (Alison's comment was a minor postscript, not reopening everything). 4. I could have done it better, perhaps, but it was absolutely right to stop that ban bandwagon in its tracks; and as I already said, this was an extremely unusual situation. Note that an admin who supported the ban gave me a barnstar for the closure, which ought to mean something. Well, whatever, this has been dissected enough now. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're very greatly mistaken if you're of the opinion that this board in some way belongs to administrators, or that having been allowed access to some additional tools gives you a super-vote to negate community consensus. On the contrary, this board belongs to the community, and among its other legitimate uses by the community, it primarily functions as a work queue, rather like when an employee calls out over the intercom, "Cleanup needed on aisle three!" at the grocer's. It's not accidental that a mop rather than a judge's robe is the icon for having been allowed administrative tools, and the only place that your extra bit allows you to super-vote is in closing an AfD, and then only under strictly controlled conditions.

As I said previously, I do have considerable respect for you, and I have no wish to draw out this discussion or embarrass you, so I probably won't reply further here. But I'd again ask that you reconsider your role: It is primarily to serve the community and uphold consensus, rather than to set yourself up as being above consensus by virtue of its having lent you some additional tools.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a parting shot then: it is an administrator's job to serve the community. Sometimes (rarely) the community is best served by telling it in no uncertain terms that it's got something wrong. Consensus is not magic or absolute; its validity is always contextual, depending on the processes by which it is achieved (not least, how representative the group of editors involved). I outlined above why the processes in the discussion were invalid, and making difficult calls to serve the community's best interests is what "the mop" empowers me to do. Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Would this "flawed understanding" be that you see it as unambiguously not a personal attack, and thus a legitimate report, whereas plenty of others called it a definite personal attack, and those that didn't, agreed it was a stupidly incivil way to talk to another editor? All in all, it was never going to result in any immediate admin action. And t'was ever thus frankly with these reports, hence the increasingly hostile reactions to TT from the community for this 'who, me?' act. TT has had his chance to deal with Sarek properly, bitching and whining to ANI pretending it's about a specific incident needing a dramatic deconstruction is not it, that was a complete irrelevance frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clearly this is not going to pass, and at this point it serves no purpose except to denigrate TreasuryTag without the burden of having to provide evidence. I quote Griswaldo:

TT, at this point you need to realize that the ball is in your court. I highly suggest you do the editor review, and perhaps even figure out a way to get a mentor or something of that nature. Then I suggest you self-impose your half of this ban and work as hard as you can not to interact with Sarek, while also taking other criticisms of your behavior to heart (like those you'll get from a review). In the future, if Sarek can't resist poking you, or if you are having conflicts with others resist going to AN/I with the complaints as much as you can. Try a trusted admin directly instead, or perhaps if you get a mentor that editor. Try to resolve the issues without the drama of AN/I as much as possible. While I firmly believe this interaction ban is warranted, I also firmly believe that you are now in the position to choose whether you will have a productive future here, or whether those who seek sanctions against you are right, in which case you'll inevitably get topic banned or even worse for you banned outright. Please take all of this seriously and please accept the reality that however fair or unfair you think the situation is you have the power to make this all get better by reforming your own behavior.

and add that those who continue to have a beef with TT could try an WP:RFC/U. This would be a structured outlet for issues, and rather better than ANI. I'll also add that Sarek is not blameless and ought to try harder to ensure his interactions with TT are consistently constructive. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

---

TreasuryTag has indicated on my talk page that he is willing to support an interaction ban between himself and SarekOfVulcan, something I proposed the last time they get into a scuffle. At the time both he and Sarek opposed, and a consensus did not emerge to impose this ban. TT has asked me to try again, and I am doing so now. I'll copy the original proposal here, the wording is adapted entirely from relevant policy language. Please note that I do not think that such a ban will solve all the problems here, but at least it will keep the two from poking each other unnecessarily. There are a gazillion other admins who can deal with TT, we do not need Sarek to be one of them.Griswaldo (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan are banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other.

• Support as proposer.Griswaldo (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support—these three acts of pointless disruption, Sarek's only so-called contribution to the discussion, could have had no possible intention other than to piss me off. And I am indeed pissed off. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 21:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. In everyone's best interests. -- ۩ Mask 22:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support with the usual caveat that this does not apply to strictly incidental contact, or to any mediation or arbitration pages. Collect (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Griswaldo. I believe Sarek and TT will both be happier and more productive if they leave each other alone. 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support As much as I really prefer not to take tools out of the administrative tool chest, I agree that action needs to be taken. Furthermore, TT please note that your repeated forays at DramaCentral are beginning to get exceedingly annoying. Hasteur (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Unavoidable at this point, per Sarek's silliness today here and all that's gone before it from both parties. Rd232 ^talk 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed; for emphasis, this type of behavior is unacceptable, especially from an admin (involved or otherwise). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and SoV should have been blocked for a significant period of time for that egregious display of baiting. Why was he reconfirmed as an admin, again? Feh. → ROUX ₪ 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Both of these users are supposed to be some of the most outstanding, trusted users in the Wikipedia community as administrators, and they both are acting like children. It's sad to see it come to any kind of ban on an administrator when they were previously deemed by the community to have the know-how and maturity to handle dispute resolution without an argument that results in nothing more than "but he started it." If you can't be trusted to not use your administrator tools against someone you're in a dispute with, you shouldn't be able to keep them. If you disrupt the community with senseless bickering, you deserve a block for disruption. I support that instead. — Moe ε 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarek was recently reconfirmed as administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2). There's no obvious alternative to an interaction ban that would be fiar, effective, and get enough support to be implemented. Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment TreasuryTag is not an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Really? I always thought he was, maybe I was thinking of someone else. Regardless, he is a long-standing member of the community, who really should know better. — Moe ε 23:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, he wants to be an admin. Fences&Windows 23:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 07:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's nice to dream. — Moe ε 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Practical way of preventing mutual escalation of minor problems into big problems. I doubt it's a perfect solution to every problem, but it's practical. bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. "Reluctant" because two otherwise intelligent, adult contributors who know how WP works should be able to control themselves without the community stepping in like this. But "support" because they have each demonstrated that in fact they cannot thus control themselves, and hence here we are. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Changing to oppose. TT's comments below are further proof that, even when close to the edge, xe cannot resist inching even closer. While I do not think Sarek has been entirely blameless here, the original proposal appeared to treat both editors equally and I cannot now see that as proportionate. TT may argue that if this proposals fails or gains no consensus, that Sarek engineered it by the simple expedient of staying quiet. It might be a useful object lesson about how to get the result you want by saying less, rather than more. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support (per all of the above supports). TreasuryTag, take heed of what everyone is saying. SarekofVulcan, you are treading a path which will lead to a different type of request for reconfirmation (where the outcome will not be pleasant for you). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ya know what .. this is getting so old. Would both of you guys just -.... please try to edit in a more mature manner. If that means staying away from each other, then just do it. Avoid each other. It's obvious that each of you brings out the worst in the other. — Ched :  ?  05:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC) (ce) — Ched :  ?  05:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Sarek's recent reconfirmation RfA was a charade, and this is the inevitable result. Malleus Fatuorum 05:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think Sarek needs to take a few steps back from TT. I find TT one of the most annoying and difficult editors here, so I can fully understand why Sarek gets frustrated, but it's still not acceptable. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not that keen on you, either... ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Was that really necessary, TT? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  You could ask the same of Hobit (talk · contribs) if you felt like being non-partisan... ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 08:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not being partisan, all you had to do was ignore the baiting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to bait for the record. I guess what I wanted to say was support as second choice where first choice would be to ban/block TT for a good long while. As I don't see that happening, so I'm supporting as I worry that Sarek will continue to make ill-advised edits as he gets clearly more frustrated with TT. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps we could a footnote to the interaction ban: Sarek and TT are banned from using <small>, as it seems to encourage them to make unconstructive comments... Rd232 ^talk 08:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know what you mean; annoying as hell, aren't the...Oh crap HalfShadow 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I didn't add <small> to my comments, TT refactored them on his own.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support obvious problems between the two that apparently can't be solved on their own... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I can't find it in myself to support this, but would rather suggest large amounts of fish for both parties for juvenile and uncollegiate editing. This is a collaborative project. If you can't collaborate, take a long Wikibreak and come back refreshed. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - As said the last time, I oppose interaction bans outright. When editors are dicks, then simply take the appropriate action, there's no need to add a bureaucratic layer of "I can't post on this page because he did first" nonsense. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See the responses to Mick below. The proposal is a practical one to reduce drama. Reducing drama is to the benefit of the rest of us. Other measures can always be taken now or later. But why oppose something that reduces drama? Also, please read the language of the ban. It does not anywhere prohibit posting on the same page, it prohibits posting about one another and interacting with one another directly.Griswaldo (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Person A posts a "I have a problem with this article" section on a talk page. Person B posts "I don't see anything wrong with the article", which sets Person A scurrying off to a wiki-acronymed admin page demanding sanctions for a breach of the interaction ban. Also, interaction bans between admin and user are more often than not a product of repeated bad actions on the user's part. ChildofMidnight tried to build himself up s pretty collection of "involved administrators" so that when he did something bad he could come here screaming "OMG INVOLVED ADMIN" to try to get out of the sanctions. There's nothing being played out here today that hasn't already been played out a thousand times before. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • TT is not ChildofMidnight. How many other involved admins has TT collected? In other words is there any merit to this analogy based on other similarities? Do you have any statistics on interactions bans and their success or failure rate in this sense? I'm not a fan of hypothetical anecdotes as they don't really help us predict what will actually happen. Let's see some hard evidence.Griswaldo (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't need to provide hard evidence. I have weighed in with an opinion as to why the concept itself of an interaction ban is a horrid idea. We have existing policy to cover editors who behave badly. Use them, and stop wasting time trying to enact a Wikipedia version of a restraining order. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Interaction bans are one of the mechanisms that are within "existing policy [covering] editors who behave badly." You don't have to do anything, but I would take your opinions much more seriously if they were backed with some evidence. An evidence based approach to decision making in these matters is, IMO much more pragmatic than an opinion based approach. You are welcome to disagree, but I feel like you are rather unfairly painting those who support this as interested in bureaucracy for its own sake, when most of us just want a practical solution to the problem. You call it a waste of time, but if people like yourself weren't opposing we'd have moved on by now with these two children no longer being allowed to throw sticks at each other. And by the way, restraining orders have a very positive and practical utility in the real world. I fail to understand how an analogy to something that is useful in resolving disputes in the real world is supposed to support your opposition to what you claim is Wikipedia's version of it.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Wonderful. Can you go pester some of the other opposers now? Tarc (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The number of users Sarek has difficulty with pales compared to the number who have difficulty with TT. Even in this latest charade, you can see that even someone like Brad is not immune to finding this guy an irritation, enough to support unprecedented general sanctions on him, in 50 words or less. I have no doubt that a specific interaction ban between these two will lead to nothing but wikilaywering, or the focus just shifting onto the next person who supposedly needs to be stopped from intercting with TT because of their failures. It's a sticking plaster that will soon fall off. If TT has a problem with Sarek, he can go to the arbitration comittee, who are paid to take people's genuine complaints where they concern admin conduct seriously, and treat their cases impartiality and for the good of the project. He won't do that though, because they're also not paid to ignore the reasons why he's the common denominator in so many of these incidents and interactions that descend into silliness or even outright hostility. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  "he can go to the arbitration comittee, who are paid to..." - damn, I knew I should have run! :) But seriously, Sarek pops up to often in TT's troubles, and so this interaction ban might actually achieve something. In addition, TT has promised to launch an Editor Review in a week or two. Let's make sure we've done everything we can to avoid the drama and time involved in an arbcom case. Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  My thoughts exactly. The proposal is for the benefit of the community. If TT acts as Mick says he does, he either will need to reform or will end up with greater sanctions. In the meantime why not promote measures that reduce the drama?Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Seconded re. a nice cushy paid job on ArbCom, but more to the point, I personally think it is completely unreasonable to blame me ('common denominator') for, say, this. Sarek wasn't involved in the thread. I wasn't baiting him. I'd not interacted with him for a day or two. Then he suddenly turned up to pointlessly disrupt an ANI thread I started. Nobody forced him to. It was his decision. It was a very bad one, and I think it's about time that this trouble stopped. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 13:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Arbitrators aren't stupid. They, like everybody else, would understand the point Sarek was making. Tht's why you would never ever go to arbitration, because he'd get dealt with for doing it, and the behaviour of yours that he was mocking would also get dealt with. Nope, given simple truths like that, this interaction ban is a pretty sweet deal for you TT. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sweet deal how? With all due respect, there is nothing which only Sarek is capable of. If my behaviour is viewed to be out of line, there are tens of other admins who are able to rebuke me for it, and I suspect most of them would do it in a slightly more mature way than three successive edits with the summaries, "badger, badger, mushroom." ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I can predict how that's going to go. If it ever materialises. Promises promises. Editor review is for people who geninuinely don't know why what they do is wrong, and have shown a capacity to be able to learn and reform, and can maintain an air of respect and collaboration even in environments where they are being criticised. For TT, on all those points, I'd say that horse hasn't simply bolted, I'd say it's in the next field by now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was doing just fine not poking him until he persisted in badgering Sergeant Cribb. And yesterday, I reverted two of TT's edits with the edit summary "I don't believe that's real" when it took about 10 seconds in Google to not only find the videos but to find reliable sourcing talking about them. While he's making edits as mind-bogglingly dense as this one to Positron, someone's got to keep an eye on him. Are we just going to put interaction ban after interaction ban in place until nobody can do anything, or are we going to deal with the problem at the source?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  I was doing just fine not poking him until he persisted in badgering Sergeant Cribb. ...and then you chose to respond in the mature and adult way of leaving disruptive comments. You say that you oppose an interaction ban because someone has to watch my edits. I'm not clear why you feel this has to be you, since Wikipedia has more than 15 editors, but if your 'watching' is going to be in the vein of your disruption yesterday evening, then I don't think it's likely to be that useful. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sarek, how many other interaction ban proposals concerning TT have been made? Where do you get the impression that others are needed? That's a serious red herring. You are part of the problem here. There are plenty of other administrators who can handle TT. I don't see any of them concerned that they will also be subject of interaction bans. You have admitted being involved with TT in a way that is not conducive to interaction, and there was a pretty overwhelming consensus at your reconfirmation RfA (even from support voters) that you need to reconsider your behavior vis-a-vis involvement. Have you not learned a thing from that process? Your current behavior shows more of the same bad judgment. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's hard not to see a picture where one of the editors subject to the ban greets it with unmitigated glee. What's even worse than people trying to game the system is when we let them win. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No winners here. Regardless of the result, both editors - and indeed the community - are very much losers on this one. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that there are no winners, but I hope very much that there can be less drama. I still do not understand why people oppose a measure that will reduce drama. In the end people behaving badly will earn what is due them, but in the meantime we do have the ability to keep things a bit less disruptive around here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • TT doesn't want to interact with Sarek. Sarek wants to be able to interact with TT so as to keep him in check; TT, unshockingly, does not wish to be kept in check. The ban accomplishes TT's objectives while costing him nothing he values. Sounds like a win to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Does Sarek really want to be able to keep me in check, or does he want to pull more stunts like this? And why is it so necessary that Sarek does the check-in-keeping? Why is it impossible to leave it to Wikipedia's 100+ other administrators? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • While that "stunt" was clearly ill-advised, you are milking it far too hard, and being considerably too joyful in invoking Wikipedia's unwritten (and also quite ill-advised) rule of "whoever can get the other guy to lose his cool first wins". These things make me extremely uncomfortable with any outcome that clearly gives you exactly what you want. That, in turn, tends to favor an outcome where Sarek is allowed to work at keeping you in check, since out of those 100+ administrators, he seems to be the one who is actually motivated to do so. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • You seem unaware of the fact that there was a pretty strong community opinion that Sarek is the last person who should be doing so. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. Sarek nearly wasn't reconfirmed for this type of issue, and even many of those who supported his reconfirmation pointed out to him that he needed to improve exactly in this area - not to take an administrative role with people like TT and Avanu who he is too involved with. The example TT points to pretty much proves that he has not learned exactly what the community asked him to learn in his reconfirmation RfA.Griswaldo (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • • Okay. I suppose I disagree with that community opinion, then. It's fairly well-accepted that "AGF is not a suicide pact"; maybe WP:INVOLVED shouldn't be either. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Also please note Sarek's very own admission of his level of involvement with TT. How on earth is it a good thing for this person to keep an eye on TT? That sounds like an argument for pettiness as a positive on Wikipedia. The people who should be encouraged to keep others in check are the ones who are most likely to get into petty squabbles with them? I just don't get it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
              • The way I conceive of it is more like, if somebody is going around tracking dirt on the floor, let's not take the broom away from the person who actually cares to use it, especially not because the person tracking dirt on the floor made a giant stink about how that person used three broom strokes when policy clearly states that five is suggested and the broom isn't OSHA-certified. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • This diff is also relevant, as was Sarek's statement that they intentionally set out to "poke me" yesterday. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Please don't lie about my statements, especially when they're still on this page for people to review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MickMacNee. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: "I was doing just fine not poking him until he persisted in badgering Sergeant Cribb." Sarek's comment just above, which ought to be the final nail in the Sarek/TT interaction ban coffin. Not only does he admit poking TT, which was poor judgement (obviously), but he still doesn't concede the importance of Cribb making a clear enough statement about the agreement required of him [in the thread below where Cribb needed to agree not to follow TT around], so that TT's prompting on that point is "badgering". Sarek simply lacks perspective on TT, a ban will protect him from himself. Why deny him that, exactly? Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lacks perspective"? Two days ago, TT welcomed Newyorkbrad to Wikipedia, claiming "I generally don't template the regulars on the basis that experienced editors are familiar enough with Wikipedia policies not to need such basic, boiler-plate reminders. However, that unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case here." I'm failing to see why this is my problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that the edit you've linked to isn't your problem, largely because you didn't make it and it's nothing to do with you. Would you agree that this series of edits is your problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, that's the fourth time in this single discussion you've linked to those same diffs. Kind of proves my point from yesterday, doesn't it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Sarek just yesterday you did this - same link as the above in TTs comment. Is that the reaction of someone who has perspective or of someone who is acting upon emotional impulses?Griswaldo (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • If there was only one source, I (and at least a few others) would not have supported this measure. Requiring an entire Community to say 'what you are doing is not OK' each and every time there is an issue is unreasonable (first it was several noticeboard threads, then it was a reconfirmation, and now it's this); instead of insisting you will continue to contribute to the messes, what we would all appreciate is if you avoided them when asked to. You've complicated this mess with your involvement; not made it easier to resolve or to address as a single source. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as before. these two can't seem to stay away from each other. if they could, they wouldn't always be here. since they can't seem to resolve their problems on their own, it's time the community did. -Atmoz (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Change to Oppose in light of comments by TT below. I still think SoV could have handled this better, but the majority of the problem lies with TT. -Atmoz (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the community isn't going to block TT for his hobby of deleting unsourced material on a whim because, as he puts it, "I don't think that's real", then the more people scrutinizing his edits the better. Either that or we all get to delete all unsourced content without bothering to perform even the most rudimentary search on which to base an opinion. Further, it's just ridiculous for TT to object to Sarek's rather amusingly ironic request that he stop badgering another user when he had himself employed a greater measure of irony in welcoming Newyorkbrad to Wikipedia. If you want to be a smart ass, it's hardly reasonable to object to some wry comments back once in a while.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine that the community is indeed not going to block me for removing unsourced material (largely because it's not a blockable offence and is more or less encouraged by policy), and I would simply point out that pointing to my behaviour isn't an especially good way of justifying Sarek's. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of trying to add a request that "supporters", and especially TT, please stop arguing with every single "oppose", and then got an edit conflict with TT. You guys have all made your positions perfectly clear already, and it's beginning to look like badgering at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• TT has now made the same point with the same diff 6 or 7 times. The diff is of Sarek making the point that that is exactly the sort of nonsense that TT thinks is civil and respectful behaviour. An editor review won't stop that. Interaction bans don't stop that. TT cannot help himself frankly. This is what he thinks is normal behaviour. This is what he thinks is acceptable behaviour. This is how he rolls each and every day of his life on Wikipedia. He lives in a bubble of cluelessness and hypocrisy frankly, if it's not just one giant trolling of Wikipedia from start to finish, and rather than it being sustained, it needs to be popped. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Move to close without action. It's now 16 to 7 by my count, just as it was in the other direction above, when the !vote about banning TT from the boards was brought to a sudden halt. There would be a certain rough and appealing justice in treating this one the same way, with the same "no action taken" outcome. I won't do that, since I object to it on principal, but I do think we should all just drop the sticks at this point and get on with editing articles.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • An eye for an eye ... that'll even the score for ya! How about we focus on what will help the project and the community instead of trying to get revenge. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Those who assert that TT's misbehavior is somehow SoV's fault are missing the forest for the trees. While their interaction has not been ideal, TT has been a problem since long before SoV entered the picture. I see no reason to split the baby here, since the primary author of the situation is TT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - per the summations of both MickMacNee and Beyond My Ken. MarnetteD | Talk 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Prediction - if this doesn't pass, both Sarek and TT will regret it, as will the community, who will continue to be exposed to their bickering until something more dramatic happens. Whilst clearly there are plenty of people happy to see something dramatic happen to TT, those same people seem to think Sarek will be fine. Whether that's optimism about his future behaviour or non-sanction thereof, it's optimism I don't share. Rd232 ^talk 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For my part, I'm hoping this becomes part of Wikipedia collectively learning to stop allowing its clinging to inappropriately enshrined de facto legalisms to allow it to be thoroughly and ruinously trolled. It's getting to be evolve-or-die time as far as that goes, really. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose What I see is Treasury Tag behaving in an extremely disruptive way. A lengthy block for TT would prevent further disruption. 86.146.22.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

• Support This is an appropriate measure and will reduce drama. Basket of Puppies 00:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Also per the succinct summations of both MickMacNee and Beyond My Ken several posts above. Heiro 00:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's been proposed that we relieve Sarek of him, and above that this board protects itself from him, then what? He wanders off into the whole of the rest of the site dissing and needling and harassing newbies and content creators? Brilliant. Get him out of here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - A lengthy block for TT will save the community a lot of time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—I think I know what's going on here. Everybody opposing this interaction ban isn't doing so with the aim of having wise old admin-folk such as Sarek continue their sterling work keeping me in check. No. People opposing this ban are doing so with the aim of either encouring Sarek into baiting me until I do something really bad and get blocked, or simply making my editing experience so unbearable with Sarek's bullying that I leave. Let me make one thing clear: I will not be driven away no matter what. If I followed my better judgement, I probably should leave, because Wikipedia is a thankless task filled with scum (a general comment not referring to anyone in particular), but I am not going to gratify all those people !voting 'oppose' now by doing so. I will stay around. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 07:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  Filled with scum, eh? I figured that was your attitude to the rest of us. Thanks for making that clear. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's not how I think of everyone else, by any means. There are shedloads of editors and admins that I genuinely respect for their determination to work in the interests of Wikipedia. However, as in any social group, the good gets overshadowed by the chaff, and this project has many editors and admins who seem to think that their main job is to make life unpleasant for others, perhaps because they dislike individual people's personalities, or because they enjoy the feeling of ganging up. (Again, I'm not referring to anyone particular, this is a general Wikipedia observation.) And yes, I think that sort of behaviour is pretty scummy. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 09:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  OK, in light of the Ohms law (talk · contribs) comment below, it seems I need to clarify this further. I do not view Wikipedia as a battleground per se. However, as with any group of people, there are some who one gets along with and some who one doesn't. There are some who are malicious, although most are not. This by necessity creates a level of antagonism. I'm sure that every single editor here has a mental list of people they dislike (and I expect I'm on a few!) and that is simply the sentiment I am expressing here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  TT, you did not do yourself any favors with that comment. Further commentary below.Griswaldo (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of a more targeted remedy directed more at TreasuryTag in particular (although, I would hope that Sarek would take this opportunity to back off infavor of broader community action). Frankly, this is driven more by TreasuryTag's reply above then anything else. If there were any doubts as to the existence of problematic personality traits before, there really aren't any now. TreasuryTag seems to view Wikipedia as a battleground, based on what he's said above.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose since the issue of Treasury Tag's conflicts is somewhat more generalised. Someone want to draw up a list? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see this editor expelled from the project. Not because of the occasional conflict that escalates onto this noticeboard. We edit in very different areas but whenever I encounter him he is saying and doing spiteful and vindictive things. This site has a reputation for nastiness and the only way that will change is if we actually flush away the obviously toxic volunteers. I have found one example I recall of him mocking and taunting a newbie who brought a proposal (subsequently implemented) to WP:VPR, but I'm not sure if that is the kind of incident you have in mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case I suggest you start an RFC on TreasuryTag. Your claims and your solution may have merit, I really don't know, but the community is certainly not going to see this solution as obvious if you don't systematically present the necessary evidence. Right now TT has said he is willing to do editor review. Is that an acceptable first step in a process to get to the bottom of his general behavior here? If not are you willing to start an RFC? I cannot myself support a site ban based on this current discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Sarek is a quality long-time editor and admin. TT's name seems to come up at ANI about every half hour. I see no reason to tie their names together. Dayewalker (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Last comment - This looks like its heading to a no consensus, which IMO is a shame, but it is what it is. TT, at this point you need to realize that the ball is in your court. I highly suggest you do the editor review, and perhaps even figure out a way to get a mentor or something of that nature. Then I suggest you self-impose your half of this ban and work as hard as you can not to interact with Sarek, while also taking other criticisms of your behavior to heart (like those you'll get from a review). In the future, if Sarek can't resist poking you, or if you are having conflicts with others resist going to AN/I with the complaints as much as you can. Try a trusted admin directly instead, or perhaps if you get a mentor that editor. Try to resolve the issues without the drama of AN/I as much as possible. While I firmly believe this interaction ban is warranted, I also firmly believe that you are now in the position to choose whether you will have a productive future here, or whether those who seek sanctions against you are right, in which case you'll inevitably get topic banned or even worse for you banned outright. Please take all of this seriously and please accept the reality that however fair or unfair you think the situation is you have the power to make this all get better by reforming your own behavior. That's all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• oppose would be false balance William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I am not sure who is right and who is wrong, but even, if SarekOfVulcan has a point about TT using bad sources, I believe SarekOfVulcan should let other users to take care of the problem. If TT feels as they are hounded by SarekOfVulcan (and I am not saying it is the case here), an interaction ban should be posted because it is a very bad feeling if a user knows that as soon as he puts his head up, he'd be bitten by a hound. I know this feeling well, and I am not saying we have the same situation here. I believe that, if two users have problems communicating with one another, an interaction ban should be imposed by a simple request of any of them. If the user who requested the ban has real problems, it will be noticed by many other users as well. Let's try it please. Maybe TT using sources will improve, if somebody else but SarekOfVulcan will revert them.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kudos to Sarek for not ignoring problems.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As most people have said, the problem is with TT not Sarek. He's virtually incapable of having any sort of exchange with anyone without it turning into a fight. His comments earlier today (scum etc) perfectly illustrate his mentality. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MickMacNee and Strong Support a time-out ban on user TreasuryTag. I have had my disagreements with both editors, but while SarekofVulcan is civil, sincere and constructive, TreasuryTag is confrontational, disruptive and controlling to the point of wasting an incredible amount of project manhours. I'll reluctantly provide example diffs for his incivility, wikilawyering and disingenuousness if any wants them. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm. And I guess that, since you have no conflict of interest I should definitely take on board what you say. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 19:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - SoV's "badgering" comments were silly, and he really should know better in dealing with TT by now, but really nothing worth getting upset about. An interaction ban seems overbroad given that (as I think was mentioned in the last interaction ban proposal) they have significant oevrlap in editing interests. I think a ban would just lead to more drama (he edited an article I just worked on; he commented on an AfD or other issue that I already commented on). I could see a narrowly tailored ban along the lines of no commenting on each others' behavior towards other users, but even that may cause more trouble than it solves. Maybe just a request to SoV, who as an admin should be able to apply this appropriately, not to comment about TT unless he is sure that it is really necessary for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Request for intervention in the Nair article

A discussion has been going on for many days in the Nair article about the varna status, triggered by a caste fanatic called CarTick. But one of the users, MatthewVanitas has been indulging in one sided and completely biased edits even as the discussion was going on, ignoring other editors like this and this. Even after evidence was presented to show the non-reliability of his changes here, rather than acknowledging it, he resorted to attack the editor based on his surname. On top of this edit history of MatthewVanitas shows that he is incapable of being neutral in such situations, as he is constantly adding the offensive term Sudra (peasant varna) to non-peasant castes like Nairs and Kayasths, while protecting a particular well known peasant community (Maratha) from that term. I request some one more neutral to oversee the article and take in to account the views of all the users. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Neutral changes were made to the first paragraph. But MV and Cartick continuously changed it to steer the language to their point of view. Opinion of the majority of the people in the talk page are ignored (then what is the need for a Talk page?). Some one please stop these caste fanatics from insulting the communities they are less tolerant with. Robbie.Smit (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

These allegations are unfounded. I'm a member of WP:WikiProject India and have been clearly outlining there my activities regarding caste articles, and the consensus there has been supportive of these long overdue fixes. A request was made at WPINDIA for help on a thorny caste issue in Nair, I arrived and updated the article with well-chosen citations, which have been reverted by the above complainants. To give context to readers not tracking India issues, a large number of Indian castes have "legendary" claims to be of the Kshatriya (warrior) mega-caste (varna). However, in the vast majority of cases a quick perusal of RSs on GoogleBooks makes clear that most of these castes are historically of the Shudra (farmer) varna, and the main people who believe their "warrior" status are the caste members themselves. Unfortunately, this is politically unpalatable, and since many caste articles are haunted by strong pro-caste POV, such mentions of the very term Shudra provoke massive retaliation, regardless of how many PhDs have written so and reputable universities have published their findings.

Referring to their specific claims, I did not attack a user based on name; his name is certainly not "Nair", so my general statement that "we have to watch out for POV from people who have are in a given family and want to self promote" has no way of applying to him directly. Second, the first complainant, CM, tampered with my RS references, changing the links from a 2003 University of California publication to some Victorian penny-rag, with no edit summary provided. I didn't catch the change until I converted the gBooks links to full cites: dif. In short, the article has several editors hell-bent on keeping any whisper of the term "Shudra" out of the article no matter what the refs say. My only goal is to balance out caste articles by insuring that "awkward truths" like a working-class history are not obscured by historical whitewashing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to say except that i am pretty confident nobody is going to care about this thread except may be give a shallow opinion and treat single purpose accounts that have no edits outside nair and nair related articles with others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history. --CarTick (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the term "Sudra" is not used in normal occasions in independent India. Rather than as a varna, it is used more as a derogatory ethnic slang, like "Nigger" and "Kike". If a person calls someone "Sudra", he will face the same result when someone calls an African American "Nigger" in the US. MV argues that Nair was originally a farmer caste which falsely claim the Kshatriya status. But the sources other users given (More than 100 of them here) proves otherwise. At the most we can argue that Nair is both Sudra and Kshatriya. But in that case, the edits by MV and Cartick has been completely one-sided by ignoring the Kshatriya factor. As seen from here, Nair is even given as an example or mentioned as one of the only two Kshatriya castes in many of the well reliable sources. What MV and Cartick want is to completely whitewash this and bombard the article with the offensive term "Sudra" wherever possible. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"others who have had a long interest in wikipedia in a broad range of articles with reasonable editing history" - This is Cartick's main tool for sometime now. He makes thousands of rubbish edits in articles which he has no interest to camouflage his disruptive edits in caste related articles. Treat everyone equally. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nairs were always regarded as Kshatriya in Kerala. But varna is not important in Kerala caste system. So it will be better not to mention it. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This "Shudra is a slur" canard is overplayed; if you dislike it take it up with the academic community who continue to note this historic designation. So far as agreeing "both", that is exactly what CarTrick and I have been advocating; we are the ones pushing to say "the issue is contested, and A Group says X and B groups claims Y." It is your side which insists on making the whole page "totally warriors, always." If our edits are "one sided", it's only because we're adding Shudra cites to the existing Kshatriya cites, not removing the Kshatriya in favour of Shudra. The other popular canard is "oh well, varna doesn't matter so let's leave out the Shudra"; it's all well and peachy when one can use highly-contested Kshatriya claims (with the contestation ignored) to peacock a caste article, but once the messy realities of caste politics arise, then suddenly "varna isn't important"? Again, the clearly cited facts demonstrate that the Nair/Nayar have been considered Kshatriya by some (and in some cases), and or filled a "Kshatriya-like" social role, where in others they are strictly Brahminically categoried as Shudra due to lacking verifiable descent from the (generally believed extinct) ancient Kshatriya classes. The entire argument against this has yet to have any real basis than "Shudra isn't a pretty word, and we can't say anything that might hurt someone's feelings."

To those folks unfamiliar with India issues, again this is as though the Scottish clan "MacGregor" article went on about how the whole clan was noble Scottish lords and warriors, but then when confronted with PhD/university citations showing they'd been a class of turf-cutters and shepherds, with several kings arising from them and several periods of war where they did indeed provide soldiers, the clan-advocates would cry "you can't call them turf-cutters, that's calling them 'hicks' and inappropriate! And besides, their occupational history isn't important at all, let's compromise and just go back to calling them kings and warriors." I am still failing to see any reasonable NPOV argument for leaving out the well-document Shudra affiliation of the Nair. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please close this complaint, as I have withdrawn it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be closed after you've called another editor a "caste fanatic." WP:NPA certainly applies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree! Calling Cartick a "caste fanatic" is a blatant personal attack.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

he also wished three of us death. apparently, he later apologised to user Sitush. --CarTick (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not a death threat, per se. He stated he won't come back until you've all died, more of a "I'll wait you out" statement. Regardless, it's not civil at all. For now, let's see if he sticks with his retirement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that my name had appeared here, albeit rather tangentially. The issue will never go away either on this article or pretty much any other dealing with subcontinental castes. However, it is true that the original complainant ([[User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar)sent me an email around the time of his "retirement" and it was a contrite one. I accepted it with good grace on his talk page, although I did not respond by email. I need to set up a separate email account for that sort of stuff otherwise I'm likely to be inundated with caste warrior attacks orchestrated off-wiki. I am not suggesting that the original complainant would do such, though.

Regardless, if any admin wants to see the email then just let me know where to forward it. In my opinion this is just another typhoon in a teacup, which is typical for these articles. It had its origins in frustration/lack of understanding of WP policies and guidelines + an apparent caste COI more than anything else. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is explicit permission necessary?

An IP user recently removed File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg from the article Point of view pornography and expressed concerns about a) the age of the person depicted, and b) the consent of the person depicted. Regarding the age of the one performing, it seems borderline. However, is the person depicted's explicit permission necessary for a use of the file, or should we keep using it (as long as the person depicted is of legal age) per WP:NOTCENSORED? Sorry if this is the wrong forum; I am not sure where to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer the personality rights question. But the age thing seems fine, although it's nearly impossible to judge from so little I'd be happy ticking that off as fine. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well; my guess is 19 - 23. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MCQ ←, but I think that explicit permission is required if the subject is personally identifiable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I never would have thought that that is a copyright questions. :-/ Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the people watching that page are usually better versed at image policy and the legal stuff surrounding personality rights than the average user watching AN/I :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try and ask the personality rights question there. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I should know better than to ask, but how does an image expand the reader's understanding of the concept explained in the article? I have no problem with explicit images being used appropriately, but I do not understand the seemingly pervasive desire to add pictures of breasts or penises to every article that it is even remotely connected to sex, nudity, or pornography. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all readers will understand what POV means. Now, if we had a free, non-explicit POV pornography picture that would be much better... but I found nothing on the Commons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you consider using words, instead of images? Images can be useful, but in my opinion, words should be given preference unless the article is about a specific object/person/painting/etc which needs to be shown since the text relates to how it looks. In regard to explicit sexual images, we should always err on the side of caution. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is already in the article. However, the English-language Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world, who may not necessarily understand what is said. A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words. If there were something non-explicit, that would help too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is very poorly written, so if you were attempting to improve understanding, rewriting it would be a much more worthwhile use of your time than looking for an image. If the reader does not understand that this is porn filmed from the point of view of one of the participants by reading the article, will the picture you choose help them to understand that or will they simply see it as a picture of someone coddling a penis? Again, I have no problem with Wikipedia having images of nudity or explicit sex, but the bar needs to be set fairly high so they are not used gratuitously or unnecessarily. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University and Raymond Cottrell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus here, including among the most directly involved editors, that the Southern Adventist University article be subject to a WP:1RR restriction for three months or until the issues causing the current edit warring are resolved. Further discussion as to the content issue should go continue on the article talk page.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First off Let me start off by saying I have no horse in this Race, I added this page on my watchlist like all Chattanooga Area Schools and Colleges. I am summarizing what is going on the page recently.

Southern Adventist University is small university in Collegedale, Tennessee affiliated with Seventh day Adventist Church. The school as Higher Education institutions go is pretty conservative to the point where their biology department doesnt acknowledge Darwin's Theory of evolution.

Ok? so given the context of the where it is on the spectrum of everything we have a Adventist theologian "Raymond Cottrell." Contrell was still conservative (By most American's idea of the spectrum) but not quite as much to the right as some would like. Basically Contrell called the University out on its Fundamentalist positions and described it as "agency of Southern Bible belt obscurantism." I essentially a equate that to the say "Ignorant bunch of Deep South Bible Thumpers" or some sort similar put down.

So basically we have is Several individuals attempting to label Contrell as "Progressive" in way to invalidate his opinion. Further complicating the matter have an relative Contrell who dislikes him being labeled "progressive" which to him/her means something in the vein of "Liberal Democrat" or something similar. The individuals who labeled him that backed off and phrased it "Contrell, who took a number of progressive positions." The Relative keeps doing drive by edits and removing the label.

Several editors have come in and tried to work this out but we basically have is Pov warriors with "THE TRUTH" on the talk page trying to protect Southern's dignity and displaying WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments.

Could we have some people look over this and maybe hand out some topic bans or help mediate this in some way? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this mess since the last ANI report on BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since his unblock by Kubigula, he has been edit warring as a tag team with his real life friend Tatababy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Some of the relevant literature (e.g. articles in Adventist Today) cannot be checked without a subscription. In addition material publicly available elsewhere about controversies and resignations at Southern Adventist University in the 1980s also exists in the same sources for Pacific Union College, but has not been added to that article. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you didn't want to discuss this on your talk page, would you be so kind as to point me to where a similar issue resulted in a President's resignation, etc. at PUC and/or where Cottrell made similar comments about PUC? If Cottrell made similar comments about PUC, they ABSOLUTELY should be included in that article, although I would be SHOCKED if he did so. bW 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not edit articles on Seventh Day Adventism; there was no point continuing the discussion here on my talk page. The two articles on presidential resignations in the 1980s were consecutive articles in the same journal. You used one in writing the controversy section on masturbation in Southern Adventist University, so you can easily find the article just next to it. You also had something connected to masturbation at Southern Adventist Univeristy in the "fun section" of your user page [9]. Mathsci (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair BelleWello is actually been the more rational voices there and more within policy than ideological driven editors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I would disagree. BelloWello introduced two negative strands of information about Southern Adventist University into the article (controversiies and ideology). They appear to be POV-pushing and WP:UNDUE. His real life friend Tatababy has repeatedly written in edit summaries that the statement in an adventist source that, after his retirement, Raymond Cottrell took "progressive" views in adventism is a lie. All of this seems quite out of proportion. Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not the editor who introduced the "Ideology" section to the article. I reintroduced it because it is relevant. At the time, I planned on expanding the article further, but because of the controversy I have moved away. bW 23:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like Tatababy is the one that's stirring the pot by removing cited material and edit warring. It's been a very actively edited article over the last few days, but the only diffs I see from Tatababy are edits I'd not classify as "constructive". The only fly in the serum is the inclusion of the article references from Adventist Today, which don't fall under the heading of "freely available", although for anyone with a subscription WP:V is definitely met. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tantababy is actually the relative I was referring to and I frankly am sympathetic to his position. I dont think he quite get how Wikipedia works. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: Per a SPI someone filed, Tatababy apparently became notified of the disagreement on the page through a post on my facebook. The post was not intended to ask for an additional editor, most of my friends are conservative and hence if I were looking for an "ally" through devious means, facebook would not be the way for me to do it. I do not know who zie is, and have specifically asked that zie keep me in the dark in this regard. However, when the editor made the removals, there were NO SOURCES to given for the claim that was made. Tata seems to be a newbie who is simply trying to remove a false claim about someone close to zie. bW 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan, take a closer look at [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Note that the reference supporting the text that Tatababy and I removed and Fountainviewkid repeatedly re-inserted was a dead link. Even though I told him why I was reverting, Fountainviewkid persisted in inserting in violation of WP:V. In fact, WP:V was only met about 8 hours ago when DonaldRichardSands inserted a proper citation Mojoworker (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I admit it was a dead link, but you seem to be forgetting the other part I've been saying. I didn't realize it was a deadlink until just recently when it was pointed out. As soon as I realized it was actually a dead link, I edited it to another source that I would would meet WP:V (the same article using the web hosting site for the journal). After this was challenged I wanted to keep the link up merely for the purpose of showing the article in full, but changed the source to the print version. I admit that when I changed it to the print version there were some formatting issues, as I didn't have access at that exact second to the full citation. Thankfully Donald has now added it in as well as linked to the article online using a different address. I was not trying to insert a violation of WP:V. I knew the source existed and I wanted to keep it up. Also Mojo you keep trying to accuse me of WP:Ownership as if I'm the only one who made the controversial edit/reversion. This is false as both Lionel and Simba did the same, as did even Jasper in a couple cases (due to the fact that it was being discussed on the Talk page). Yes it is true that it was only 8 hours ago where WP:V was fully met, but that I argue was due to formatting rather than the other accusations on here. Fountainviewkid 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You were informed the link was dead on May 11, but I can understand that things fall through the cracks and you forgot about it. The difference between you and the other editors is that when informed that it was citing a dead link, those other editors stopped reverting whereas you did not. Mojoworker (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The other editors Did NOT stop reverting, they just decreased their rate or reverts which probably had more to with 1-the blocking of Bello & 2- annoyance at the continued battle. Lionel still added the "progressive" phrasing back in and yes that was more than 8 hours ago (or 10 hours now). I kept the link in place because it was a reliable source and didn't need to be removed. Tata kept removing it without refusing to discuss on the Talk page. Jasper was far more honorable in that he actually took into consideration the views of the other editors. Fountainviewkid 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, that's a VERY biased summary and shows little of the complexities that comes with this situation. Cottrell, as even moderate editors have pointed out was engaging in a less than academic "rant". The label progressive is to help clarify. This is a section of the Adventist church known as Progressive Adventist, which many of Cottrell's beliefs fall into. Cottrell, by the church's standard was definitely to the left of the mainstream. The SDA church has a number of core doctrines and pillars (fundamental beliefs) which Cottrell challenged and attacked publicly. In the SDA church we have a tradition of trying to deal with our differences "behind closed doors". To really understand this situation one needs a good understanding of the SDA church, it's politics and it's workings. Bello is not the "rational" one in this debate. The true rational one has been Donald or somewhat Jasper. Both of them disagree with the progressive label, but recognize that Cottrell's rant needs to be clarified. Tata is trying to remove a statement that has been credibly cited and agreed, too. Nevertheless, I have said that we should remove the contentious label once we come to a compromise consensus. We were just about to it, before this whole situation blew up again. I would suggest that before anyone makes any pre-judging (as Resident has definitely done) that they first read the Talk page at Southern and especially the comments that Donald wrote. Fountainviewkid 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the theological politics of factions within the SDA denomination which I am well aware of. Thats how I am seeing this and calling it here. I personally dont think his comment is that relevant to the article on the school at all. I am viewing this as Theological dispute have no place here on Wikipedia as it contributes to WP:BATTLEFEILD mentality. So quite labeling people as biased when they dont agree with you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting Tatababy as a suspected sock, but actually I agree with BelloWello's assertion that it's unsourced. But, I think we need to be less radical with our changes or else consensus never will come. BelloWello FYI has been on ANI before about WP:BATTLEGROUND.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My own feeling is that negative material like this is WP:UNDUE in articles about educational institutions. For comparison, King's College, Cambridge has had a number of scandals, some of which might have hit the press and at least one of which concerns religion; but none of this merits inclusion in the wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(In reply to Resident) It's not a matter of agree or disagree. That was a biased summary and I can tell because there was one editor which praised it as "balanced". Specifically you've already publicly admitted on here your favortism towards Bello and his position even though his editing has been one of the major sources of controversy which caused this to be posted here (him and Tata). Yes there are a group of us editing the SAU article that are working to try and keep it "balanced". That means not allowing rants to go through freely. Donald has been doing a great work on it and I believe he has already solve the problem, in addition to inserting the correct citation which caused so much unnecessary headaches, especially from editors that weren't as well informed. This is more than a theological dispute as it is true that Southern has been viewed as controversial by some sections of the church (much as Cottrell has been seen in the same light only the opposite direction). I don't label as "biased" based on agree or disagree. Donald and Jasper are two editors I have disagreements with but I see them as "balanced" and fair. Lionel and Simba I agree with both I don't see them as perfectly on the middle (balanced) on this issue. Another editor who is somewhat balanced on the ideological issues but less so on the edit wars is Mathsci. I'm not trying to say I represent the right perspective. All I'm doing is showing the other side, something that was poorly done in the summary of this situation. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fountainviewkid 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fountainviewkid, I have never edited any articles on Seventh Day Adventism or their talk pages, so I have not a clue what you are writing about when you mention me. Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a working link to the Southern Adventist University citation #58 next to Raymond Cottrell's name. Also, I have included the quote where Walters actually uses the "progressive positions" phrase in his tribute. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I said there were merits to it and Yes I am sympathetic to BW position. My issue is that the labeling of Progressive is bothering a living person. I tend to agree with Mathsci my it opinion it is WP:UNDUE in the college's article. Thus I am on neither side here. Please stop treating me as an enemy The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, who is the living person who is being bothered? (Raymond Cottrell died in 2003.) Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BDP situation as i see it the relative of Cottrell. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy on bothering a living person? This surprises me. There are many difficult truths which upset living persons. Perhaps you are aware of the HBO movie Something the Lord Made. I recall reading that the real relatives of Dr. Blalock (the white doctor hero) were upset with a scene portraying him swearing #@#@# at his assistant, Vivian Thomas (the black hero). The relatives wanted the scene removed. HBO refused. That's the way Blalock was they answered. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bothering"? No. I'm fairly certain there's something in at least two-thirds of the articles about living persons that said living person would consider less than flattering, if not bothersome or downright troubling. However, WP:BLP doesn't speak to a statement that might "bother" someone. It speaks to material in a given article being properly sourced and cited. Material that can't be verified as coming from a reliable source is subject to immediate removal from an article. Conversely, if something "bothersome" CAN be directly attributed to a reliable source and verified, it is NOT subject to removal, no matter how unflattering it might be. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Since Cottrell's "progressiveness" has been sourced to a published tribute article, I can't see how you're trying to apply that policy. Are there self-declared relatives of Cottrell editing wikipedia? All I could find was this. [14] Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks N5iln Alan. Since Cottrell is dead, does the WP:BLP seek to protect the ones alive who care about his reputation or theirs? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering the question for N5iln, BLP only applies to what we write about living people. For example, if we write that Joan of Arc was a witch it might generate unhappy feelings in some living people, but that is not an issue for BLP because D'Arc and everyone involved in the case is dead. The issue with BLP and recently deceased people is that we can't say anything without sources which would apply to other, still living people. For example, we have to be careful about saying the subject was born out of wedlock, was having an affair, was beaten by the spouse, had partners in crime, etc., in case that would reflect on other people involved.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been uninvolved with this article until I reverted edits by Fountainviewkid under WP:Verifiability, WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN because they were not properly referenced -- in fact the reference for the text was a dead link. This was the same text that Fountainviewkid repeatedly re-inserted in his edit war with Tatababy -- see:[15], [16], [17], and [18]. Over the past several days I've been in a running altercation with Fountainviewkid trying to explain Wikipedia policy to him. See: User_talk:Fountainviewkid#Southern_Adventist_University and Talk:Southern_Adventist_University#Old_Debate_Reignited. What I removed because of policy violations, he accused me of "controversial actions against the consensus of the editors who are knowledgeable" here. When I tried to explain why he was wrong I was met with hostility and stonewalling. He did everything possible to keep "his" version live despite it being improperly sourced, and in my opinion Fountainviewkid definitely exhibited WP:OWNERSHIP and repeatedly violated policy despite being warned. Mojoworker (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This bickering over sources about progressive vs conservative is not useful, especially when a reliably sourced tribute article to Cottrell discusses this particular point. Outside the world of seventh day adventists, these matters are not much discussed; and the lack of free access to some seventh day adventist sources is part of the problem. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Doctrinal issues within a faith can be covered on Wikipedia, but only to the extent that they are adequately covered in published sources which are somehow available to general readers. Secret or confidential documents, even if published internally, cannot be used because they are inherently unverifiable (unless they turn up on Wikileaks). Also, the requirement for secondary sources limits us to covering those topics which multiple people have found worthy of coverage, an important filtering function.   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Mojo that the correct reference was added by Donald, as has been mentioned by Mathsci and others. I knew it existed I just didn't have the format all correct. Donald inserted it in the proper way though, both with the online and print versions. I was trying to explain that to Mojo, but it was difficult to do since he didn't know much about the source. That's why Donald was a better balancer, because he had the knowledge of both the policies of WP and the topic at hand. Fountainviewkid 14:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid, the part that you are not understanding, despite repeated attempts to get you to listen, is that you consistently ignored the fact that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The reason that I say you exhibited WP:OWNERSHIP is that you used the faulty rationale that you "knew the source existed and (you) wanted to keep it up", as you mentioned above, to justify every attempt to remove it per policy, when the correct response would have been to leave it out until you found a valid citation and then re-insert it with the correct citation. At that point (where we thankfully are today), no one would have a valid reason to object to it on policy grounds and we would've avoided all this drama. And if Tatababy had reverted that edit, I'd be the first to restore it -- well unless someone else beat me to it, but you know what I mean... Mojoworker (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not ignore the guidelines of WP:V. I admit that there were was the situation with the changing of the sourcing and the improper format, but that's different than your accusation. When I say "I knew the source existed/wanted to keep it" I meant I knew it was reliable, valid and could get decently quick access to the full citation. In the meantime the partial citation I believed was appropriate until the full one could be inserted. There was no need to remove it, since it was and always has been a valid source. Yes there have been some formatting issues, but those could have been solved (as they finally were with Donald) through much less complex methods than dragging people through the mud on ANI and making accusations that aren't fully true. This drama could have been avoided if instead of trying to remove the source at one and attacking it to death, we simply waited 24 hours (the time it took for Donald to insert the full citation). I knew it existed and was working on getting it, or even working on making the link non-existent through the Talk page, but some editors refused to go along with the discussion, trying to remove it right out, rather than giving a chance for the formatting adjustments to be made. There's a reason why Jasper was reverting Tata, while Mojo was not, and I think it has to be with Jasper's longer understanding of the whole discussion. Sometimes it helps to not make any fast moves. I think Donald has adequately proved this. The other editors Did NOT stop reverting, they just decreased their rate or reverts which probably had more to with 1-the blocking of Bello & 2- annoyance at the continued battle. Lionel still added the "progressive" phrasing back in and yes that was more than 8 hours ago (or 10 hours now). I kept the link in place because it was a reliable source and didn't need to be removed. Tata kept removing it without refusing to discuss on the Talk page. Jasper was far more honorable in that he actually took into consideration the views of the other editors. Fountainviewkid 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is look at User_talk:Fountainviewkid#Southern_Adventist_University, where you grasp at straw after straw attempting to justify the inclusion of "your" version -- from citing WP:DEADLINK, to implying article talk page consensus trumps Wikipedia policy, and turning to offline sources -- but, "I've seen the physical version". And not once did you remove (or fail to revert any other editor's removal) the material in contention, despite both Jasper and I, both uninvolved editors, suggesting you do so. It's as if you've developed an adversarial mentality where if the material were removed even for a short while, "they" win and "we" lose. Really, what harm would it have done to follow policy and leave "progressive" out until you had the proper citation? How many people would even have seen the Southern Adventist University page during that time? Mojoworker (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not grasp at straws. Your inclusion of the word "your" implying I was taking "ownership" is a false attempt to tag me with more accusations (something you've seem to be single mindedly focused on). I was trying to work on the compromise which I why I changed it from the dead link to the blue host cite. I used the article Talk page not to argue consensus trumps policy but to encourage discussion especially when there were questions. I thought that's how we're supposed to solve disputes here? Or was I wrong? Maybe we should just go through and arbitrarily remove anything we want to question and Challenge no matter if it may be verifiable. I didn't just say "I've seen the physical version". I also stated that it existed and that I could back it up with a full citation. I also encouraged any doubting editors to hear from Donald, who sure enough had the full citation available. It's as if you've developed this mentality that the Talk page should be ignored for any question an editor has. You cite Jasper, yet he also made the same revert as myself (vs. Tata) so I guess that throws our your accusation about "my" version then? I figured rather than take it out to reinsert it in a few hours better leave it in for a little bit while the full proper format is being crated. Its not an us vs. them situation. I knew it was a reliable source, something that's been proved and you've hesitantly admitted. I ask you the vice versa question of what you asked me. What harm would it have done to keep the article as it has been for the past few weeks? Why the sudden need to remove the source? Your only answer has to do with challenged verifiability but we had a source and were working on updating the full citation. Rather than drag this whole thing do through the ANI mud, why not have just waited a day? If we had, this debate would likely be ended (as it should be seeing as the source was found validating my position on editing). I say that last statement not because I see it as a battle, but instead to provide a defense against the many false accusations Mojo has lobbed my way. That's what happens when you through out presumption of good faith immediately as Mojo admitted he has done (see my Talk page for that evidence). Hopefully now we can move on. It's been a little annoying fighting over a challenged link that has been verified. Fountainviewkid 23:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If I were attempting to imply ownership, I would not have phrased it as "your" -- note the quotes. Perhaps you should watch your own accusations. I did not file anything at ANI or RSN, nor any motion whatsoever. Nor did I "hesitantly admit" that the text you were attempting to cite was true -- if you look back at the discussion, I've said all along that I believed you, but that it was not a reliable source when cited with either the atoday.org or the bluehost.com links. Reinsert it in a few hours? The link was dead since at least May 11 and for more than 2 days since I notified you of it, until Donald inserted a correct citation. You ask, why the sudden need to remove the source? Several editors were challenging the term "progressive", which your version the version you inserted had no reliable source for, so the Wikipedia policy is to remove it. Are you saying that Wikipedia policy doesn't apply to you? Mojoworker (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? You weren't accusing me of ownership? I'm pretty sure I saw something earlier on one of these posts of you making those kind of statements. Why else the phrase "your" edit. I'm not the one using that phrase, that's for sure. To me it's not about "your" edits vs "their" edits vs. "my" edits, though I would say there were probably 3 groups during this time. There was myself along with Lionel and Simba who kept the phrase "progressive" in. There was Bello, Tata, yourself, and maybe another editor who kept trying to remove it, and there was Jasper & Donald who provided a balance in the middle. I never said you filed anything at ANI. I do believe however that your back and forth very much helped contribute to the ANI as we were working things out on the Talk page, before this heated up again. While it's true Jasper actually made the ANI threat, he did so in regards to your notification. So technically no you didn't file the ANI, however you were a key force in leading that direction. As for it not being a reliable source, yes the link was dead since May 11, but allow me to AGAIN repeat myself. I did not realize it was dead until a couple days ago! I've said that a thousand times. You keep using the May 11 date to try and create the impression that I purposely and knowingly violated the policy by re-adding a link I knew was dead. That's false. I did re-add it a few times, not knowing it was dead. That's why I first switched to the blue host, since it's the same thing just using the host site. After you challenged that I then switched the reference to the published (print) version. You seem to forget that I actually went and modified the link myself. Why? Oh because I wanted to violate policy right? No, because I was trying to cooperate with the rules and policies of WP. As I've admitted, there were some formatting issues, but those are small compared to the charges you've leveled. Yes several editors had challenged the term "progressive", but there's no need to remove every challenged bit of an article. That's why the Talk page exists, which is where we were working out the differences. The version I inserted (the print version) had a reliable source as does the online version. I don't know why you keep saying it doesn't. If you mean the format, okay yes it wasn't in the correct format but that was a work in progress. The WP policy is not to remove reliable sources, even if they are challenged unless there is some strong reason to do so (i.e. violates another policy). The term "progressive" may not be the favorite term of Cottrell's supporters but it certainly doesn't violate any other policy as far as we can see. I don't know why you keep pushing this seeing as we have a reliable source for the label. A source which has been in existence for over 8 years! Fountainviewkid 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR?

I take no position on the content issue, though it looks like there is some productive discussion and even possible signs of compromise. Normally the best course with an article that has a long running edit war is to protect the article. However, there also seems to be some decent work being done, not least of which by User:DonaldRichardSands. So, the best course may be to put the article on 1RR per day per editor until some kind of consensus is reached on the controversial points.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. My only concern is that someone like Donald could be end up committing a violation since he has edited the article quite a bit. Granted, they're not all reverts, but still if someone really wanted to press the issue (as we obviously like to do on that page) it COULD be problematic. Also is it possible to restrict certain sections of the article? The "ideology" section has been the most contentious. Donald did great work on it, but it seems his compromise wasn't quite good enough as the edit warring has continued. If we could protect just the "ideology" section AND have the 1 RR/day we might be able to reach some consensus. As it stands now we're working towards that goal, but obviously aren't there yet. Fountainviewkid 03:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What if the 1RR was only applied to myself, FVK, Simba, Lionelt, and Tata? That would allow Donald to continue to work on the article and would not inadvertently snag an uninvolved editor. bW 04:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that placing a blanket 1RR per day restriction on the article applicable to all editors is a way forward that could help quieten things down. (The single purpose disruption-only account Tatababy has its own problems: if this type of editing continues, they are likely to be site-banned.) I suggest that Kubigula goes ahead and enacts the 1RR restriction for a three month trial period (or for whatever period he thinks is reasonable). Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Kubigula's suggestion. Mathsci is also correct, there's no reason to limit it to just listed editors. It's not a vandalism target. If IPs start appearing to circumvent 1RR then we can semi-protect the article.   Will Beback  talk  09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support for reason stated above The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support There's been far too much drama. Perhaps this will help. Mojoworker (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Gaming the system by one, addition of unsourced material by another, removal of cited material by the other, and edit warring by all. It needs to stop.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Limited 1RR proposal

Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) That the following editors be placed on 1RR restriction on the above article, per above suggestion by Kubigula and concern by Fountainviewkid:

• BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simbagraphix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tatababy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Additional names can be added by any admin (I would say uninvolved but none of the above are admins).

• Support - as proposer. bW 04:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose BelloWello is far too involved to propose lists of users in this way. It was disruptive of him to create this subthread, which I suggest should be collapsed. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I appreciate the concerns raised by Fountainviewkid and Bellowello. I hope we can avoid this problem by noting the 1RR restriction on the article talk page and perhaps warning any established editor who runs afoul yet has not previously been involved with the edit-warring on the article--Kubigula (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose I don't believe there should be a specific list that restricts editors, or if there is one it should only be 2 or 3. I definitely don't think Lionel should be on this list or possible Simba as they have for the most part stayed away from edit warring. I would prefer a general block on reverting the Ideology section (except maybe by Donald) and a 1 RR on the whole article for everyone. Fountainviewkid 14:57 May 25, 2011 (UTC)

===Three month Article 1RR proposal==- Southern Adventist University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) That a three month 1RR restriction on the whole above article for all editors, per above suggestion by Fountainviewkid and Mathsci. Beginning with a blanket edit restriction till June 1, 2011 to quiet things down, and noting of the 1RR restriction on the article talk page per above suggestion by Kubigula, I think this is will allow the editors to reach a consensus and go foward from there: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.26.35 (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Redirection problem

Resolved

 – redirect created - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

sounds like it needs to be a dab page --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it's resolved. That exact phrase is used for nothing but Discworld. If you must you could add a "x redirects here, for blah see y" to the target page. Fences&Windows 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to create a redirect page for "Glorious Twenty-fifth of May" (to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_%28world%29#Calendar) in honour of tomorrow and Terry Pratchett, and got an automated message that said "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." and directed me to request help from an Admin.

Help?

(I already added a bit to the calendar page)

Thank you!

--Boomonsa (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That generally means you're running up against the title blacklist, though I don't know why. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect created, though I am not sure what filter the title was running up against. In return, you must tell me which book(s) it comes up in. I know I recognize the Reasonably Priced Love line, but all Discworld books merge into one memory file about five minutes after I finish reading one. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

See Legacy of the May Revolution for some details of the importance of 25th May to millions of people in non-fictional universes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like it needs to be a dab page, not a redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So make it a dab page, or redirect to a section of May 25? The part that needed an admin has been taken care of, and I am not sure we need to discuss the particulars of the content for the page at this venue instead of at the talkpage. Searching for that exact phrase turns up a bunch of Pratchett pages, but fantasy literature geeks are probably overrepresented on the web. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removals of content from the Battle of Königgtätz article by user rpeh

Resolved

 – Trouts all round Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User rpeh keeps removing one of the commanders from the infobox of the Battle of Königgrätz article, under various explanations and "explanations". I'm open for discussion on the topic, but he is continuosly supporting his position with quoting non-existeng guidelines from the Template:Infobox Military Conflict, reverts the article to "his version" and accuses me of "losing a previous discussion" (an unrelated case, in which I did not take part at all).
I must confess that at one point I called his edit vandalism, because I did not realise what he meant by his rationale for removal (i.e. that not being C-i-C in his opinion excludes a commander from said infobox) and assumed it was some strange prank, with edit summary explanation just made up to look serious. I've already apologised him for it.
I am asking for restoring the previous version of the article (as I don't want to violate the 3 reverts rule) and keeping it so until the issue is settled on the talk page. Thank you. Tom soldier (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI is the wrong forum for content disputes. Please see WP:DR for other venues. Favonian (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm still lot of a beginner on Wikipedia. (And I believed it was more of a question of rpeh's uncivility than a content dispute, as he hardly disputed the question of content). Thank you for your explanation, and your edit, too. 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom soldier (talk • contribs)

The only person who has violated any kind of civility guideline is "Tom soldier", with his inaccurate accusation of vandalism - something for which he has still not apologised. Since then he has thrown around several policies whilst clearly not having the faintest idea what any of them mean. A lack of COMPETENCE is evident on his part, and I tire of trying to educate him. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I did apologise.Tom soldier (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I already told you that's not an apology. Hypothetical statements are not apologies in any sense of the term. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an apology. Tom soldier (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You both deserve a diet of fish for several reasons. Tom, this wasn't the right place to bring a content dispute. Resolve it at the talk page and unless someone is writing "Prussians smell of poo" in the article, be very wary of using the term "vandalism". rpeh, while you may be correct in your arguments you have not been measured in how you deployed them and the conversation between you has been markedly uncivil from the start on both sides. Furthermore I did not read Tom's apology as remotely hypothetical. You could have graciously accepted it and we would not be here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. Rpeh stuck to his belief "only the Commanders-in-Chief should be included", and question why he believes in such policy (unbacked by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, with the exception of one he falsely claimed to exist) refuses to discuss the article talk page. What should I do, then?Tom soldier (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes that involve arguments about policy (and claims that one or another person are violating policy) are still content disputes. What you should do is review your options at dispute resolution. If the issue is primarily between yourself and another editor, your best place to start is a third opinion request. If that doesn't work, it can be escalated to the next step of dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

This sockpuppetry case (filed by User:betsythedevine on May 11) was accusing User:Red Stone Arsenal engaging in sockpuppetry. It closed by me because two previous and recent checkuser cases (from April 27 and May 8) have already shown that Red Stone Arsenal is not related to any other accounts. Upon my further investigations, I found that betsythedevine (betsy) and Red Stone Arsenal (RSA) had content disputes in Start-up Nation where betsy and RSA have opposing POV. I cautioned betsy[19] not to abuse the SPI process to intimidate or assassinate RSA's character even though RSA has a different POV because two checkuser reports have individually confirmed that RSA is not related to any accounts. In her reply,[20] Betsy said she's editing under real-life identity and want me to suppress my comments. Furthermore, she think my conclusion constitute personal attack. So I hope if others could take some time and give some third-party comments. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this on ANI? There's really nothing to this. She did not ask you to suppress your comments, and I'm bewildered as to where you get that idea. And she did not call your comments a personal attack in that edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You just missed it, Hand, certainly easy enough to do since the exchanges now span four pages: the SPI Betsy filed which will archive here eventually, Betsy's talk, Ohana's talk, and now here at AN/I. In his first entry to Betsy's talk page, Ohana wrote, "Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character. Therefore, I am cautioning you not to abuse the process and use SPI as a venue to silence editors with other POVs."

In response to this accusation, Betsy posted back to Ohana's talk where she explicitly asked Ohana to redact his comments. Instead of retracting or apologizing, he explained his motivation, on Betsy's talk, and she replied very convincingly about what justified the SPI filing. She also repeated her strong objection to Ohana's accusation that she'd used the SPI process as a vehicle for character assassination. At that point Ohana opened this AN/I thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notified RSA about this discussion. I'll say up-front that RSA and I have clashed at Start-up Nation.

Checkuser isn't the be-all and end-all of sockpuppet identification. RSA swims and quacks like a duck, and despite the checkuser results I think her/his behavior should have been considered.

I personally feel your comments toward betsy were a little harsh. I agree she should have done more due diligence before filing the SPI, but (as I wrote) I think RSA's behavior is sufficient for a WP:DUCK block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any experienced editor looking at RSA's contributions would recognize instantly that he's no new user. For that reason alone, the suggestion that Betsy was engaged in POV-based character assassination was just way out of line. This is certainly someone's sock. That said, I'll disclose that I was also opposed to RSA's views at Start-up Nation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that editors must be "new users" -- in point of fact, some users edit as IPs, and some change names which is not running a sock in the sense of improper behaviour. Indeed, I seem to recall that many admins run additional accounts. The business that anyone who disagrees with a person is automagically a "duck" is weird and contrary to common sense. If one can not deal with people of differing views, then Wikipedia is a damn poor place to work. SPI is being abused on a regular basis with "duck" complaints - as far as I am concerned, as long as one person is not pretending to be two in a discussion, I really don't care all that much. Cheers to all, and have a quart of tea. Collect (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give me a recent example of the SPI being abused? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look no further. This is one of the example. Filing 3 cases in 2 weeks is excessive and a form of SPI tag team (even if it's done unknowingly). Betsy filed the third case (on May 11) when the second case was checkusered 3 days ago (on May 8) showed no accounts connected to RSA is definitely nowhere near AGF. And the first case (on April 27) was created 1 day after RSA began editing is certainly biting newcomers. Now we're finally getting into systematic trend of the reasons why less new users are editing and getting more warnings. This case is just the tip of the iceberg. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, from your comments "even if it's done unknowingly" and "this case is just the tip of the iceberg", it sounds like you were straying rather on the side of making an example of Betsy in order to deal with something that you perceive as a wider issue. It seems to me that's not an SPI clerk's role. Would you consider striking the comments about character assassination? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My "tip of the iceberg" comment is referring to Viriditas' question of providing a recent SPI example, not towards betsy. Sorry if being unclear. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that's actually related to my point - that the "tip of the iceberg" comment seems to be an indication that the behaviour your comments to betsy were attended to address, was in fact the other part of the iceberg, i.e. not betsy's behaviour at all. I find that concerning.

Do you have objections to striking your comments to Betsy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur that Ohana's comments are out of line, especially for an active SPI clerk. AGF is not a suicide pact, and raising a concern about a sockpuppetry by someone whose POV you oppose is perfectly legitimate. If it were not, we'd have to put up with reincarnated banned users all the time without being able to take action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply by betsythedevine

I agree that SPI is not a weapon and my edit history shows that I rarely edit Wikipedia space at all. Red Stone Arsenal was not a particularly strong or active opponent at Start-up Nation; I filed SPI because I thought he was a sock of a particular user (Rym torch) who was flagged as a sock of NoCal100 based on some sekrit SPI method, which had to be done because Rym torch was editing in some particular way that baffles checkuser. But Ohana did not just allege, based on noticing conflict at one article, that I was using SPI to win a content dispute. He also made the PA that "I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character." [21] I would like that PA redacted. Also, if Ohana's use of the verb "caution," both on my talk page and at the SPI, implies that I was in fact using SPI to win content disputes, then it is wrong for Ohana to "caution" me in this public way. I am embarrassed to admit that I should have done a better job of preparing the SPI, and I apologize for the waste of everybody's time. Ohana's explanation of the steps that should be taken to file a good SPI were in fact very helpful, so for that I'm grateful. betsythedevine (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohana: None of us takes much pleasure in admitting a mistake, but I'm afraid you really did make quite a serious error in judgment here. I see you went offline shortly after filing this report, but will you please take your earliest opportunity to bring this to a graceful conclusion by striking through the allegations everywhere you made them ( here, betsy's talk, the SPI, and your talk ) and issuing a brief apology on each page, as well?

I ask that not to be punitive at all, but only so betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation. That would put an end to the strife here, and allow everyone to move on to more productive activities.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment If anyone doubts that those remarks if unredacted would be a source of delight to some, Mbz1 has already discovered and joined the discussion at OhanaUnited's talk page saying "Hi OhanaUnited, I'd like to congratulate you on being the truth-telling boy. You are right, the Emperor is naked, but will you be able to hold your ground :-) Good luck with this! Regards.-Mbz1" [22]. betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though that comment by Mbz is a breach of the conditions set by Gwen Gale when unblocking her last December: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor". RolandR (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of note is mbz1's attempt to remove another editor's AN/I comments. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc and RolandR, Mbz posted on my usertalk page, not ANI/AN/SPI, and thus did not violate any terms and conditions. That's why RolandR's comment on Mbz's violation is blantantly false. RolandR, you tagged RSA's userpage with a suspected sockpuppet template and yet the result of this SPI case disagreed with your findings. You should be the first person to apologize to RSA. To all, I did not tarnish betsy's reputation, as another editor also agreed.[23] Betsy chose to edit under real-life identity rather than anonymous. That's her choice. When she discloses her identity, other editors reminded her that it "added inconvenience of having your on-wiki behavior tied to your real life identity". That does not grant her any more or less rights than any other editors to redact/strikethrough/censor comments which some people viewed as negative or the chance that "betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation", which may not materialize at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point I was making. Regardless of the underlying conflict, mbz1 has been around long enough to know that deleting another user's post...esp in a high-profile place like AN/I...will do nothing but fuel the eDrama, not alleviate it. This has been a constant problem with this user; if there is a least desirable way to address a conflict or disagreement on the Wikipedia, mbz invariably picks the worst solution. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Mbz1 should not have removed a false accusation made by user:RolandR the way she did, but she tried to explain to user:RolandR why his post is a false accusation at his talk page, but user:RolandR removed her message with edit summary "Removed trolling". Only after this Mnz1 reverted a false accusation made by user:RolandR. I believe Mbz1 reverted the false accusations only because she was afraid that some administrator will act on it. It is surprising that user:RolandR still cannot understand why his accusations are false. Broccolo (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for rolandr's motivations, but if mbz1 were to ever post to my talk page again, I'd revert it, unread. Editors with problematic histories tend to earn a reputation that is hard to shed. As for administrator's acting upon an accusation...well, I have faith that they would look into the matter themselves rather than rely solely on what one person says. That's about the end of what I have to say on the matter, I think. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rolandr's motivations are the same as yours which is baiting Mbz1 every time you see her user name. You are clearly biased against the contributor. Please stop this practice. It is getting tiresome. Broccolo (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Like several other editors, I continue to believe that RSA is a sockpuppet, even if CU has not confirmed that s/he is using the same IP as a known puppeteer. I certainly owe no apology. Regarding Mbz's comments, I can find no record of the alleged lifting of the block; all that I see is Gwen Gale's comment on the block log "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". That was dated 27 December 2010, so should not expire until 27 June. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been busy contacting admins more sympathetic to her cause since then, so things may have changed. Regardless of that, I really don't think it is a good idea for Mbz1 to be commenting on a sockpuppet case arising from a dispute over an article currently subject to ARBPIA remedies, and reverting another editor's comments about that issue here at ANI, when Mbz1 is currently topic-banned from the PIA topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's bans for AN/I were lifted two months ago, and besides Mbz1 has never posted to AN/I even after the bans were lifted. It was user:Betsythedevine that copied Mbz1's comment left in other place. Mbz1 tried to explain it to user:RolandR but the user removed mbz1's message from his talk page, and left his false accusation to stay here. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a purely practical and temporary consideration, can we just for the duration of this present discussion assume that everything Broccolo said above is correct, and not argue here over it? If anyone wants to dispute any of it, or feels any point he raised demands some kind of administrative attention, please just open a separate report for the purpose so we can keep this one on-topic.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, as well, it should be emphasised that checkuser is not the be all and end all, although it does provide a useful indication in many or most instances. I have dealt with sockpuppets who are obviously well funded individuals who have access to a range of ISPs and/or travel - checkuser says no link and explains that position, yet the behaviour is obviously linked. That isn't the fault of the checkuser process to pick it up - it's just simply that the checkuser tool is only meant to do one particular thing, and the people operating it do their best with what they have. If the account(s) are behaving problematically, admins can still deal with them without a checkuser positive - as we've had to do on the Australian project once or twice with particularly determined violators (or just wait for them to horrendously slip up, which sometimes happens! :) Orderinchaos 07:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment user:Betsythedevine sees her role here as a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior. In reality it is user:Betsythedevine who introduces NPOV to articles and exercises battleground behavior. For example with a single edit user:Betsythedevine turned a neutrally written article about a book to yet one more I/P related battleground. She later apologized for adding this quote taken from unreliable Palestinian advocacy site. Yet later the user filed a frivolous AE report, and frivolous SPI request. Isn't this too much for the user who sees her role here as being a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior of others. I completely agree with the language OhanaUnited used in his closure of SPI request. Broccolo (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Stop! A point of order is called for at this point. I would ask all participants to please stick to the topic and help prevent this from becoming another I/P slugfest. Ohana has a right to a response about whether he was correct to accuse Betsy of a POV-driven attempt at character assassination, and support for that if he was in the right. Likewise, Betsy has the right to be heard and the right to an apology and retraction if he was in the wrong. Please save all the "look at the awful edit this opposing editor made" comments for a different thread, if you consider them egregious enough to bring up on AN/I. Don't lets derail this with off-topic grudges: Lets just try to calmly address and solve the issue that Ohana raised. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Fences&Windows just marked this thread as closed to discussion. But an extremely serious accusation has been made, that of intentional character assassination, and it's grossly unfair to leave it unresolved. It needs to be determined whether that accusation was merited or unmerited. I've returned it to open status for that reason, and on the basis of our refactoring guide ( since closing or hatting a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring ) which says, in part, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  – OhioStandard (talk)

Was character assassination accusation called for or should it be redacted?

Please briefly indicate your preference below as either Support accusation or Redact accusation, with minimal follow-on comments after others' !vote:

Wording of proposal adjusted slightly in response to Heimstern's comments. 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Redact accusation. I understand Ohana's frustration that besty didn't know to check for a previous SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal. But his contribution history makes it immediately obvious that this was a very experienced user rather than a newcomer. Such short-term accounts have become so common in the I/P area that we should be encouraging SPIs rather than blaming editors who initiate them, even if they make a mistake in the process, as betsy did.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I'm sympathetic to the idea behind this section, what good is it really going to do? It's obvious that OhanaUnited has no interest in retracting his comments, as he continues to believe he is in the right. I suppose the section could continue if we're hoping to !vote for an exoneration of Betsy, regardless of OhanaUnited's decisions, but is that really needed? The one productive thing that might be considered is if a discussion with the checkusers might be in order to ask them to review OhanaUnited's comments and decide if he should continue as a clerk. And no, I'm not really sure how we'd start such a discussion, and as it's an isolated incident, I suspect little would come of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the question that OhanaUnited asked us all in bringing this here. Besides, I strongly suspect that this is just a simple misunderstanding that went south really quickly. My hope is that if all parties see that an alternate explanation is actually very plausible that it might still come to a calm resolution.

As I said on Fences' talk page, I absolutely understand how a checkuser who saw an SPI request for the same user three times in two weeks could respond with exasperation and assume the worst, especially when he'd seen a lot of duplicate requests recently. I'm going to continue this in collapsed mode, though, because I don't feel right about using so much real-estate to reply.

Good intentions on both sides?

Okay, I might have responded with considerable heat if I'd been in Ohana's shoes, too. I probably would have, actually. No responsible person likes the idea that SPI would be used to harass editors who hold opposing political views or to bite actual newcomers. Since that's the inference Ohana drew, it's very reasonable that he'd respond aggressively. Checkusers should respond aggressively when people try to use SPI as a weapon. I have no idea how often that actually occurs since I know little about SPI, but it must happen fairly often or Ohana wouldn't have responded as he did. The problem in this case is (sorry, Ohana) that he let his understandably mounting anger at the upsurge in SPI filings and repeat SPI filings boil over and convince him that he could mind-read betsy's motives, and that they were discreditable, when they were anything but. I saw somewhere that Ohana said he found it impossible to believe that betsy didn't see a prominent bar that indicates how to search for previous SPI cases. Well I used to teach user-interface design, and that comment puzzled me. So since I've never filed an SPI myself, I went to went to wp:spi and initiated a "test" case a short while ago, although I didn't save it, of course. I even did so for usernames that I know have had previous SPIs. Perhaps I'm being monumentally oblivious, but I didn't see anything that said "Wait! There's been a case about this just a short while ago!" I didn't see any indication of that at all, actually, and to my embarrassment I still don't know how to search for a pre-existing case. If betsy worked as a checkuser for the next month, maybe she'd be pulling her hair out by the roots and want to knock some heads together, too, at what I assume (from Ohana's comments) must be the rising level of SPI requests that really are POV driven attempts at character assassination to silence or drive off an opponent. Similarly, if Ohana could switch places with Betsy for the next month, he might have a better appreciation for how extremely common throwaway accounts have become in the I/P area recently, and how extremely frustrating that has been. All those articles are on 1rr restrictions, so these accounts come through and make very POV changes in heavily contested articles, requiring editors like Betsy to "burn" a revert if the long-established balance of POV in an article is to kept roughly even. And since there seem to be literally ten such accounts on one side for every one on the other side of the political divide, these short-term or throwaway accounts are actually very effective at shifting that balance. Despite the lack of technical evidence found to implicate Red Stone Arsenal as just such an account, that account had all the hallmarks of this escalating pattern that we've seen repeated over and over in the I/P area these last several months. That has no doubt contributed to the frustration several of us have expressed at this whole mess, and at Ohana's likewise understandable frustration. For my own part, I'll ask Ohana's pardon for the extent to which I've let that slip into my own communication around this matter. (Please don't comment here since it forms part of a single post.)

Does that make sense to anyone, and most particularly, does it make sense to you, Ohana? Could you have possibly let your very understandable frustration cause you to miss this explanation and assume a motive that betsy didn't actually have? I'm not trying to blame you at all: As I said, I probably would have reacted just as you did, especially since you're so familiar with the SPI process that it must seem transparently simple to you. But is it possible that this is what happened?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually does make sense to me - thanks for investing the time to write it! (Most of the stuff in here is pretty adversarial, nice to read a considered, well thought out piece trying to see both sides of the situation.) I myself have no idea how the new SPI system works, even though I've used it a few times and found it more efficient than the old. Orderinchaos 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

2011-2012 NBA season: possible vandalism?

Resolved

Someone put a section in all caps on the article 2011-2012 NBA season. I believe that could potentially constitute vandalism, though I'm not sure about it. I am requesting that an adminstrator take a look at it. I couldn't find out who put it there so I can't provide any links or diffs or notify anyone.

--ILikeWatchingFights (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in all-caps currently in the article. Section headers in all-caps isn't necessarily vandalism; it could be a simple mistake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question was removed by Ohnoitsjamie and it was not vandalism, just an anonymous editor not familiar with Wikipedia's editing styles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the information inserted was correct, though it wouldn't really go there. Kansan (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

concerted web campaign versus UCSD professor

A professor from UCSD whom I will not name has come under attack for having allegedly had a web page associated with his lab contain a possibly offensive racial comment.

There is an active web campaign to recruit user to edit wikipedia: "Read the same topic: the students, UCSD events of the battlefield has shifted to wikipedia. Need help" "Just don't mention mitbbs. PLEASE!!!!" suggesting cut and paste comments and pages where such comments might be effective.

Half a dozen articles describing the incident have been created and mostly swiftly deleted. The ones I am aware of include:

• UCSD Kubiak "chinaman" issue
• Clifford Kubiak
• Clifford Kubiak's Lab Rules
• UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident
• University of California Anti-Chinese racism

Because the URL's of these pages are posted on the web, the talk pages are repeatedly recreated, such as here, with comment "The exist of this page can help people better understand how Prof. K****** discriminates Chinese and all about this thing."

• Talk:UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident

The articles provide no notable or neutral independent sources, are written in a way to state allegations and opinions as objective fact, and treat a subject which deal with the now non-existent webpage of person whose notability has not been established. These articles fail Db-web and Db-attack.

In conjunction with this, there is a web campaign suggesting a letter writing crusade [24] and suggesting people visit various wikipedia pages visit wikipedia. There a large number of recently created single use accounts. Edit summaries suggest that the user involved believe they are justified in their edits because they are fighting for Chinese rights. (I am not an admin and cannot give difs to deleted pages.

This matter needs administrative attention. There should be a way to have such articles deleted as soon as they are identified, and single-use accounts and IP addresses involved with this issue properly addressed. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this sound like a case for adding to the title blacklist? --Rschen7754 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to edit the last incarnation of the article to make it somewhat neutral and less of an attack, but I encountered strong push back every time I tried to rephrase things neutrally, or introduce sourced balancing statements. No doubt this will die down in a few days, but for now these articles are being created and recreated by new editors who may not to have encyclopedic goals at heart. There are significant BLP issues here, particularly with the direct and indirect attempts to tie the professor's name personally with the offensive language, despite his statement that he was unaware of it, and despite the lack of any sources claiming otherwise. At the same time, the topic really isn't notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Nobody will care about this in a month, still less in a decade. I don't know what the answer is, but there is definitely a problem. (It *might* be possible to write a neutral article on this event - there is some sourcing, including one short article in the Union Tribune. But it would be bound to be deleted at AfD on notability grounds, so why bother?). Thparkth (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would comment that regardless of attempts at neutrality, which I believe is not possible in this case, the subject specifically fails WP:WEB, given that the matter at issue is a single non-notable web page now no longer in existence.

Be aware that there are now personal attacks from apparently recruited IP users appearing on user talk pages regarding this: [25] [26]

There's a line from The Big Lebowski that's just dying to be quoted here, but apparently this is a serious matter so I'll try to restrain myself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude, the Chinaman is not the issue here! -Atmoz (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the titles listed above and their associated talk pages. If there is still interest in this a month from now, then perhaps it will actually be notable and there will be appropriate sources for a non-news, non-attack article. (If not and more attack pages are created, they can be protected for a longer period.) --RL0919 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I feel a bit bad for Discospinster. His talk page is turning into a bit of a battleground by the SPAs and IPs. Singularity42 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• The man is unquestionably notable by WP:PROF and must have an article-- he holds the Harold C. Urey Chair in Chemistry as UCSD, one of the major US research universities. The citation counts for his papers in G scholar range into the thousands: 1450, 660, 452, 272. The only problem is not over-emphasising this extremely minor difficulty. It would be possible to suppress it via BLP, but as an alternative, we could simply link to the page on his own site, [27] where he gives his apology. As he wrote it himself, it can't be seen as an attack page. I shall write the article tomorrow. I think it should be protected for a while, but I do not want to protect something I write myself. I consider Stwalkerster's action deleting as CSD A7 a page that contained merely "Clifford Kubiak is a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at University of California,San Diego" is an egregious error, I suppose trouting is in order, though I am bothered enough by it to consider asking for desysop if there is no apology forthcoming. . If we delete a BLP, when an article contain mainly scandal, that's not just justifiable, but laudable, and necessary, but it is not justifiable to delete an article with this not mere claim, but easily sourced demonstration of significance. I'm not sure whether it was done in recognition of the BLP problems in other versions. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Making no judgment on the validity of the deletion, it does have one advantage. All history including any troublesome editing that would need to be revdel'd will not appear when a new article is written. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the deletion was a valid deletion by A7 - "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools),[4] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" - emphasis added. Not all professors are notable, and there was no indication as to why he was notable. Is he notable? Probably so, but the article didn't make any claim as to why. --Rschen7754 08:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate to sound like this, but I'm not seeing exactly what I did wrong. Maybe the professor does meet notability stuff, but as far as the article stated, they were some professor at some uni I've not heard of (maybe cos I'm not American, idk). The only thing the article said that he did was write a set of lab rules, and posted it on the web. I don't see how that indicates the notability of this guy. From what I can see, the article as it was exactly matched the criteria set out under WP:CSD#A7, and all I did was apply a policy - and if it came back in the exact form that it was when I deleted it, I'd probably be looking to delete it under A7 again. I'd love a better explanation from DGG about why he wants to desysop me. I'm not sure what else to say actually... [stwalkerster|talk] 13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Historically, a professorship has been considered enough of an assertion of importance by itself to satisfy A7, when discussed at WT:CSD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgh, searching through the archives has come up with several discussions on the issue. This (IMHO) looks to be an area where we could have endless discussion on the matter, I personally don't think a professorship means anything other than they're teaching at a uni, hence doesn't assert any importance or significance. The sheer fact that this is has been discussed and is further discussable means the entire thing probably ought not to be dealt with at CSD. I'm sorry I even touched it. It'd be useful for future reference if stuff like this could be documented somewhere (other than talk page archives) so others don't fall into the same trap as I apparently have done, especially since the only place I can actually find information on this is the archives of the talk page. While we're talking about it, are there any more apparent "exemptions" from A7 which seemingly aren't mentioned anywhere other than the archives of a talk page? It'd also have been nice if someone had poked me on my talk page about disagreeing with the deletion and having a chat about it there, rather than just getting a notification that it had gone straight to ANI, wanting my head. The avoidable stress it's caused me has kinda ruined my entire day. [stwalkerster|talk] 15:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

He holds a named chair appointment at a major research university. (Criterion 5 of WP:PROF) He is unquestionably notable. With that said, there was nothing in the original article which addressed that at all, and I don't have a problem with the previous deletions (in fact, due to the egregious BLP violations contained in their histories, I am quite happy to see them gone). Stwalkerster doesn't need to be dysopped, although I'm a bit surprised that he has never heard of the University of California, San Diego, which is ranked 14th globally by ARWU. Horologium (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that sysop is not yet in order, & I apologize for saying something so strong, but what is in order is a careful re-reading of WP::CSD before doing any more speedy deletions. I re-read them myself every month or so to make sure I don't drift from the norm. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD:A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Just stating that a person is a professor is not a credible claim in itself, so an A7 deletion was not out of line. Now, if it had stated that he was a named professor, that would have been an assertion of significance invalidating the A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"I agree that [de]sysop is not yet in order"?? I hope that's an understatement. — Satori Son 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

... and I do re-read that sort of stuff on a regular basis, at least once every two weeks or so (unless I don't do any deletions in that time period, in which case before I start deleting again). The problem here doesn't lie in changes to WP:CSD, but in various things that are agreed upon on some talk page somewhere, but then never mentioned on the actual policy pages, but yet people like me are somehow supposed to know about them. [stwalkerster|talk] 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be possible to write a neutral article about this notable professor, but I think practically that doing so today, or in the next few days, would be an exercise in frustration. There is an active Internet campaign intended to potray him as personally racist, and the new and anonymous editors who are taking part in it are generally more interested in making their point than in understanding Wikipedia BLP policy. Kubiak will still be notable in a month from now, but those campaigning against him will have moved on. It might be a good idea to wait... Thparkth (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it. The campaigners will do what they do best, and the article will be semi'ed because of BLP violations. You don't have to do it yourself; plenty of eyes on it by now. Favonian (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to preclude any wheel warring concerns: If anyone writes a draft article in the next month that shows notability and is not an attack page, I will gladly move it to Clifford Kubiak (currently full-protected for a month) and change the protection, or another admin can do it if I'm not available. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of California Anti-Chinese racism. Initially, I didn't think it was that related to this discussion topic. However, I'm now wondering if that article will serve as the starting point of a neutral article, either in the current article, or split off on its own... Singularity42 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I created an abuse filter for this: Special:AbuseFilter/201. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is not as if the only issue in Stwalkerster's deletion of Clifford Kubiak had been Kubiak's own person notability or lack thereof. There is much more going on here. From MITBBS Chinese language English translation:

"Just created one, put his lab rules up, but the wiki tells me was too short, and who has more information."

"you can copy and paste"

"who still does not help us"

"you can also copy and paste"

"Just don't mention mitbbs. PLEASE!!!!"

• Comment King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ deleted my article. I have nothing to do with MITBBS. CallawayRox (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is with the nature of the material, not whence you learned of it. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ accused me of working with them! "I think it is more important to thwart the efforts of mitbbs." CallawayRox (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you make the same controversial edits the mitbbs folks do, you'll be lumped in with them. Doesn't matter if you are "working with them" or not, if you're pushing the same agenda you can expect the same result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

so if it is reported by other media, make it more important? Here it is.[28]. Why wiki users have to decide something unless media did something, don't we have a judgment of right or wrong ourselves?--Yeahsoo (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:OR for answers to your question. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• An article about the professor would be in order, if it's neutral, not a coatrack, and scrupulously verified. An article, or article section, about this one incident which has been taken out of all proportion, is certainly not. Suggestions that people should be desysopped for enforcing WP:BLP, one of our most important policies, are quite absurd, and I am glad that DGG retracted his. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINTy comments on FfD

I believe Dekkappai (talk · contribs) is on for some pointy comments at FfDs. Also, I've recently received a dubious star-award from him. If some adming could look at hid vc.--Damiens.rf 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Drop it Damiens. With your track record and... deft and diplomatic communications skills... more than a few people who come across you have ruffled feathers. Heck, more than a few people would be tempted to support a topic ban from Files for Deletion for you, if such a motion were ever to come up. Now don't get me wrong, I defended you the last time you were the focus of a thread on this page, but if you're going to be a difficult to work with person, you can't realistically expect sunshine and flowers from everyone you come across. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that as well. However, someone should still drop a note (dare I say warning?) on Dekkappai (talk · contribs) talk page. Not that we give the person on the other end of the username any other recourse really, but regardless we should still discourage such behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this note? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Chastising Comment Damines, after bringing a person to ANI for being dickish to you, turning around within 24 hours and nominating several of their uploads for deletion... is incredibly dickish. If you're wondering why people treat you poorly, there's your answer. (This is not to say that bad images should not be deleted, but to say that waiting a few weeks or asking someone else to do it if they agree with your assessment would both be alternatives that are less likely to piss people off.) Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• "If some adming could look at hid vc". In English? Fences&Windows 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Right. Because that comment made the situation much better. Raise your hand if you didn't understand that to say "If some admin could look at it". Any hands? Didn't think so. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually I couldn't figure it out either. Was going to ask but saw F&W already did -- ۩ Mask 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by user:rpeh

Resolved

 – Second dose of trout in two days for these two. Both also given advice on their own talk pages on civility and co-operation.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rpeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A personal attack, calling me stupid (after a long history of uncivil remarks towards me).Tom soldier (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User notified. GiantSnowman 11:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Note - Tom soldier has also reported rpeh at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:rpeh reported by User:Tom soldier (Result: ). GiantSnowman 11:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet another example of forum shopping from a user who continues to exhibit no WP:COMPETENCE. I didn't call him stupid at all, because I'm well aware of WP:NPA.

Tom soldier's conduct has passed the point of becoming disruptive, as I now have to spend more time arguing with him on several project pages as well as article talk pages. I'm frankly sick and tired of this user and I hope the WP:BOOMERANG comes back swiftly in this case. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." - you called my action stupid.Tom soldier (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice left on Tom soldier's talk page about not trying people's patience unnecessarily. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rpeh warned for incivility; even if correct, rpeh needs to be civil. Will look at Tom soldier's contribution now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That warning is unjustified, incorrect and has been removed. Calling an action stupid is not covered by WP:NPA. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rpeh, you are of course fully within your rights to remove any warning from your talk page once you have read it. However I don't think you are in the best position to judge whether or not it's justified and correct; that involves you in making a judgement about your own actions. I would be happy if any other editor (admin or not) would review my warning and conform whether or not it was justified. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Justified. Saying a "user has no competence" [29] is covered by WP:NPA. Gerardw (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. Yes, I was entirely justified in saying he has no WP:COMPETENCE, according to the guidelines in that policy. Thank you for confirming it. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin apply liberal servings of seafood for wasting the community's time with pettiness that can be resolved by being more civil to each other and close this thread? Heat to light ratio is no doubt going to rise. Tom, calling someone's action stupid is not calling you stupid. It's like accidentally hitting a nail too hard and slipping off only to hit yourself with a hammer, that's a stupid thing to do but that doesn't mean you're stupid for doing it. And rpeh, please lower the temperature on your remarks and let's all play nice. --Blackmane (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tom, this would mostly be a silly tempest in a teacup, except for one thing. A couple of days ago, you called Rpeh's edits vandalism [30], when they quite clearly weren't. Now neither of these comments are optimal, but you share responsibility for the deterioration in the conversation, and I find it hypocritical and insulting for you to come here complaining about a minor insult when you did the same type of thing first. If you want to be treated politely, you have to do it too. This looks like game playing to me, and you're disrespecting people here by using them as pawns in your battle. Please don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part, as I failed to grasp what his edit summary did mean (the explanation sounded plausible, but actually had not made any sense without expressing his personal belief on Infobox content, which he did only later), and I already did apologise to him and explained it on my talk page.Tom soldier (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić at Bunjevci

I'm participating in a dispute with Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Bunjevci. It is multi-fold, but he insists on puting the image of Ante Pavelić, Croatian fascist leader during WW2, into the article. Never mind that it's false that he even belongs to Bunjevci people, Wustefuchs does not seem to realize (or does) that his action is akin to adding Adolf Hitler at Austrian people or Ratko Mladić at Bosnian Serbs, and then he has the nerve to call me a vandal.

I don't want to break 3RR, but having an image of a war criminal on an article about an ethnic group is for me a brighter line than 3RR. Freedom of speech is one thing, but Nazi apologetics is something we should not accept. No such user (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Being bad doesn't mean a person is not natable. And who are you or me to say what is bad what is not, all we know is that he is notable. I'm not trolling, but you are insulting me, and you use inappropriate words like "f*ck", and that word is your argument for reverting my edits, and word "kurac" is not very good word for discussion also, btw. it is Croatian for dick, and I don't mean the animal.--Wustenfuchs 12:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are reporting me, it would be fair to say how you remove soruced informations also and how you vandalise the article.--Wustenfuchs 12:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Wustenfuchs indefinitely, given their disregard to the sensibilities of living persons (the "Bunjevci" ethnic group) and their wikilawyering response above. There are too many instances were ethnic (and religious/cultural) related subjects are edited in a manner where they are portrayed in a negative light. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

He has made similar proposals and occasional unilateral changes before at pages such as Croats and Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina - to add a variety of genocidal fascists. He did in fact support the inclusion of Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić at Bosnian Serbs. It has been explained to him that notoriety and notability - especially as disclosed by google hits - are not the same thing. However, he argued strongly against the inclusion of Tito on the grounds that he was a mass murderer. Go figure.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Anglo Pyramidologist

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who racked up a remarkable 4 blocks in April for personal attacks, is carrying on where he left off with 'the constant vandalism by the "anti-fascists/anti-BNPer's/far left wingers" (Snowded, multiculturalist etc)' and 'quite clearly they were added by a biased anti-BNPer who is deceitfull linking to stuff that cannot even be accessed and verified'. I think it might be time for another enforced wikibreak? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Vandalism on the BNP page was already posted here less than 1 week ago and i had several admins agree with me that there are disrputive users on the BNP page. I've not personally attacked anyone, all i've tried to do is work with other users in improving the BNP article (yet anti-fascists/far-leftists etc keep vandalising it/reverting edits). Looks like you are just starting up trouble. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

-Please see multiculturalist's history page where he has numerous warnings about vandalising/making disruptive edits to the BNP page. This includes one edit/comment he left calling all BNP members "nazis" - which he recieved a warning on his talk page for. Also look at his name. Do you really think someone with the name 'multiculturalist' is going to not be baised against the BNP (a nationalist party who oppose multiculturalism and immigration?). Despite having 6 or 7 warnings about disruptive edits/vandalism to the BNP page he has never been banned from making further edits. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo, this isn't far from what I've blocked you for before. Assigning epithets to other users is not going to go over well, nor is focusing so intensely upon their possible motives for editing. Concentrate only on content. You'll find things a lot easier that way. lifebaka++ 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Labelling and pigeonholing other editors is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not epithets, you can view the user pages mentioned where they self label themselves as 'anti-fascists', 'socialists' etc. I don't see how by pointing this out is personal attacks. The fact is there are a whole load of self admitted BNP haters (view their own pages) who have far-left socialist etc views yet they are allowed all over the BNP page. There are clearly problems with neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the same way that you self-label as a British Nationalist and a BNP-supporter? Please take a look at WP:COI. You also seem to not understand WP:RS, per this edit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

AP also needs to look up the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Even if the allegations about POV and biased editing were true (just for the sake of argument, I am not saying it is as I have not looked into the matter), that kind of editing does still not constitute vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- As i have pointed out view the user 'multiculturalist's page where he has had repeated warnings for vandalism. For the past few weeks on the talk page he has been calling BNP Nazis/racists for which he was reported and recieved warnings. I'm only on the BNP talk page to get the ideology box updated. Currently it is incorrect. The BNP are not fascist or white nationalists. If they were i wouldn't have joined them. The ideology box is insulting to all current BNP members/supporters, its biased and incorrect, and that is why i want it to be updated. Please note: it was me who got the 'holocaust denial' tag removed from the BNP ideology box about a month or so back. I then recieved a message by a mod apologizing that it had been up there for many months when it was a false claim added by an anti-BNPer as a smear. My interest in the BNP article is merely to make it neutral and reflective of the party and their position/policies. If it wasn't for me the holocaust denial smear tag would still be up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"While parties such as the National Front or British National Party have attempted to appropriate national symbols to their primarily racist cause..." "British national sentiment". British Journal of Political Science. 29 (01). 1999. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, "Since 1999, under the leadership of Nick Griffin, the BNP has made attempts to modernize and has tried to conceal its more esoteric ideology, such as holocaust denial..." "White Backlash, 'Unfairness' and Justifications of British National Party (BNP) Support". Ethnicities. 10 (1): 77–99. 2010. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Holocaust denial has never been a policy or position of the BNP. This is why it was removed from the ideology tag box a month or so back. What personal members believe or write is irrelevant to the position and policy of the party. Several Conservative MEP's for example are personally eurosceptics, but you would have to be mad to then post or claim the position or policy of the Conservatives was anti-eu. We have had problems on the BNP page before where people were linked to facebook posts and other nonsense which has nothing to do with the policies of position of the BNP. I also note in the last week these inappopirate facebook links were removed by an admin (thanks to me again). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If Sarek or Serpent's Choice were referencing Facebook, your argument might have merit, but they were quoting published works. Anglo Pyramidologist, if your purpose is to whitewash (no pun intended) topics related to BNP, you may as well move on. As long as there are reliable sources supporting what's in the article, it's going to stay, whether or not it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You very clearly have a conflict of interest with these subjects. -- Atama頭 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. I have several users agreeing with me that the BNP ideology box needs to be updated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Having checked I can see one, along with the IP with who you edit warred. We also have the same pattern of false claims as before (ANI are on my side when a subject has just been mentioned). Personally I can't see this editor ever changing and it might be an idea to try a topic ban for a period as opposed to escalating blocks --Snowded ^TALK 05:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:JPTINS3000

Accuses me of hounding his edits, yet I explained him that in 2 of the 3 articles in question other editors have made the same edits like me shortly before or after me. In one case he was asked by another editor to wait a discussion and a consensus before reverting again. I had overriding reason for the edits and I've justified them. The user attacked me personally, [31] and admitted also that he was hounding my edits, something he accused me to do with his. --Severino (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That is not a personal attack. If it is, you'll have to explain to me what it is that is either "personal" or "attacking" about it, because I'm not seeing it. The Hounding accusation was made in good faith, as far as I can tell (and I'm not at all confident that either of you understand what constitutes "wikihounding" -- I see no evidence that either of you are trying to be "intentionally disruptive"). There seems to be developing consensus in favor of at least one of the edits at issue and, either way, this is a content issue and not at all an ANI issue. I'm not sure what you intend to accomplish with this ANI -- I highly doubt anybody will review JPTINS3000's contributions and find any serious problems. The "banging head against a brick wall" line might be a bit much but, really, this is not a big deal as far as I can tell. Work it out on the article talk pages. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I concur with Ginsengbomb. Not seeing the attack here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• you haven't rearranged his words completely. but ok, if this and the accusation of "silly edit" constitutes no attack or another offence, i know that i'm entitled to post things like that as well.--Severino (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Severino, that re-arranging of words is of a common English idiom, referring to a pointless and unnecessarily onerous activity, as in "I am banging my head against a brick wall here". Hence my persistent inquiry as regards to your native language (which you still haven't been kind enough to relinquish!). JPTINS3000 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

again, i will watch the outcome and find out which tone is accepted on wikipedia.--Severino (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, "silly edit" is not a nice thing to say, I agree. If there were some vast pattern of similar comments coming from JPTINS3000's corner then there might be an issue here, but it's a one-off comment. Neither my comment nor OhNo's constitutes a full endorsement of calling other editors' edits "silly". Use some common sense, please. I don't recommend you run around making pointy "silly edit" comments in response, lest this ANI post begin to resemble a boomerang. I also don't think "silly edit" is a particularly nasty "personal attack," if it even constitutes a personal attack at all, but that's somewhat beside the point.

If it helps: JPTINS3000! Never call anyone's edits "silly" again, you vicious, sociopathic guttersnipe! Now run along you two, get back to improving this encyclopedia like you were doing before this silliness. I was kidding about the guttersnipe bit; that was totally not a personal attack. Really, I have great affection for you. *hug* ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Omer123hussain

On Saturday 14 May 2011, User:Omer123hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was checkuser-blocked indefinitely by User:Timotheus Canens for sockpuppetry.

Even before looking into the allegations as this is the first block this user has received and they have made lots of valuable contributions to the project including writing articles like Spanish Mosque, Old City, Hyderabad and Amjad Hyderabadi in a month - as well as numerous other contributions. After looking at their contributions last Saturday it was quite clear that out of the four users who Omer123hussian was accused of socking with one of them listed Omer123hussian's contributions on their talk page, and had a very similar name. Secondly there was an editor User:Googly1236 who had only edited inside their own userspace. This left two users, User:Woodenmetal and User:Mujahid Ahmad although only one of them had made edits outside of article space. This is covered in more detail at User_talk:Omer123hussain#Looking_at_this_again.

As you can see the blocked behaviour isn't really particularly serious, so the block duration then becomes even more troubling. In an attempt to fix this I have also contacted the blocking admin User:Timotheus Canens and the checkuser User:jpgordon on their talk pages without achieving a positive result. So clearly escalating it here is needed at this point. Unblock requests have also been filed - and Omer123hussian has accepted they behaved badly.

If a comparison is useful on Tuesday 17 May 2011, User:BabbaQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was checkuser-blocked by User:HJ Mitchell for a week for sockpuppetry. Even though the crime was significantly more serious as it involved votestacking to post additional content on ITN still User:Omer123hussian hasn't been unblocked. The fact that these two blocks had such different durations comes across to me as highly problematic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Googly1236 claims to be the brother of User:Mujahid Ahmad and was never used to edit outside his own userpage, and User:Omer123hussain123 only made one article edit other than a deleted article, so is hardly egregious sockpuppetry. Looks like User:Woodenmetal was a short-lived sock. Not sure about User:Mujahid Ahmad, either a friend or a sockpuppet and also short-lived. I agree that indef block is harsh, unblock now I think as he's admitted Woodenmetal was a sock. Fences&Windows 19:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain123 may have done only one article edit other than a deleted article(s) but the SP was used for canvassing (of total 20 live edits 11 edits were done on User talks Requesting for the edit involvement for the article Aisha. This shows that this user is well aware of policies of canvasing and knows how to avoid them i.e. by operating SPs, I once more suggest that this user may be SP of much older one & we may have to widen our scope of investigation to include other SPs. The User initially didn't admitted anything but was in denial mode, it only did partial admissions when several check users/admins/editors provided proof of the users actions, detailed discussion can be found here, before taking any decision please refer to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omer123hussain and subsequent discussions.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't enough to warrant an indefinite block. Given how the user introduced themselves and their username its blindingly obvious that its the same user. If I setup the account Eraserhead2, stuck my contributions on its talk page, and went and asked people for help if someone seriously thought they were a different user from Eraserhead1 it would be very difficult not to assume they were a fool.

Given how little he understood policies initially - and he certainly needed help to get started - I highly doubt he's an older account. Additionally you should assume good faith.

I would presume the reason he knows about talk pages and talks to other people is that when initially he made mistakes I used his talk page to explain what he was doing incorrectly, once you've figure that out why wouldn't you use other people's talk pages as well? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did he admit to Woodenmetal? T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote "i had been accused of only one SP User:woodenmetal, the others are not for me, and i agree i helped him to create this account as he is my room mate and new to WP (as i had told previously)" and also "i promise that it will not repeat in future by me", given he claims its his room-mate, and thus would use the same computer we should assume good faith. Additionally he has accepted that his behaviour hasn't been ideal here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much irrelevant that someone else wasn't blocked indefinitely (and by the way, that wasn't a checkuser block; only checkusers can do that) for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus; if I'd discovered it first, I'd have just indeffed that other user outright, since I've got little tolerance for breaking that aspect of the basic social "consensus" agreement here. As far as assuming good faith is concerned, that generally stops as soon as bad faith is demonstrated; and using multiple accounts to game the system is exactly such proof. That being said, my only input into this case has been to verify the one only thing that checkuser can really verify -- that multiple accounts were using the same IP and that their identifying information was identical. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not because policy should be applied consistently. Both blocks were backed up with checkuser evidence and both blocks should be applied consistently. Having such gross differences in block terms is a disgrace to the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

His "roommate" who (1) edited the same article to make a revert 26 minutes after the same revert from him, and (2) used the same style of edit summaries? AGF is not a suicide pact. T. Canens (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this really matter? It could be true that he was on Wikipedia and his friend asked him to help setup an account.

We asked the guy to tell the truth not to come up with a story that would satisfy you. You cannot with any justification block someone indefinitely because their story isn't the one you want to hear.

In fact if I was on Wikipedia when my friend came over who wanted to setup an account they might well notice and remember they wanted me to set it up, that's how social interactions work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

....and go on to participate in the exact edit war you happened to be in 20 minutes ago, all by pure happenstance (and replicate your style of edit summaries, too?)? Let me be frank, I don't believe that he's telling the truth, and therefore I'm not going to unblock him. T. Canens (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all I really appreciate User:Eraserhead1 for investigating those accounts which is believed to be Omer's socks. Secondly I'd like to add that I have come across this user contributing constructively here. I have interacted with the user and he took every criticism as a piece of advice to improve on his contributions. Given that he may have been in conflicts and has used these accounts as his socks, it does not really call for an indeff block of his account. May the blocking admin of Omer123hussain Timotheus Canens explain how the 1 week block is justified for User:BabbaQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) given the fact that he used his sock accounts for much more serious crime? It's also worth noting the lack of any admin response to pleas/queries posted on User talk:Omer123hussain. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 09:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Tim. Friends often have similar interests. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the edit summaries aren't that similar Omer makes far more spelling mistakes in his. They are of the similarity that you might get if one user was showing another how something works.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

do we really need to go to an RFC/U or Arbcom to solve this. The block is wildly excessive even if Omer is 100% guilty as charged. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Self promotion at Houston mayoral election, 2011

This user keeps making really bad edits in Houston mayoral election, 2011 and putting himself in the running [[32]]. After looking up the information, he only has [[33]] as a website stating that he's running with no additional notices in the media. After reverting his edits several times, I just had to look for some way to resolve this issue. --Hourick (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

user has been notified of this discussion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will this do? "Two candidates have declared against her. Republican Fernando Herrera, a firefighter ... The other announced challenger is Kevin Simms".[34] Fences&Windows 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rick, the Houston Chronicle citation looks good to me. No mention of him being a doctor, though. I put this article in my watch list. Liberal Classic (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've just blocked Drkevins (talk · contribs) for 31 hours. He was advised repeatedly to bring his concerns to the talk page but kept making the same edit again and again—adding information not present in the following source and breaking an interwiki link. I also invited him to join the discussion at the article's talk page, but he refused to. The block should both prevent further disruption of the article and bring him to the discussion table on his user talk page, since that's the only place he can edit currently. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a mater of interest, could this be someone trying to dis-credit the guy, might it be worth considering a username block pending confirmation this is who it looks like ? Mtking (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise the username issue at his user talk page. I don't expect a response from him, though you're right, the username concerns could be enough to escalate the block to indefinite. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't spot the chron.com article until I examined what kind of damage he had done. The edits he had done were highly suspicious, and figured he just needed to get familiar with the process IF he was legit. Either way, I'm glad that it was resolved. --Hourick (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yuufa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

removed the "resolved" tag - we appear to have a duck. Active Banana (^bananaphone 10:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks that way, block this new account, change the block on the first account and make the page semi-protected for 2 weeks, with a bit of luck the guy will loose interest. Mtking (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you all are way ahead of me. I opened a sockpuppet case here:[35]. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I started to say that there's a mitigating circumstance: another editor challenged whether he was Simms and effectively questioned the appropriateness of his username.[36] If he'd used the new account to discuss the situation, I'd be fine. Since he used the new account to go right back down the path of edit warring, I endorse the indef block on the new account. —C.Fred (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jayen466 wikihounding User:Cirt

This is the second time in about 3-4 months that Cirt has asked my advice on handling the intervention of User:Jayen466 in discussion related to topics he is working on. Consistently, Jayen466 stalks the edits of Cirt and regularly makes accusation of bias in his work when both community processes and conversations. Another user raised concerns on Jayen's talk page and he refuses to concede that his interactions with Cirt are overly aggressive. The most recent accusations can be found at Cirt's talk page and at various points in conversations on the WikiEn-l: [37], [38], [39]. Also, he has been very active recently in positions directly opposed to Cirt in the conversations on wiki, such as the ungrounded comments made at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Google_rating_of_this_article. The consensus on Cirt's talk page of users who have watched this happen off and on for a while is that this is in fact Wikihounding, this opinion can be found here.

I suggest that we place a topic ban on topics and talk pages directly related to Cirt's editing practices on User:Jayen466, with a work around of him being able to contact a designated admin, like myself, if he feels the need to point out verifiable issues with content that Cirt creates. Cirt regularly writes well founded articles, and though they are of a controversial nature sometimes, the continual aggression on the part of Jayen is causing Cirt a lot of behind the scenes anxiety where in many of the cases, Jayen's position is not based on solid evidence. I am concerned that their interaction, which Cirt is not deliberately seeking in any way as far as I can tell, is not placing either editor in a healthy situation with their relationships with other members of the community. Thank you for considering my request, Sadads (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just going to state an observation here. All of Cirt's friend are going to show up here and say Jayen466 is hounding Cirt. All of Jayen466 freind's are going to show saying that it is shooting the messenger and that Jayen466's concerns are well founded. Lets try and avoid that. Also I just notified Cirt The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest that anyone without a preconceived judgement on the matter first read Jayen's summary of evidence and the resulting discussion. Then, if you have any futher questions, I would suggest asking them of either Jayen or Cirt, and then forming your conclusion. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• The only thing that "summary of evidence" is "evidence" for is Jayen466's creepily following Cirt's edits for years, drawing nefarious political conclusions, and then publishing them off-wiki to nurture a grudge, without addressing Cirt or any community process or scrutiny. That link you posted was already included in Sadads's original post, but within the larger and more serious context of Jayen466's hounding behavior. No editor without a preconceived judgment should miss the other half of the links: on Jayen466's own talk page about their mutual history, the WikiEn-l mailing list ([40][41][42]; where Jayen466 reveals certain prejudices), and the santorum page, where Jayen466 blatantly indulges in what he has most recently accused Cirt of: political activism, to be (time and time again) on the opposing side of Cirt in his content disputes. Quigley (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• You neglected to mention that Cirt was recently asked to stop editing Scientology articles because of community concerns about Cirt's treatement of associated BLPs. Jayen was one of the ones, if I remember right, who helped get that issue resolved. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection with any of the editors involved with this and haven't looked at the allegations of wikistalking enough to comment on them, but I do feel that the mailing list thread is inappropriate. I have only been on the list for a few weeks so I'm not sure of the generally accepted scope of topics on it, but it really has seemed to me like it would have been better off as an on-wiki discussion. I also feel that some on list comments about cirt have been uncalled for and the thread in general has been the biggest stream of unjustifiable bad-faith assumptions I've seen. Kevin (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Comment by Cirt

1. I agree with the proposal by Sadads, it is the best way to resolve this issue.
2. Jayen has been following me for over three years now, and it is quite disturbing and disconcerting. I agree with this admonition that Jayen's behavior is disruptive and that he attempts to forum shop and foment opposition to me, in multiple different offsite methods.
3. The following of me goes back to at least November 2007, and is most obvious when Jayen shows up disturbingly soon after I create a new article where naturally Jayen would not have previously known about its existence or ever edited it.
   • 18 November 2007 - 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack - I created an article about this notable incident diff
   • Jayen shows up just 4 hours later diff
4. Jayen often shows up to disputes that he was not previously involved in, where I am a party, and takes the opposing position.
5. However the issue is not simply antagonistic behavior, but simply the disturbing pattern of following me, literally for years, and showing up shortly after me on obscure pages he is aware of because of said behavior — regardless of the position he takes on those pages upon showing up after me.
6. In fact, I would even agree to a mutual restriction upon both of us not to show up after the other user — if that is what it would take to stop Jayen from following me for years on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous and has gone on for long enough. Jayen should just leave Cirt alone. He shouldn't comment on Cirt's talk page and shouldn't edit articles created by Cirt. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats easier now than in the past since Cirt is not editing as many New Religious movement articles as often. I do feel that Jayen is doing this with legitimate concern for the project policies. I feel the issues Jayen466 raised should be examined.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would better believe that Jayen466 did this "with legitimate concern for the project policies" if he raised each grievance he had with Cirt on the respective talk pages when the issue was current. But he did not, instead dropping them into his little box of anti-Cirt material to share and campaign among disgruntled editors. As a result, many of the articles in which Jayen466 makes complaints about Cirt's behavior, such as Kenneth Dickson and Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, are long deleted; we would have to take Jayen466's word for a lot of his accusations, which obviously cannot be done. Whenever one of Jayen466's complaints is disaggregated and analyzed, such as most recently done on santorum's talk page, it is Jayen466 that is found to be acting against community norms and consensus, not Cirt. Jayen466 has "issues" alright, but they're dark and personal issues with another editor, rather than any transparent concern about policy or content that we can seriously discuss. Quigley (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying Jayen has handled the situation perfectly. Cirt and Jayen, have a long history on here which has been tit-for-tat on both ends for a long time. I think its dishonest for Cirt to play helpless victim here as its a manipulative tactic that shifts focus away Cirt own actions. I have defended Cirt when I think unfair attacks are launched but I also note Cirt is not always an innocent party. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist, please note that I have offered to agree to a mutual editing restriction from following each other from new article creation and pages where the other has not previously edited - even though that was not the original proposal by Sadads. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think thats something Jayen should consider. I do think that Jayen intent has been and has always been to uphold the letter and spirit of policies particularly that of BLP. Your own choice to edit controversial areas means that people will raise concerns when they feel policy is being violated. I consider both of you good Editors and valuable ones at that who I have spent alot of time on Wikipedia with. So forgive me if you feel like I am straddling the fence here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think Jayen should really stop with any off-wiki commenting or discussions on WikiEn. However, I do feel that some of his concerns about Cirt are valid and shouldn't just be ignored under the pretext of "hounding". One area of concern that Jayen raised was the Corbin Fisher article that Cirt created in December of 2009. In this edit he made earlier this month, his summary stated that he was putting things in chronological order when he was actually also removing a section of the history that was critical of the company and had very valid references to substantiate it. I have since re-added the section in a slightly edited form, but I think Cirt's removal of it with a misleading edit summary does show a sense of partisanship on Cirt's part and is an understandable cause of concern by Jayen. Silverseren^C 01:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Silver seren, I have since removed that article from my watchlist and your edit makes sense. However, I agree with Sadads that these "issues" do not have to be raised by Jayen through direct interjection, and if he truly feels the compulsion to follow my edits constantly for years it is best for him to do so by approaching third party editors such as Sadads, who are less involved. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that Jayen is not going about this the right way, but I also agree with ResidentAnthropologist that Jayen is probably doing this with the best intentions and is concerned with your style of editing. Silverseren^C 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Partisanship" in what way? That did not seem to be an ideological edit at all (contrast Jayen466's at santorum). If you are suggesting that Cirt has a conflict of interest with the company, then you should provide comprehensive evidence at the appropriate noticeboard for that insinuation, or not keep repeating it until it becomes harassment. Anyway, that edit seems justified because near to none of the sources in the material removed were reliable, most of them being blogs; and that section of speculation was arguably a fringe issue. Not that Cirt couldn't have been a little more clear in his edit summary, but he apparently made a talk page section a few days before warning against the insertion of shoddily-sourced material. The way Jayen466 presented the Corbin Fisher issue, especially juxtaposed against santorum, it had a subtone of "Cirt is expanding articles about gay topics; isn't that gross? Shouldn't we punish him?" And that is completely unacceptable. Quigley (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you need to calm down. Your comments here are showing that you are either really defensive with Cirt or you really dislike Jayen, either way, I think you should take a step back from this. I'm friends with both of them and am trying to find a proper way to mediate this. I don't think anyone should be "punished" for any of this, that's not how we do things. I believe an interaction ban is probably the best way to do things and, if either of them feel that it is very necessary to bring up something about the other, then they should go through a third-party administrator to do so. Silverseren^C 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with this suggestion by Silver seren. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I will recuse myself, then. However, I should note that I have not interacted with Cirt or Jayen466 prior to Jayen466's crusade to delete the santorum article, the excesses of which have driven more editors than me to exasperation. Quigley (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Then let me note that there are a number of users, myself included, who have exhibited concern on the Santorum talk page about the article. It's not like Jayen is the only one. Silverseren^C 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• If Jayen could stop trying their attempts to redo or rename or vanish Santorum (neologism), that would be a nice start already. It's pretty clear from the talk page and the various AfDs that there is no consensus for what they want, and repeated requests easily suggest an all-too personal interest--not in santorum, of course, but in one of its writers. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think discussion on the Santorum page is so messed up as it is that there's no way to get any proper consensus on anything and there are numerous people who feel that the page is just an attack page against Santorum. Such a belief has nothing to do with having a personal interest with it, though it is possible. Silverseren^C 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• The page is not "messed up"; it is thoroughly referenced, has withstood three AfDs with a strong mandate to keep, and endures through overwhelming consensus Jayen466 and friends' multiple disruptive attempts to stub, split, and otherwise disfigure it. Jayen466's behavior on that article's talk page should be more closely examined. Quigley (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have no love for Rick Santorum's politics at all, but that page is horrid. The "neologism" was purposefully created with the intent to sully Santorum's name via web searches, and those in favor of retaining that page are aiding and abetting that artificially-constructed and very nasty slander, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• So the editors who have created and edited Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are "aiding and abetting that artificially-constructed and very nasty slander"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that an interaction ban is called for. Jayen's been asked to step back from his pursuit of Cirt before, but he keeps following Cirt around. The personal innuendos against Cirt show that Jayen is not approaching their differences with a dispassionate interest. Almost every time Cirt creates an article appears to work on it, and often to criticize Cirt. That's disruptive harassment.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Will, please provide diffed evidence of this assertion, preferably from the last half year, since my last run-in with Cirt on this board, or retract it. --JN466 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Pardon me if I note that your opinion of Jayen should be taken with a grain of salt considering your past interaction with him and myself in the Larouche subject area. Silverseren^C 03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• By that logic, the comments from you and Jayen46 at WP:AE should also be "taken with a grain of salt". As it happens, I've also been followed by Jayen to a number of topics which is why there's been conflict between us in the past, but the situation with Cirt is far worse.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Talk of interaction bans sidesteps the real issue here, and that is if Jayen's concerns about Cirt's editing related to certain articles holds water or not. We probably should open a separate thread to give the community a forum to discuss Jayen's evidence on Cirt's editing and decide if it is actionable or not. If the community decides there isn't anything to his evidence, then interaction bans might should be on the table. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

They are separate issues. But if you think that Cirt is genuinely acting as an advocate for a gay porn company, some assorted politicians, and a neologism then that should be considered separately. Bringing even valid complaints doesn't justify invalid behavior.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

My last run-in with Cirt on this board is here, for reference: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt. This present discussion is much like the last one, which arose in the context of an AE thread where Cirt wanted to bar another editor, User:Delicious carbuncle, from ever commenting on his editing again, claiming to be "Wikihounded". It succeeded, until I pointed out that Cirt had blatantly canvassed. The closure was appealed, overturned by an arbitrator, and Cirt was asked to step back from editing Scientology, based on a long history of wilful NPOV and BLP violations, involving both egregious puffery for those favoured, and poorly sourced derogatory material for those disfavoured. This is exactly what Delicious Carbuncle had said, and was the whole reason for Cirt’s attack on him.

It became apparent that Cirt has a long history of using AE and ANI to get anyone messing with their articles, which are invariably promoting one side or another, blocked or banned from commenting. I had expected no different this time. (And of course, Will Beback is here again, as always. He himself uses much the same tactics, as in his current attempt to get Cla68 banned from an article he wishes to own. Not one editor there has backed him up.)

The reason Cirt keeps getting into trouble with a whole host of editors, all of whom are said to be "WP:WIKIHOUNDING" them, is because of the blatantly promotional nature of much of their work.

"Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of."

 —U.S. Congressman Joseph Crowley

• Writing a flattering biography of a political candidate (because of Scientology of all things (!)),
• with this blue call-out box
• AND getting it featured on the main page 3 days before the election?

And then cry "Wikihounding" in defence? Since when is this project in the business of promoting political candidates at elections?

As for Kenneth Dickson, another puff piece for a political candidate Cirt favoured on ideological grounds, no one has to take my word for it. Here are the comments from the AfD:

AfD comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete As noted above, the article is highly promotional. Example: the twice-repeated assertion that "Dickson beat Joel Anderson in votes cast in the Republican primary in Riverside County, California, but Anderson won the election itself; with Dickson receiving 20 percent of total votes." Sorry, he didn't "beat" the other candidate by doing better in one area of the district; he LOST the primary election, rather badly. Like others here, I am annoyed that my previous comments disappeared into the void when the page was blanked. I am curious whether Cirt was the administrator who did that; if so I feel it was inappropriate, since Cirt is the author and primary editor of this article and thus is not neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - my !vote was removed when the first version of this nom was deleted, so I'll re-register it. For those claiming that the number of sources verify the notability of the subject, let me remind you that the sources used to justify his notability need to be about the subject himself, not the school board/election/whatever else he's been a part of. I don't want to minimize Cirt's work, but I just don't think Kenneth Dickson's accomplishments warrant an article. If he wins a major election at some point, all well and good, the article can be recreated. But he hasn't yet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete This reads like an advertisement for someone with an eye on political office. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. Nominating this article for deletion the first time around was one of the first times I got involved in an XfD, because the article is so outrageously overblown and pufftastic that it's almost a self-parody. His kids' high school grades? His former boss said that he "did a 'great job'"? "He was very much a team player, always asking, 'What else can I do to help?'"? The guy is a local school board member, fairly average attorney, and political primary also-ran. Like anyone who is on a school board and runs for a local political job, his local papers have occasionally mentioned him. I give Cirt credit for writing the best-formatted, most thorough, best-MASKed article imaginable on this generally unknown local personage. Still, just as we do our best not to let a crappily-formatted article from a poor English speaker sway us toward deletion, the underlying (non-)notability of Kenneth Dickson cannot be affected by purple prose or by fifty footnotes to minor local press clippings marshaled in two columns. Minnowtaur is right: he is no more notable than "virtually every small-town alderman, every high school quarterback or point guard, every owner of a local business, every Rotary Club president." I.e., not particularly notable within the context of an encyclopedia of global scope. I'm sorry so much work went into the article, but that's just the cost of doing business. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS, and, with all due respect to Cirt, the article is a classic example of WP:MASK. Location (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete—he doesn't seem to have done anything which qualifies him as notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. Clearly fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - The person fails the WP:GNG notable criteria for significant coverage in multiple sources. There is no apparent coverage outside of the single source -- a local community newspaper. The majority of the article attempts to establish WP:POLITICIAN, but a careful reading shows it is a WP:MASK for non-notable community service.— Cactus Writer (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what's alleged above, I have neither edited Santorum (neologism), nor proposed it for deletion. I joined a mailing list discussion that was ongoing for some time before I joined it. I have pointed out what I think are Cirt's googlebombing attempts in the article, specially creating three templates that add 250 inbound links to the article, and pointed out the coincidence in timing of Cirt's interest in the article: just after Santorum announced he might be running for president. I loathe Rick Santorum and everything he stands for, but I think the article is partisan and immature, and not a credit to this project. I'll take no further part in that discussion, here or elsewhere. --JN466 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Jayen keeps making this bad faith comment about "Cirt's googlebombing attempts". Please see this comment by SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) about Google page ranks: "Internal links are not used to calculate PageRank. Please don't propose that as some reason to undo another users work.". Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Then read the very next comment on that page: :Oh, you are so, so wrong. If internal links weren't used by google, half the of the wikipedia would have no google rank at all, they're quite often only linked internally, and further I've seen ranking change as I modify the internal links (over some weeks.)Rememberway (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Were you unaware of it? --JN466 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was. If that is the case, my apologies about that. I am sorry. It was not my intention. And it was not my reason for creating the templates. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmph. Admittedly, I had never read the [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt prior ANI discussion] before and Cirt's responses there (and the lack of understanding of his own mistakes) are greatly concerning. I'm afraid I will have to pull back my support for the interaction ban. I won't be opposing it, but I can't seem to bring myself to support it at this point.

On a separate note, what is the best community forum to go about discussing the points that Jayen raised on Cirt's talk page to see whether they are valid or not? Silverseren^C 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren, I responded, on my user talk page. If you have additional questions, you can ask me, there. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did, but I feel that some of the points Jayen made are things that should be discussed in a wider community forum (of which your talk page is not) in order to determine their validity. That is why I am asking which forum would be proper for such a discussion. Silverseren^C 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: mutual interaction ban

To avoid getting into a dispute over who's to blame, it may be desirable simply use a mutual interaction ban. They should just stay out of each other's way.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will agree to this mutual interaction ban. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Jayen has followed the dispute resolution process to the letter. I don't see a good reason to propose a "mutual interaction ban" before addressing the substance of his complaint. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the right dispute resolution to deal with en editor who harasses another editor by following them around and sniping at all of the contributions? He's been asked repeatedly to stop, Cirt has tried to avoid him, etc. This appears to be the next step in dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. Recent ones. --JN466 05:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt is just back from a two-month Wikibreak, and has edited only sporadically since January. One of the effects of harassing someone is to make them go away. This isn't a recent problem - it goes back years, apparently to when you both were editing the articles about Rajneesh and his new religious movement. I see for example, that when he created Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System in November you quickly followed him and apparently engaged in unhelpful editing.[43] Also in November you followed him to another article he'd written, Scientology (James R. Lewis book).[44]   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a book I have on my bookshelf. The article had major NPOV problems, as pointed out by User:DGG here, and those discussions were in February 2010. The Erhard article came to my attention through an AfD. I voted Keep on the article Cirt had written, but found some omissions that I rectified. That's normal editing, Will. --JN466 08:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Deal with the issues, don't restrict an editor who is following procedure. Would you have preferred him to open an RfC as a first step? →StaniStani  05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the points raised at my user talk page. My response was "good enough" for the user that initiated the issue. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you agree that we had a satisfactory discussion in line with dispute resolution policy, why do you seek an interaction ban? And there is one point which I would have liked you to clarify, though you did not. I thought I wouldn't press the point, but since we are here: This post about how Kenneth Dickson would be the best candidate is by a contributor named Xenubarb. She also wrote about it here. Here the same contributor, Xenubarb, says, "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles." Do you deny having started the Dickson article here in Wikipedia specifically to support the campaign she launched at that forum? And do you deny having made the edits to Jose Peralta, Joel Anderson, and Hiram Monserrate for the same reasons? --JN466 06:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I seek an interaction ban because you have been following me now for over three years, and it is quite disturbing — regardless of the outcome or position you take in disputes you mysteriously show up at. As for the Dickson article - it had been my intention to improve the wiki articles on multiple individuals. I wish that discussion about those you mention had been raised on-Wikipedia, earlier, instead of saving them up to use now. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to be responsive to those that raise concerns politely in a good faith manner, on-Wikipedia. But it is difficult to do so when those concerns have not previously been raised, on-Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned my concern about the Dickson article before, here. The Peralta connection I only became aware of recently. I am asking you politely: Do you deny having created the Dickson article here on Wikipedia to support Xenubarb's campaign? --JN466 06:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I recall I became aware of the candidates through following the news, and previously decided to improve the articles on them. I later contacted her for assistance with free-use image help, that was all. -- Cirt (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

However, I restate again that I always strive to defer to community consensus and on-Wikipedia processes — even when they are contrary to my views. I have changed my behavior. I post to talk pages of multiple WikiProjects with notices of new article creation. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's good. It still leaves me concernd -- your article on Dickson was so promotional as to elicit the comments quoted from the AfD in the collapsed box. Your revised article on Joel Anderson, the other candidate standing against Stone, ended with the words

"a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento".[28] Anderson also received endorsements from the California Republican Assembly and from Congressman Duncan Hunter.[29] In his endorsement, Congressman Hunter called Anderson "a great conservative leader who has fought to strengthen the economy by supporting tax credits to encourage new hiring and by eliminating excessive regulations on businesses."[30]"

You did not create a similar article on Jeff Stone, the third candidate, whom Xenubarb did not want to be elected, extolling his virtues and endorsements. He does not have a Wikipedia article at all. Before the Peralta election, you added only positive material to his BLP, and only negative material to that of his opponent, Hiram Monserrate. And you got Peralta's article on the main page, three days before the election. That's a lot of dedicated work done on Wikipedia to bias our coverage in favour of one particular side. So please understand that if you do a similar amount of dedicated work covering the campaign against Santorum, and that work is highly controversial on a Wikimedia mailing list because of perceived bias, it raises an alarm bell. And please understand that I am not upset about the Santorum article because you have written it, but because of what it is. That it's written by an editor with a history of political bias adds something, but it would be just the same if someone else had written it. --JN466 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually recall any recent interaction at all between us? I think the last one was several months ago, on the Werner Erhard talk page. Apart from that, I cannot recall having corresponded with you this year. --JN466 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I already stated I agree with you about not nominating to DYK articles relating to elections, prior to those elections. I already stated I have taken the articles you mentioned off my watchlist. I already stated that I post about new article creation to talk pages of WikiProjects, specifically to get more on-Wikipedia feedback. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --JN466 07:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting this off the drama board

The interest taken by Jayen466 in Cirt's editing seems exceptional, to say the least. To avoid further disputes over asserted wikihounding, I suggest that Jayen be required to utilize one of the following options:

1. Stop interacting with Cirt.
2. Open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt with whatever concerns have been accumulated so far, then stop interacting with Cirt unless the RFC indicates a consensus otherwise.

Cirt would also be directed to stop interacting with Jayen, except in the context of responding to an RFC, if any, and as indicated by the RFC. This resolves the problem, without requiring a consensus determination at AN/I of whether Jayen's complaints are valid, which will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Chester Markel (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: My reply to queries raised by Jayen on my user talk page was "good enough" for him — that is until the above proposal of an interaction ban was raised, here. Then, he raised more issues here, in response. I would very much like to be able to respond on-Wikipedia on my user talk page or on article talk pages to issues raised, , and I will strive to address them. I have modified my behavior. I defer to community consensus, even when it is contrary to my stated opinion on those issues. I engage in quality review processes including GA, peer review, and FA. I have posted about my new article creation to WikiProject talk pages. I will continue to try to improve being responsive to concerns, when they are raised to me on-Wikipedia on my user talkpage or an article talk page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I approached Cirt on their talk page was because I was considering filing an RfC/U. Contacting an editor on their talk page to resolve the situation is a prerequisite step for that. However, I considered the response I received from Cirt on their talk page satisfactory; not stellar, but satisfactory under the circumstances, and had decided not to take the matter further. --JN466 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayen, for saying my response was satisfactory - I appreciate that. I will strive to work towards more stellar responses in the future, and modify my behavior with regard to seeking out additional feedback of my quality improvement work, as I have already indicated. -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. --JN466 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jusdafax in support of interaction ban for Jayen466, and raise the concept of a topic ban

I support the interaction ban, since it is my view that Jayen's Off-wiki anti-Cirt activity at 'Wikipedia Review' shows evident bad faith, not to mention years of stalking Cirt On-wiki dispite clear policy against it. To be specific: It is my carefully considered opinion that Jayen466 is in long-term multiple violations of sections of WP:HARASSMENT, namely 'Wikihounding' and 'Off-wiki Harassment', and I think Cirt is way too nice to offer a mutual topic ban in the face of Jayen's highly dubious record.

In addition, I commented Cirt's talk page yesterday when I noticed the thread by Jayen466. Here's where this gets very interesting to me personally; this reply by Jayen466 where he states at the end to another editor that "Your and Jusdafax's past interests in Scientology are duly noted."

Huh? "Duly noted?" I must confess, I was puzzled to remember any edits to "past interests in Scientology" unless he meant a fairly minor player whose article I have worked on more in the past than recently, Ford Greene, an attorney who won a couple cases against Scientology in court but who has numerous other facets to his career. (I am a former resident of Marin County, CA, and am aware of Mr. Greene as a local political figure.) After leaving a brisk reply to Jayen466 on Cirt's talkpage, I went on with my day until it hit me that I edited David Miscavige a couple times way back there. A search of the edit history of Scientology's leader indeed revealed a couple edits with the last in August, 2009. I believe I have several talk page edits there from that era on the Miscavige page about a series of articles in a newspaper in Florida, but I honestly can't recall any others. Possibly one or two at the article about the headquarters Scientology has out in the desert? Perhaps way back there...

So allow me to expand on my 'brisk reply'. It very much appears that either Jayen's memory is extremely long regarding even the most casual Scientology editors, or he actually keeps some kind of enemies list regarding them and issues veiled threats as a chilling effect to shut them up. All in all, not a very pretty picture... Jayen knows more about my editing Scientology than I do myself.

Perhaps Jayen466 can explain himself regarding his surprising knowledge of my extremely skimpy portfolio of Scientology edits, but if you ask me, it totally fails the smell test per WP:DUCK. This sure looks like a case of the pot (Jayen) calling the kettle black. I've now seen enough to raise the issue for your consideration regarding a topic ban on new religions for Jayen466. As I see the facts from personal experience, enough is enough. Cirt is a valued editor, more than willing to work with others, and is too nice a guy if you ask me. The same can not be said of Jayen466, who until the past day or so I have had no interaction whatsoever, as far as I know. Again, I say to the Wikipedia community, enough is enough. Jusdafax 06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, can you explain this behavior? -- Cirt (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue seems far too complex for definitive resolution here, except as far as non-interaction between the users, excluding further dispute resolution processes, since the number of accusations and counterclaims is immense. It should really be taken to RFC, or arbcom. Chester Markel (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Chester Markel, I have already said I would agree to non-interaction, as you suggest. I will strive to do so, even if the other party refuses to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cirt is still too nice. I strongly disagree with Chester Markel. Let's hear from Jayen466 first regarding his obsessive knowledge of people who edit Scientology articles even very casually and long ago. I daresay I am not the only editor here who would find his reply of interest before we bump this up to ArbCom. Jusdafax 07:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I remembered you posting about Cirt's Scientology editing on their talk page at the time when Cirt was asked to step back from the topic area, and thought I'd seen you around some AfDs in the topic area. I was wrong about that, and apologise. (I'm not familiar with Ford Greene). --JN466 07:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. You say your comment about my "past interests" being "duly noted" in Scientology topics is based on a talk page comment on Cirt's page months ago, and you "thought" I was at some AfD's? The August 2009 edit to David Miscavige is not a factor? It's nice to get an apology I suppose, but you were really throwing your weight around prior to me raising these issues here. What do you say to a one year topic ban for you on Scientology or any other 'new religion'? I think that would go a long way towards resolving community concerns about your numerous questionable edits and Off-wiki attacks on Cirt. Jusdafax 08:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This proposal would address a number of problems.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk about 'chilling effects.' If you folks are criticized, you certainly ensure that the critic gets hit on the nose. →StaniStani  12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos in broadly similar terms

In broad terms, I agree with Jusdafax's comments above and think there are some rather significant concerns about Jayen's behaviour. Cirt's list of featured articles speak for themselves - it's always going to be that people who take on more controversial topics are a bit different to the norm and attract more opposition, but without them our encyclopaedia wouldn't be the project it is. There's a level of courage there which I admire - I don't lay any claim to it myself, as most topics I edit are on utterly uncontroversial subjects that have too few editors rather than too many disagreeing ones. However, opposition on the facts in a particular situation or set of related situations is one thing - and, I should add, a necessary thing, as noone is perfect! - but the sort of thing we see here spanning multiple unrelated topics over 3½ years suggests an unhealthy obsession which is best dealt with IMO by a topic or interaction ban. Any valid concerns can be easily dealt with by neutral editors, as is the case in most places. In my own dealings with Cirt (apart from our first, which is documented in a pulled RfC somewhere :P) I've found Cirt to be a productive, cooperative editor who engages in careful research on the topics covered and is willing to seek and listen to other/differing opinions on their writing. Chester may be right that ArbCom needs to look at this situation, but I believe that should be a final step taken only if the community proves unable to handle it. Orderinchaos 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. I approached Cirt on their talk page, per DR policy, and Cirt at least acknowledged that featuring a political candidate on the main page immediately prior to an election is inappropriate. I will not take that matter further; if someone else wants to, they're welcome. --JN466 07:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"If someone else wants to, they are welcome?" "...welcome?" That sure sounds like code for "Somebody else bash Cirt for a while." I have looked into your edit history a bit as a result of your forcing me to look at my own at David Miscavige per my section above, and I don't see this matter as resolved at all. I renew my call for a topic ban for you, based on what appears to be a number of very troubling facts including off-wiki attacks on Cirt at Wikipedia Review, which you do not reply to here, and at the very least should apologize for and cease at once, and again, this bizarre invitation to others to "take the matter further" which is on the face of it is highly disingenuous, in my view. Jusdafax 08:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Supporting OrderInChaos's point, and some more thoughts

I think Jayen's comments and continual defense of his actions point to a problem here without considering the points that a) his interactions with Cirt are unhealthy for both of them in their relationships to the community and the further point made by others that b) he has an unhealthy long term obsession with interacting with Cirt in a negative light. Cirt, though unpolitic in how he approaches some situations and clearly wrong in others, has demonstrated by his withdrawal from major Scientology editing and by reacting actively to the concerns of other users shows a willingness to be flexable and an attempt to work with the community's consensus. Cirt and Jayen interacting simply has not been fruitful, and Cirt has acknowledged that he would be fine with having an interaction ban and/or topic ban related to Jayen. At this point, I think community health would be benefited by a reciprocal ban where these conversations could be addressed by neutral parties, and perhaps identified parties, before either editor is brought into contact with eachother. Simply put, too many people have invested emotional energy into these arguments which often prove unfruitful in developing the community or in content because they are often either a) incredibly retrospective (if you have noticed most of the proof above has been at least 5-6 months old) or b) incredibly unfounded such as can be understood in Drmies earlier comment about Santorum. It's not that Cirt is right in all of his actions, but rather, the method of discussion of them is becoming extremely unproductive and time consuming in unnecessary ways for multiple good content developers (Jayen and Cirt included), Sadads (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Suppressing dissent is certainly on the agenda here - anyone scrolling up this big wall of text would think the worst of Jayen466 - until they looked more closely. The arguments against him are circular and at times meaningless. 'Jayen's comments and continual defense of his actions point to a problem here...' Gosh, he defends himself when attacked! How awful. →StaniStani  12:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

topic ban on Scientology related articles

• I support a complete topic ban on User Cirt from anything related to Scientology. The en Wikipedia project has been used as a anonymous mouthpiece for anti Scientology activism for far too long. As for a relating ban between Cirt and Jayen - the issues with Cirt's editing are well documented and welL known, Jayen is simply brave enough and intelligent enough to point those issues out and suggestions of a condition that would stop those well founded complaints within wiki policy would be to censor them when they clearly require vocalizing. I love this project and I hate to see it abused for the active promotion of personal positions and I am afraid User Cirt has become a master of that dark art. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Can I point out that this discussion has had nothing to do with Scientology, and Cirt has not been actively adding any new content to Scientology other then old FAs which he has worked on. This has been a voluntary removal from the topic area. I don't see how you came to this conclusion/set of comments,Sadads (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost everything that user Cirt does here is one way or another related to anti Scientology, if its about a restaurant it is really about someones brother who is a friend of a Scientologist. If its about a politician it is in support of anti Scientology activist posts on anonymous that vocalize to support that politician etc. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, can you provide diffs of recent editing on the subject which you object to? -- Cirt (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you want diffs for, you know exactly what you do here its indisputable. - Your continued development and expansion of this article Santorum (neologism) is part of the type of editing you continue with and imo is a shame on the project Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That does not have to do with the area of your proposed "topic ban on". Please provide recent diffs of objectionable editing within the topic, or retract your proposal. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything you do here is associated to your anti Scientology activism. Everything, that is what you do here , that is why you are here - to propagate anti Scientology content using the wikipedia platform at every opportunity - that is also what you do at WP:Commons. I support a complete edit restriction on anything to do with it, either specifically or tangentially. You will have a few supporters of people that also support anonymous and anti Scientology positions but in a way that is one of the worst aspects of your contributions here - other less experienced users see you getting away with it and some even look up to you when actually you are only using and demeaning the projects neutrality in support of your activism. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. To slap this proposal in here without proper evidence and discussion is unfair to Cirt. →StaniStani  12:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I read the whole thing

Seriously - when a change of a word from an odd use of "affect" to a proper use of "effect" (given above by Cirt as evidence) is given as an example of "hounding", I am a tad bemused. Jayen466 is imperfect, and so is Cirt. So are we all. Jayen466 has appearently used proper WP processes and procedures, and does not appear to be trying to make Cirt disappear. Is TheWebsiteWhichMustNotBeNamed important? I think not very. So I dismiss all that stuff entirely. The Scientology issue seems to be connected in some way - I suggest that both editors steer clear of all Scientology topics for a while as one way to defuse some of this. The deadline is not coming very fast. Lastly, will someone close this? There are clearly good editors with opinions on both sides, and no consensus for either side is likely this decade. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Months ago I had already severely curtailed my degree of editing within the topic of Scientology, removed hundreds of pages from my watchlist, and focused mainly on GAs and FAs. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has continued to follow me to other unrelated topics. -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that true, Cirt? To the best of my recollection, our only points of contact since January have been one brief exchange with you and another editor on the Werner Erhard talk page, and my comments yesterday regarding the Santorum page. --JN466 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The behavior has gone on for over three years, Jayen. It needs to stop. I have already offered to a mutual restriction, and to strive to stay away from your editing. I hope that you will do the same going forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In short, my case is made. Collect (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Tower4Sitz

Only edited one article, a while ago, and then for some reason his last two edits were really hurtful jabs directed at one of the FAC reviewers. It bothers me, so I don't want to do the blocking myself. He has less than a page of contribs, it's easy to access. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• User:Truthkeeper88 is a pretentious little missy who needs kid glove treatment and smelling salts at every turn. Poh! Why doesn't she fold it up and waddle home? All I did was give her some "straight soup". Big deal. Tower4Sitz (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for the disruption and abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, self-killing troll; leaving nothing but the fresh smell of pine. HalfShadow 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Stinky socky troll, too. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tower4Sitz is a sock of banned editor ItsLassieTime - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. This editor has a long history of serial copyvio and plagiarism problems. Per WP:BAN I reverted their edits at Jack and the Beanstalk, which has been reverted back. I'd prefer an admin take care of this given the comment above and the comments on my talk page this evening, [45], [46]. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's rather ironic for a female dog to be calling anyone else a "b*tch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • FYI, I just blocked User:NewHouse4533 who sure looks like another ItsLassieTime sock. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I was hoping that would be my first, but you beat me even to reverting it. Thanks for the protection, BTW. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Care to try for Protobaltoslav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • No I think that person happens to have been caught up in the maelstrom and is genuinely trying to work on the page. Anyway, thanks to everyone. Given the behavior exhibited by ItsLassieTime, I'd like to suggest that all the articles they've worked on be stubbified. Checking and scrubbing the pages is much too time-consuming and they become aggressive when their edits are reverted. I don't know how persistent copyvio vandals are dealt with and don't know if this is the venue, but it's a discussion that needs to be had somewhere. My request for help on the CCI talkpage has been ignored, and frankly with a new article just nominated to FAC yesterday, I haven't the time to deal with this. Also, would appreciate if someone semiprotects my talkpage since this person obviously won't leave me alone, [47]. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What usernames do you want surveyed? MER-C 13:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• MER-C asks the million dollar question. Is there a list of usernames recently used that need to be updated on the CCI? This is a WP:CSD#G5 article as well as a serial copyright infringer, and deleting or stubbing contributions is generally a really good idea with that combo. (Oh, and semi-protection is on, Truthkeeper88. Feel free to let me know if the problem returns.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the list:

• 736StIves (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• NYFernValley (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SuccotashA130NV (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ShushLibrarian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CortlandAve (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DogBiscuits4MissMitzi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MyFavoriteBook (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User:Tower4Sitz

Also, MuZemike asked me to update the CCI but I don't know how and and asked for help on the CCI talkpage a few days ago, but no response. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not heavily watched, I'm afraid. And since I've been scrambling with my new job, even less so. :) If this isn't updated by somebody else before I get to it, I'll run the tool myself this weekend. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:RabidZionist

RabidZionist (talk · contribs) is the newly created account of an editor who formerly edit-warred as 149.171.184.28 (talk · contribs), 149.171.185.6 (talk · contribs), 149.171.184.212 (talk · contribs), 149.171.184.98 (talk · contribs), 149.171.184. (talk · contribs), 149.171.184.52 (talk · contribs), and 149.171.184.175 (talk · contribs). He has persistently been adding Category:Racism to various article about Jews or Jewish movements, while removing (among other things) Category:Holocaust denial from Michael A. Hoffman II. When the articles in question were finally semi-protected, he chose the name "RabidZionist" (though he's obviously not a Zionist). His editing seems agenda-driven and disruptive, as does his choice of username, which likely also violates our username policy. I've brought the issue here for discussion and administrative action. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Block on username alone, I say. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked the account solely for the username, which is clealry provocative and probably offensive. I've also hard-blocked the small range from which all those IPs come for two weeks. Would appreciate it if a CU could see to any good-faith editors on that range, though it's quite small.  Checkuser needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw that guy on the Lubavitcher dude's article, on about racism towards goyim and all. He was adding it as IPs then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Csteffen13

Csteffen13 (talk · contribs) appears to edit solely for the purpose of supporting Winchester2313 (talk · contribs).

• His very first edit was to support Winchester2313.[48]
• The only AfD he ever participated in was in support of Winchester2313.[49]
• The only AN discussion he's ever participated in was to defend Winchester2313.[50][51]
• His first, and until recently only user talk page contribution was a gushing praise of Winchester2313.[52]
• His second, and most recent user talk page contribution was to admonish another editor for talking to Winchester2313 in a way Csteffen13 did not like.[53]
• He returned to Wikipedia on May 20, after a 5 month editing break, to edit-war in support of Winchester2313. Winchester2313's edits:[54][55]. Csteffen13's edit:[56] His Talk: page comments were also all in support of Winchester2313's positions.
• He has edited a total of 16 unique pages,[57] 11 of them in common with Winchester2313.[58]

Many of Cteffen13's other edits are in support of Winchester2313, though he has also made a small number of other "decoy" edits. Because his writing style differs from Winchester2313's, I doubt Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, but it appears that this little-used (85 total edits) account's purpose for editing Wikipedia is to act as Winchester2313's meatpuppet. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, this seems like it would be more appropriate at WP:SPI as opposed to here. - SudoGhost™

Low-key vandalism campaign from xkcd readers, or coincidence?

On Typesetting I've reverted the wikilink to the disam page back to the specific link text, but there seems to be something of a history with just this one word in the article. One contributor announced the start of a "stickfight" while another made reference to the stick man comic xkcd. There's a discussion about Wikipedia linking and edit wars on on the comic's chat pages here, where they claim to have started an edit war on Property (philosophy). On the other hand, "plain English words" shouldn't be linked and I may just be reading too much into it: is this a low-key vandalism campaign, or just a valid application of WP policy unexplained in the page history? Some guidance welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Further research: Initiating WP edit wars is a tactic used by xkcd game-players to influence the outcome of an article-linking game they play. [59]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I asked User:Seddon to semi-protect xkcd the other day due to repeated attempts to change the first link to point straight to philosophy. Give the xkcders a week or so and they'll get bored and move on. So, yeah, low-key vandalism campaign from xkcd readers seems a fairly likely explanation. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Milowent

I have been having a problem with another editor, Milowent.

In my very first interaction with the user, he accused me of being a WP:SOCK. His entire basis was that I agreed with the Nominator [60]. I sent him a message on his talk page, objecting to the unfounded accusation [61]. His reasoning was that he felt I wasn't being civil. How that related to my being a sock, I don't quite understand. His next attempt was more subtle, but essentially the same thing, citing, as his reasoning, that I pointed to Policies [62]. I tried to explain on his talk page that I'm just the kind of person who puts effort into being informed and thorough [63]. When I brought the civility and accusation problems to Wikiquette, he responded with another accusation, while saying he would drop it [64]. Some time went by without him making another accusation, until yesterday, when he started making insinuations again, [65] [66].

Besides the incivility and outright insults, which are relatively minor, I am pretty much at my wit's end, with him implicitly and explicitly calling my a sock, and I have no idea how to get him to just drop it.

Homo Logica (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While I would agree that Milowent has been very vigorous (perhaps overly so?) in his/her responses to you, it seems to me that you have invited vigorous responses by the tenacity of your arguments at the AfD in question. In my experience AfD !votes are best made and stated in a single argument, rather than beginning a lengthy discussion and responding to every subsequent post. I don't think there's anything actionable by an admin here on either side, but I would caution both of you to avoid one another for a while. The AfD is now closed so there's no need to drag the conflict out further. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My objection isn't to his general responses to me. It's the fact that he is repeatedly calling me a sock with no basis, and not filing a formal complaint (because he knows it isn't true).

Homo Logica (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there's little to be done here. Milowent's questions about whether or not you are a truly new and independent account holder, or have edited previously under another name, are not the first time anyone has been asked such questions. They fell short of a formal accusation of socking, in my opinion. You have said (if I read it correctly) that you are not the same person who posted previously in the AfD and for now, that must be that. Milowent and the rest of us must either AGF or file a report. I suggest you leave this for now Homo Logica because trying to get Milowent to formally withdraw something s/he only ever raised informally is going to be difficult. I assume that Milowent is watching this discussion and therefore will ask Milowent here not to raise the issue of previous accounts again unless any evidence for this appears. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: editor is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, already raised issue at WQA. Gerardw (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And since he has started making the accusation again, I escalated the issue. Since I wasn't sure what to do, I did this on advice from other users. I did not hide the fact that I filed an objection at WQA, and I specifically mentioned it. Homo Logica (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have little wiki-love for ol Milo, but you do appear to have a pretty adept hand at citing WP policy and guideline pages in the course of discussions with him. Hard to believe that a "new" user has become so familiar with wikipedia-space that they rattle off obscurities i.e. WP:VALINFO, WP:ESSAYDEL, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, with ease. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to back me up, Tarc, despite us being arch-enemies of comic book proportions.:-)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Response from the Accused Editor Milowent: I have no idea why HL is continuing to pursue this silliness. At Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Milowent, I said "I will refrain from any further discussion regarding HL's comments on that AfD." I did. What he calls my continuation is an exchange on his talkpage were I noted that User:GlasgowGuyScotland, a new account who showed up on the same AfD and posted on HL's page complaining that I was a "dedicated asshole"[67] and on my talk page seeking "help" to decide whether I was a "cunt, a prick, or a motherfucking asshole",[68], had been blocked as a sock (though HL suggested twice in our exchange that GGS was a "new user", which was ridiculously laughable from my perspective). (The nominator in that AfD was also blocked as a sock! A very peculiar AfD. The article is about pig slaughter, not Israel or pornography or Pippa Middleton or something where you expect drama like this.) I see that HL took this as a new accusation that I thought he was a sock, which I really did not intend. I was continuing to marvel at the bizarre nature of that AfD. But looking back at it, I can see why he may have thought otherwise. Therefore, I hereby pledge that I, Milowent, shall never make any accusation that Homo Logica is a sock or ever edited under any other name other than Homo Logica from the beginning of time. I will accept without further comment that Homo Logica is extremely familiar with Wikipedia policies (e.g., User_talk:Paulmcdonald#Votestacking) despite his short tenure on the project, i.e., I will not comment anymore of HL's mastery of wikipedia bureaucracy. In the meantime, I will use this opportunity to invite all editors to help source or otherwise process the last 5,000 unreferenced BLPs on the project at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. Its a fun project, even more fun that ANI. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Invitation accepted. Nice plug! One down, 5044 to go. Unfortunately I had to send it to AfD. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me check, to be certain that I understand the concern. Before I went into a discussion on deleting an article, I reviewed whatever policies I could find that were relevant, before forming a decision, and responding. I'm literally being attacked for actually being informed. Honestly, you people wonder why there is a drop in new editors? It has to do with this. Right here. This is just insanity. I think I'm done with Wikipedia. You guys attack people if they don't know policies. You attack them if they do. And if somebody doesn't follow policies, it's too much to ask that people within the community ask them to stop. I haven't, at any point, asked for any official rebuke. It's actually pretty pretty consistent. Somebody, talk to him, and ask him to stop. The fact that I'm getting attacked for that... that's the reason I'm leaving, and that's the reason that others leave. A collective, community-wide apathy for some of the core principles WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If it doesn't get to the point of earning them a block, or a ban, then it isn't worth asking them to stop, and heaven forbid somebody actually reads the policies.

Homo Logica (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

personal attack: Pangurban1

Pangurban1 (talk · contribs) New, SPA account. Attacking other editor by mispelling name into synonym for feces and implying mental defect or learning disorder [[69]]. Previously made similar comment implying incompetence [[70]], was told comment inappropriate [[71]] (Note: Based on the escalating pattern of disruption, I didn't feel WQA would be an effective forum for resolution)Gerardw (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments aren't very friendly, and a similar one was directed at Jasper Deng (saying "Dung" was an obvious insult, of course). But the latter placed an NPA-4im warning on Pangurban1's talk page, and that should be it for now. If they proceed to insult other editors, they'll probably be blocked for a short while, but until they do, given that they've received a final warning, there is no administrative action called for. Gerard, those templates and warnings are there for a reason--to give the editor the opportunity to make the decision to act appropriately. Dragging them off to ANI disrupts that a bit. Patience is a virtue.

  I propose we close this--even if further insults occur, the regular AIV process will suffice. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)